benefits to countries (ADB/IED 2014, p. 21). The Report on Effectiveness of the
Swiss International Cooperation in Climate Change (2014, IV) highlighted that
groups of projects with strong scores for mitigation effectiveness were found to
include projects that targeted the rehabilitation of hydropower systems and power
systems with direct energy efficiency benefits and enabling impacts for renewable
energy promotion, the strengthening of measuring, reporting and verification
capacity and carbon market readiness, the use of knowledge sharing among cities
and companies, and the rehabilitation and re-deployment of used Swiss trams to
other countries.
A Fully Supportive Enabling Environment Is Necessary W€ orlen’s (2014) metaanalysis of mitigation interventions led to a systematic overview of all the barriers
to change – providing a “theory of no change” – an explanation of why market
change or transformation was not happening. The theory of no change demonstrated that introduction of technology will only be successful if all potential
barriers for change have been tackled. The ICF evaluation showed that in more
than half of CTF countries, policy, regulatory, and macroeconomic situations have
the potential to slow down or limit transformation and replication. These countries
have supportive policies in place that provide building blocks, but lack
implementing regulations specifying key details of the regulatory environment,
weakening the potential for immediate replication. Non-investment-grade credit
ratings are also a limiting factor in some countries (ICF 2014, X). ADB’s Climate
Technology Finance Center (CTFC) also encountered difficulties during its design
and launch. Barriers include financial constraints, insufficient knowledge base and
expertise, and inadequacies of public policies, regulations, and enforcement
(ADB/IED 2014, p. 21).
A Crucial Supporting Factor Is the Availability of Financing If loans for investment in new technology are unavailable, then this technology will not be widely
adopted. The Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF (2014) showed that
mainstreaming typically took place because of financial incentives provided by the
national government to adopt the technologies (p. 54). The IDB/OVE evaluation
notes that promoting the development of small-scale energy efficiency projects has
proven to be more difficult, as small firms face high transaction costs and low
financial returns from these investments (partly because of energy subsidies), and
they require access to long-term financing (2014, p. 67).
The CIF evaluation could not see a clear path towards broader adoption of many
technologies tested and demonstrated in CIF support, because these projects and
programmes lacked a convincing theory of change that would explain how replication and market change and transformation would take place. This seems at least
partly due to investment criteria, for example in CTF, that focus on quantifying
GHG emission reductions rather than causal pathways to transformative change
(ICF 2014, x). The focus on GHG emission reductions is visible in other evaluations
as well – it points to the possibility that technology is easier judged on its
contribution to climate change mitigation, without full recognition that any
28
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen
Swiss International Cooperation in Climate Change (2014, IV) highlighted that
groups of projects with strong scores for mitigation effectiveness were found to
include projects that targeted the rehabilitation of hydropower systems and power
systems with direct energy efficiency benefits and enabling impacts for renewable
energy promotion, the strengthening of measuring, reporting and verification
capacity and carbon market readiness, the use of knowledge sharing among cities
and companies, and the rehabilitation and re-deployment of used Swiss trams to
other countries.
A Fully Supportive Enabling Environment Is Necessary W€ orlen’s (2014) metaanalysis of mitigation interventions led to a systematic overview of all the barriers
to change – providing a “theory of no change” – an explanation of why market
change or transformation was not happening. The theory of no change demonstrated that introduction of technology will only be successful if all potential
barriers for change have been tackled. The ICF evaluation showed that in more
than half of CTF countries, policy, regulatory, and macroeconomic situations have
the potential to slow down or limit transformation and replication. These countries
have supportive policies in place that provide building blocks, but lack
implementing regulations specifying key details of the regulatory environment,
weakening the potential for immediate replication. Non-investment-grade credit
ratings are also a limiting factor in some countries (ICF 2014, X). ADB’s Climate
Technology Finance Center (CTFC) also encountered difficulties during its design
and launch. Barriers include financial constraints, insufficient knowledge base and
expertise, and inadequacies of public policies, regulations, and enforcement
(ADB/IED 2014, p. 21).
A Crucial Supporting Factor Is the Availability of Financing If loans for investment in new technology are unavailable, then this technology will not be widely
adopted. The Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF (2014) showed that
mainstreaming typically took place because of financial incentives provided by the
national government to adopt the technologies (p. 54). The IDB/OVE evaluation
notes that promoting the development of small-scale energy efficiency projects has
proven to be more difficult, as small firms face high transaction costs and low
financial returns from these investments (partly because of energy subsidies), and
they require access to long-term financing (2014, p. 67).
The CIF evaluation could not see a clear path towards broader adoption of many
technologies tested and demonstrated in CIF support, because these projects and
programmes lacked a convincing theory of change that would explain how replication and market change and transformation would take place. This seems at least
partly due to investment criteria, for example in CTF, that focus on quantifying
GHG emission reductions rather than causal pathways to transformative change
(ICF 2014, x). The focus on GHG emission reductions is visible in other evaluations
as well – it points to the possibility that technology is easier judged on its
contribution to climate change mitigation, without full recognition that any
28
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen