rapid transport systems and road projects, where especially the former have contributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
However, a lack of clear classification of climate change related activities and
investments, as well as the lack of a transparent measurement system for greenhouse gas emission reductions, caused considerable difficulties in identifying which
projects and loans of the Bank were of relevance for its climate change strategy and
how much they contributed. The IDB climate change strategy was approved in
2011 to bring activities together that are relevant for climate change and to
approach them in a more systematic way, to enable mainstreaming and upscaling.
While the activities themselves have considerable history in the IDB, their relationship to climate change goals has been relatively recent. The benefit of an older
portfolio is that it enables a look at finished projects, even if this means extra efforts
to reconstruct what its specific contribution to climate change mitigation was.
Compared to the CIF evaluation, the IDB evaluation is able to provide evaluative
evidence on effectiveness, though longer term impact remains elusive due to
measurement problems (IDB 2014, p. x). The Independent Evaluation Department
of the Asian Development Bank in its real-time evaluation of the ADB’s initiatives
to support access to climate finance also noted the difficulty of assessing the climate
impact of activities that may have other primary objectives and the lack of a
consistent framework for measuring greenhouse gas emission reductions
(ADB/IED 2014, p. xi).
The evaluation of the Swiss International Cooperation in Climate Change from
2000 to 2012 develops the same argument for the portfolio of interventions it
looked at. The focus on climate change is relatively new in Swiss cooperation,
and many of the older projects were formulated and implemented from development and poverty alleviation perspectives. As a result, no consistent data sets are
available to measure the impact of especially the earlier interventions on climate
change (Gaia Consulting 2014, p. 9). Yet the portfolio scores high on effectiveness,
showing “moderate to strong” effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and increasing people’s abilities to cope with the impacts of climate change
(Ibidem, p. 5). Due to the methodological challenges in evaluating a portfolio that
emerged from other objectives, but is now seen as central to climate change efforts,
the evaluation is reduced to noting that there are “numerous examples of successful
emission reductions” but no overall picture emerging.
Norway’s support to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDDþ) through Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative
(NICFI) has been evaluated in 2013 in a summative evaluation, looking at what had
been achieved so far. This support has similarities with the CIFs in that funding is
aimed to achieve impact through focusing on a few countries, so that the amounts of
funding become catalytic. The evaluation concludes that the portfolio is “providing
a substantial, direct contribution towards the conservation of natural forests” (LTS
International et al. 2014, p. xxii), and that it is “likely” that this will lead to higher
level and long term impact, as the supported activities contribute to “sustainable
development” (LTS, p. xxiv). Yet this would be dependent on future funding, which
is uncertain – it is this lack of certainty that the evaluation proclaims to be the
20
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen
However, a lack of clear classification of climate change related activities and
investments, as well as the lack of a transparent measurement system for greenhouse gas emission reductions, caused considerable difficulties in identifying which
projects and loans of the Bank were of relevance for its climate change strategy and
how much they contributed. The IDB climate change strategy was approved in
2011 to bring activities together that are relevant for climate change and to
approach them in a more systematic way, to enable mainstreaming and upscaling.
While the activities themselves have considerable history in the IDB, their relationship to climate change goals has been relatively recent. The benefit of an older
portfolio is that it enables a look at finished projects, even if this means extra efforts
to reconstruct what its specific contribution to climate change mitigation was.
Compared to the CIF evaluation, the IDB evaluation is able to provide evaluative
evidence on effectiveness, though longer term impact remains elusive due to
measurement problems (IDB 2014, p. x). The Independent Evaluation Department
of the Asian Development Bank in its real-time evaluation of the ADB’s initiatives
to support access to climate finance also noted the difficulty of assessing the climate
impact of activities that may have other primary objectives and the lack of a
consistent framework for measuring greenhouse gas emission reductions
(ADB/IED 2014, p. xi).
The evaluation of the Swiss International Cooperation in Climate Change from
2000 to 2012 develops the same argument for the portfolio of interventions it
looked at. The focus on climate change is relatively new in Swiss cooperation,
and many of the older projects were formulated and implemented from development and poverty alleviation perspectives. As a result, no consistent data sets are
available to measure the impact of especially the earlier interventions on climate
change (Gaia Consulting 2014, p. 9). Yet the portfolio scores high on effectiveness,
showing “moderate to strong” effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and increasing people’s abilities to cope with the impacts of climate change
(Ibidem, p. 5). Due to the methodological challenges in evaluating a portfolio that
emerged from other objectives, but is now seen as central to climate change efforts,
the evaluation is reduced to noting that there are “numerous examples of successful
emission reductions” but no overall picture emerging.
Norway’s support to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDDþ) through Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative
(NICFI) has been evaluated in 2013 in a summative evaluation, looking at what had
been achieved so far. This support has similarities with the CIFs in that funding is
aimed to achieve impact through focusing on a few countries, so that the amounts of
funding become catalytic. The evaluation concludes that the portfolio is “providing
a substantial, direct contribution towards the conservation of natural forests” (LTS
International et al. 2014, p. xxii), and that it is “likely” that this will lead to higher
level and long term impact, as the supported activities contribute to “sustainable
development” (LTS, p. xxiv). Yet this would be dependent on future funding, which
is uncertain – it is this lack of certainty that the evaluation proclaims to be the
20
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen