6.2 Scope of the Evaluation
In accordance with the UNEP Evaluation Policy, all Sub-programmes are evaluated
on a rotating basis every 4 years.
3 They are part of a larger evaluation architecture
that include project, sub-programme and UNEP-wide, Medium Term Strategy
evaluations. Sub-programme evaluations are conducted by the UNEP Evaluation
Office in consultation with the relevant UNEP Divisions. While the Evaluation
Office reports to the UNEP Executive Director, its evaluations are conducted in an
independent manner and evaluation findings are reported without interference.
However, the Evaluation Office does not enjoy financial independence and its
limited financial and human resources are sometimes a major challenge.
4
The CCSP evaluation aimed at assessing the relevance and overall performance
of UNEP’s work related to climate change from 2008 to 2013 according to standard
evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact).
The evaluation assessed whether, in the period under review, UNEP was able to
strengthen the ability of countries to integrate climate change responses into
national development processes, by providing environmental leadership in the
international response to climate change and complementing other processes and
the work of other institutions. The evaluation was an in-depth, independent exercise
conducted by a multidisciplinary team of consultants and Evaluation Office staff,
with oversight from the UNEP Evaluation Office. The author was in charge of
overall design, management and quality assurance of the evaluation process and
participated in interviews and country visits.
The evaluation tried to answer the following key questions:
• Are the Sub-programme objectives and strategy relevant to the global challenges
posed by climate change, global, regional and country needs, the international
response and UNEP’s evolving mandate and capacity in this area?
• Has UNEP achieved its objectives in the area of climate change? Have projects
been efficiently implemented and produced tangible outputs as expected? Are
the required external factors in place so that the CCSP outputs can lead the
expected outcomes and, ultimately, to sustainable, large-scale impact?
• What are the key factors affecting sub-programme performance, such as portfolio design and structure; human and financial resources administration; collaboration and partnerships; and monitoring and evaluation?
The evaluation covered the four components of the CCSP. However, because the
Science and Outreach component was largely implemented within projects belonging to the first three components, the Evaluation Team decided to treat Science and
3 UNEP 2009, Evaluation Policy. Web link:
http://www.unep.org/eou/StandardsPolicyandPractices/UNEPEvaluationPolicy/tabid/3050/
Default.aspx
4 UNEG 2012, Professional peer review of the evaluation function, United Nations Environment
Programme. Web link: www.uneval.org/document/download/1527
6 An Analytical Framework for Evaluating a Diverse Climate Change Portfolio
97
In accordance with the UNEP Evaluation Policy, all Sub-programmes are evaluated
on a rotating basis every 4 years.
3 They are part of a larger evaluation architecture
that include project, sub-programme and UNEP-wide, Medium Term Strategy
evaluations. Sub-programme evaluations are conducted by the UNEP Evaluation
Office in consultation with the relevant UNEP Divisions. While the Evaluation
Office reports to the UNEP Executive Director, its evaluations are conducted in an
independent manner and evaluation findings are reported without interference.
However, the Evaluation Office does not enjoy financial independence and its
limited financial and human resources are sometimes a major challenge.
4
The CCSP evaluation aimed at assessing the relevance and overall performance
of UNEP’s work related to climate change from 2008 to 2013 according to standard
evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact).
The evaluation assessed whether, in the period under review, UNEP was able to
strengthen the ability of countries to integrate climate change responses into
national development processes, by providing environmental leadership in the
international response to climate change and complementing other processes and
the work of other institutions. The evaluation was an in-depth, independent exercise
conducted by a multidisciplinary team of consultants and Evaluation Office staff,
with oversight from the UNEP Evaluation Office. The author was in charge of
overall design, management and quality assurance of the evaluation process and
participated in interviews and country visits.
The evaluation tried to answer the following key questions:
• Are the Sub-programme objectives and strategy relevant to the global challenges
posed by climate change, global, regional and country needs, the international
response and UNEP’s evolving mandate and capacity in this area?
• Has UNEP achieved its objectives in the area of climate change? Have projects
been efficiently implemented and produced tangible outputs as expected? Are
the required external factors in place so that the CCSP outputs can lead the
expected outcomes and, ultimately, to sustainable, large-scale impact?
• What are the key factors affecting sub-programme performance, such as portfolio design and structure; human and financial resources administration; collaboration and partnerships; and monitoring and evaluation?
The evaluation covered the four components of the CCSP. However, because the
Science and Outreach component was largely implemented within projects belonging to the first three components, the Evaluation Team decided to treat Science and
3 UNEP 2009, Evaluation Policy. Web link:
http://www.unep.org/eou/StandardsPolicyandPractices/UNEPEvaluationPolicy/tabid/3050/
Default.aspx
4 UNEG 2012, Professional peer review of the evaluation function, United Nations Environment
Programme. Web link: www.uneval.org/document/download/1527
6 An Analytical Framework for Evaluating a Diverse Climate Change Portfolio
97