reductions needs to be clarified explicitly at the beginning of each project.
Moreover, if there is a real demand for clear results on portfolio level, the
investments in RBM and M&E need to be approved in order to set the ground
for reports on effectiveness that assess results based on evidence.
• Mainstreaming: Although the OECD Rio markers have obliged project developers to systematically consider climate change relevance and benefit within
their project, there is further need for more systematic mainstreaming of climate
change adaptation and mitigation into development projects. Explicitly mentioning the climate change components and objectives does potentially increase
the awareness and ownership at the level of implementing partners, stakeholders
and beneficiaries which will positively contribute to the effectiveness of the
programs.
• Common understanding: A common understanding between donors and
implementing partners on the relevance of climate change within a project is
crucial in order to ensure transparent reporting on achieved results. Many donors
have been criticized in the past for not applying the Rio markers, in particular the
climate-related ones, in a coherent manner. In the framework of this results
assessment, Switzerland has conducted an exhaustive revision, has gained a
valuable overview and improved its skills in reliable coding of its climate change
portfolio.
• Synergies between adaptation and mitigation: The tender document initially
proposed a clear separation between a climate change mitigation and adaptation
portfolio. The assessment revealed, however, that climate change adaptation and
mitigation are often interlinked. A clear separation does miss potential synergies. One should try to reach for multipurpose results in the design of the
projects. The report therefore encourages a systematic integration of climate
change adaptation into development as a more promising approach in order to
achieve sustainable and resilient development, instead of trying to clearly
identify “additionality” of adaptation actions. Adaptation and mitigation synergies could be increased, in particular in the natural resource management sector,
but also e.g. in hydropower, by addressing the issues more systematically during
planning and establishing the adequate measurement, reporting and verification
(MRV) systems.
5.5.4 For Policy Makers
• Joint forces for better cost-benefit: Policy makers should be better informed on
the investment needed for producing reports on effectiveness and be aware about
the difficulties and challenges in terms of quality, accessibility and availability
of data and the development of adequate methods. A discussion on the need for
rigorous results measurement on the “end” side and in consequence the need to
invest in rigorous results planning systems on the “entry” side mainly raises
questions on priorities and resources (human, financial, time). National
92
M. Egger Kissling and R. Windisch
Moreover, if there is a real demand for clear results on portfolio level, the
investments in RBM and M&E need to be approved in order to set the ground
for reports on effectiveness that assess results based on evidence.
• Mainstreaming: Although the OECD Rio markers have obliged project developers to systematically consider climate change relevance and benefit within
their project, there is further need for more systematic mainstreaming of climate
change adaptation and mitigation into development projects. Explicitly mentioning the climate change components and objectives does potentially increase
the awareness and ownership at the level of implementing partners, stakeholders
and beneficiaries which will positively contribute to the effectiveness of the
programs.
• Common understanding: A common understanding between donors and
implementing partners on the relevance of climate change within a project is
crucial in order to ensure transparent reporting on achieved results. Many donors
have been criticized in the past for not applying the Rio markers, in particular the
climate-related ones, in a coherent manner. In the framework of this results
assessment, Switzerland has conducted an exhaustive revision, has gained a
valuable overview and improved its skills in reliable coding of its climate change
portfolio.
• Synergies between adaptation and mitigation: The tender document initially
proposed a clear separation between a climate change mitigation and adaptation
portfolio. The assessment revealed, however, that climate change adaptation and
mitigation are often interlinked. A clear separation does miss potential synergies. One should try to reach for multipurpose results in the design of the
projects. The report therefore encourages a systematic integration of climate
change adaptation into development as a more promising approach in order to
achieve sustainable and resilient development, instead of trying to clearly
identify “additionality” of adaptation actions. Adaptation and mitigation synergies could be increased, in particular in the natural resource management sector,
but also e.g. in hydropower, by addressing the issues more systematically during
planning and establishing the adequate measurement, reporting and verification
(MRV) systems.
5.5.4 For Policy Makers
• Joint forces for better cost-benefit: Policy makers should be better informed on
the investment needed for producing reports on effectiveness and be aware about
the difficulties and challenges in terms of quality, accessibility and availability
of data and the development of adequate methods. A discussion on the need for
rigorous results measurement on the “end” side and in consequence the need to
invest in rigorous results planning systems on the “entry” side mainly raises
questions on priorities and resources (human, financial, time). National
92
M. Egger Kissling and R. Windisch