“single greatest risk” to the sustainability of the REDDþ initiatives. Important to
note is that greater coherence and consistency has been achieved in measuring
greenhouse gas emission reductions – the deciding factor no doubt was that this
support was set up as climate change support from the beginning (see LTS, p. xxx).
The picture emerging from the Norwegian evaluation is complemented by the
independent evaluation of the UN-REDDþ programme, undertaken in 2014. This
evaluation concludes that the programme has been moderately successful in delivering outputs, whereas its overall (programme) effectiveness is rated as moderately
unsatisfactory (Frechette 2014, p. iv). Its efficiency is rated as unsatisfactory: the
three UN partners in UN-REDDþ continue to have their separate procedures,
which leads to inefficiency in the management of the programme (Frechette, p. 30).
We may draw the following conclusions from this overview of the findings of
the seven comprehensive evaluations, which are presented in Table 2.1 First of all,
three conditions at the portfolio level emerge for an evaluation to be able to provide
evidence of direct impact and of impact at the global level:
1. Only funding agencies that have steadily built a coherent portfolio focused on
climate change can expect evaluative evidence on the impact of this portfolio;
portfolio’s that are gathered from interventions with other aims as primary
objective tend to show a lack of data related to climate change, different
interpretations of what should be done and a wider range of activities to achieve
outputs.
2. The portfolio needs to be coherent and mature to find solid evidence of direct
impact; this is the case for the GEF only. The UN-REDDþ evaluation managed
to gather evidence on the “likelihood” of impact and sustainability.
3. Only the GEF and UN-REDDþ have a consistent set of instructions for measuring greenhouse gas emission reductions. These instructions are still under
development and will no doubt further improve over time; but they make it
possible to aggregate GHG reductions at the portfolio level. The IDB, ADB and
the Swiss Cooperation evaluations faced difficulties for using GHG reduction
data because of the lack of coherence in the portfolio, with interventions now
counted as important for climate change which were not set up for this purpose
originally. Even though their portfolios are mature, they do not lend themselves
to providing evidence at the impact level, as the lack of comparable data leads to
problems of aggregation that cannot be overcome, at least not until the portfolios
have matured further and measurement norms and standards are agreed.
The first important element of the micro-macro paradox is evident in the
judgments on efficiency and effectiveness. Where these were rated, efficiency
was deemed to be low or unsatisfactory. Where effectiveness was rated, evidence
pointed in the direction of moderately satisfactory to fully satisfactory outputs. On
the direct impact level, of amounts of GHG emission reductions in the new
situation, only the GEF provided evidence at the portfolio level, but other evaluations certainly provided evidence at the intervention level, such as the IDB, ADB,
and Swiss Cooperation. The only discrepancy in findings emerged between the
NICFI and UN-REDDþ evaluations, where the Norwegian evaluation found a
2 Action on Climate Change: What Does It Mean and Where Does It Lead To?
21
note is that greater coherence and consistency has been achieved in measuring
greenhouse gas emission reductions – the deciding factor no doubt was that this
support was set up as climate change support from the beginning (see LTS, p. xxx).
The picture emerging from the Norwegian evaluation is complemented by the
independent evaluation of the UN-REDDþ programme, undertaken in 2014. This
evaluation concludes that the programme has been moderately successful in delivering outputs, whereas its overall (programme) effectiveness is rated as moderately
unsatisfactory (Frechette 2014, p. iv). Its efficiency is rated as unsatisfactory: the
three UN partners in UN-REDDþ continue to have their separate procedures,
which leads to inefficiency in the management of the programme (Frechette, p. 30).
We may draw the following conclusions from this overview of the findings of
the seven comprehensive evaluations, which are presented in Table 2.1 First of all,
three conditions at the portfolio level emerge for an evaluation to be able to provide
evidence of direct impact and of impact at the global level:
1. Only funding agencies that have steadily built a coherent portfolio focused on
climate change can expect evaluative evidence on the impact of this portfolio;
portfolio’s that are gathered from interventions with other aims as primary
objective tend to show a lack of data related to climate change, different
interpretations of what should be done and a wider range of activities to achieve
outputs.
2. The portfolio needs to be coherent and mature to find solid evidence of direct
impact; this is the case for the GEF only. The UN-REDDþ evaluation managed
to gather evidence on the “likelihood” of impact and sustainability.
3. Only the GEF and UN-REDDþ have a consistent set of instructions for measuring greenhouse gas emission reductions. These instructions are still under
development and will no doubt further improve over time; but they make it
possible to aggregate GHG reductions at the portfolio level. The IDB, ADB and
the Swiss Cooperation evaluations faced difficulties for using GHG reduction
data because of the lack of coherence in the portfolio, with interventions now
counted as important for climate change which were not set up for this purpose
originally. Even though their portfolios are mature, they do not lend themselves
to providing evidence at the impact level, as the lack of comparable data leads to
problems of aggregation that cannot be overcome, at least not until the portfolios
have matured further and measurement norms and standards are agreed.
The first important element of the micro-macro paradox is evident in the
judgments on efficiency and effectiveness. Where these were rated, efficiency
was deemed to be low or unsatisfactory. Where effectiveness was rated, evidence
pointed in the direction of moderately satisfactory to fully satisfactory outputs. On
the direct impact level, of amounts of GHG emission reductions in the new
situation, only the GEF provided evidence at the portfolio level, but other evaluations certainly provided evidence at the intervention level, such as the IDB, ADB,
and Swiss Cooperation. The only discrepancy in findings emerged between the
NICFI and UN-REDDþ evaluations, where the Norwegian evaluation found a
2 Action on Climate Change: What Does It Mean and Where Does It Lead To?
21