aim to reduce the inflow of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere. If a sufficient number of these activities take place, it should be
possible to stabilize or even reduce the concentration of greenhouse gas molecules
in the air, which is currently about 400 particles per million. While individual
activities may be quite successful in reducing emissions, the overall concentration
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase. There are thus two
kinds of impacts that the public is concerned about: do individual interventions
work and lower the emissions, and is climate change stopped? The first question
may be answered through counterfactual experimentation, modelling or through
before/after measurements of greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing about this is as
simple as it sounds. The calculation and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions
is not yet based on full understanding, agreement on principles and validation
through international norms and standards. For an overview of the issues and
what the current state of the art is, see STAP (2013).
All the successes of achieving impact at project level have so far not been able to
change the overall trend in climate change, which is that the global mean temperature continues to rise. When asking for evidence of impact, donors and the public
want to know whether projects have an impact, whether the project delivers and the
causal mechanism that it embodies works. But donors and the public also want to
know whether this leads to changes at higher levels, beyond the direct influence of
the project, and ultimately they would like to see climate change stopped or even
reversed. The demand for impact evidence is legitimate at all levels and cannot be
met by referring to impact evidence only at project level or in the context of one
intervention or one causal mechanism. Understanding the range of questions on
impact evidence will enable evaluators to focus on the key questions that need to be
asked in evaluations and will enable them to identify the tools and methods that
need to be used.
3.3 Theories of Change for Climate Change Mitigation
The standard approach to identify key questions in an evaluation is to look for the
“theory of change” that identifies how the intervention is expected to achieve
impact. In traditional impact evaluations this leads to an identification of the causal
mechanism that is supposed to “work”. In climate change, this is usually a combination of a technical mechanism and a behaviour mechanism: “if this new technology is adopted by people/institutions/countries it will lead to reduced greenhouse
gas emissions and thus to a lower rate of global warming”. Traditional impact
evaluations tend to focus on what works to effectuate behaviour change. If the
behaviour change occurs, the intervention “works” and should be promoted. If it
does not work, it should be stopped.
Organisations like 3ie, devoted to promoting traditional impact evaluations, are
very much aware that this simple version may lead to all kinds of perverse effects
that need to be taken into account or looked at, and for this reason they advocate that
40
R.D. van den Berg
atmosphere. If a sufficient number of these activities take place, it should be
possible to stabilize or even reduce the concentration of greenhouse gas molecules
in the air, which is currently about 400 particles per million. While individual
activities may be quite successful in reducing emissions, the overall concentration
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase. There are thus two
kinds of impacts that the public is concerned about: do individual interventions
work and lower the emissions, and is climate change stopped? The first question
may be answered through counterfactual experimentation, modelling or through
before/after measurements of greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing about this is as
simple as it sounds. The calculation and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions
is not yet based on full understanding, agreement on principles and validation
through international norms and standards. For an overview of the issues and
what the current state of the art is, see STAP (2013).
All the successes of achieving impact at project level have so far not been able to
change the overall trend in climate change, which is that the global mean temperature continues to rise. When asking for evidence of impact, donors and the public
want to know whether projects have an impact, whether the project delivers and the
causal mechanism that it embodies works. But donors and the public also want to
know whether this leads to changes at higher levels, beyond the direct influence of
the project, and ultimately they would like to see climate change stopped or even
reversed. The demand for impact evidence is legitimate at all levels and cannot be
met by referring to impact evidence only at project level or in the context of one
intervention or one causal mechanism. Understanding the range of questions on
impact evidence will enable evaluators to focus on the key questions that need to be
asked in evaluations and will enable them to identify the tools and methods that
need to be used.
3.3 Theories of Change for Climate Change Mitigation
The standard approach to identify key questions in an evaluation is to look for the
“theory of change” that identifies how the intervention is expected to achieve
impact. In traditional impact evaluations this leads to an identification of the causal
mechanism that is supposed to “work”. In climate change, this is usually a combination of a technical mechanism and a behaviour mechanism: “if this new technology is adopted by people/institutions/countries it will lead to reduced greenhouse
gas emissions and thus to a lower rate of global warming”. Traditional impact
evaluations tend to focus on what works to effectuate behaviour change. If the
behaviour change occurs, the intervention “works” and should be promoted. If it
does not work, it should be stopped.
Organisations like 3ie, devoted to promoting traditional impact evaluations, are
very much aware that this simple version may lead to all kinds of perverse effects
that need to be taken into account or looked at, and for this reason they advocate that
40
R.D. van den Berg