parliaments could think about joining forces with other donors for initiating joint
results assessments on selected topics of the international cooperation in order to
have a better cost-benefit-balance and benefit from mutual learning.
• International debate: With regard to international commitments to a global
climate deal (Paris 2015) it is critical to sharpen the international understanding
on the results measurement related to climate change sensitive investments and
to decide on the level of ambition. Strengthening the climate change capacity
(policy, planning, and programming) in partner countries are also one precondition to achieve mutual accountability in this sector.
• Swiss CC know-how for development: For climate targeted projects, SDC and
SECO could focus/concentrate even more on areas where Switzerland has
proven technical expertise, such as renewable energy (in particular hydropower),
disaster risk reduction and disaster risk/weather insurance, energy efficiency in
buildings and small and medium enterprises, air quality, and ecosystem
management.
5.6 Conclusions
Based on the experience from this pioneering assessment the key conclusions from
the donor’s perspective are the following:
• Be precise in the terms and methods: Clearly say what is meant by effectiveness
and what the results are about. Avoid vague terms such as “climate benefit” or
“climate effectiveness”.
• It is difficult to isolate the effect of a single donor’s intervention in mitigation.
The attribution of climate change projects in the field of mitigation to a single
bilateral donor is methodologically questionable, especially without clear
baseline data.
• In the field of climate change adaptation quantitative data are often lacking and it
is important to appreciate qualitative data in an adequate manner.
• It is difficult to report on policy influencing at international and regional level
and to link the effects from being at the table of negotiations with concrete
changes in people’s life.
The overall conclusion is that this pioneering undertaking of producing the
Report on Effectiveness in Climate Change did not allow identifying best methodological practices how best taking stock of climate change projects and programs.
This chapter is much more an appeal to be precise, realistic, authentic and transparent in the communication of the methodological challenges and of the results.
Let’s take the reports on effectiveness as a chance to enter into an open dialog with
interested stakeholders, mainly with the national parliament. Let us explore the
opportunity and utility to undertake effectiveness assessments jointly with other
development agencies and join forces and resources for further improving the
approach, the methods and the common learning from effectiveness reports.
5 Lessons from Taking Stock of 12 Years of Swiss International Cooperation. . .
93
results assessments on selected topics of the international cooperation in order to
have a better cost-benefit-balance and benefit from mutual learning.
• International debate: With regard to international commitments to a global
climate deal (Paris 2015) it is critical to sharpen the international understanding
on the results measurement related to climate change sensitive investments and
to decide on the level of ambition. Strengthening the climate change capacity
(policy, planning, and programming) in partner countries are also one precondition to achieve mutual accountability in this sector.
• Swiss CC know-how for development: For climate targeted projects, SDC and
SECO could focus/concentrate even more on areas where Switzerland has
proven technical expertise, such as renewable energy (in particular hydropower),
disaster risk reduction and disaster risk/weather insurance, energy efficiency in
buildings and small and medium enterprises, air quality, and ecosystem
management.
5.6 Conclusions
Based on the experience from this pioneering assessment the key conclusions from
the donor’s perspective are the following:
• Be precise in the terms and methods: Clearly say what is meant by effectiveness
and what the results are about. Avoid vague terms such as “climate benefit” or
“climate effectiveness”.
• It is difficult to isolate the effect of a single donor’s intervention in mitigation.
The attribution of climate change projects in the field of mitigation to a single
bilateral donor is methodologically questionable, especially without clear
baseline data.
• In the field of climate change adaptation quantitative data are often lacking and it
is important to appreciate qualitative data in an adequate manner.
• It is difficult to report on policy influencing at international and regional level
and to link the effects from being at the table of negotiations with concrete
changes in people’s life.
The overall conclusion is that this pioneering undertaking of producing the
Report on Effectiveness in Climate Change did not allow identifying best methodological practices how best taking stock of climate change projects and programs.
This chapter is much more an appeal to be precise, realistic, authentic and transparent in the communication of the methodological challenges and of the results.
Let’s take the reports on effectiveness as a chance to enter into an open dialog with
interested stakeholders, mainly with the national parliament. Let us explore the
opportunity and utility to undertake effectiveness assessments jointly with other
development agencies and join forces and resources for further improving the
approach, the methods and the common learning from effectiveness reports.
5 Lessons from Taking Stock of 12 Years of Swiss International Cooperation. . .
93