place of wood burning and fossil fuel generators, also resulting in less pollution in
these villages. The behavioural assumption was that villagers would be willing to
spend more money on energy given the benefits in reliability of supply, reducing the
need for wood and thus reducing deforestation, reducing pollution and saving time
in searching for wood. The hydroelectric power plants would be made available
through public-private arrangements, supported by the States and by the Federal
Government, and legitimized and promoted through a national strategy. The theory
of change provided a series of causal linkages that together would change the
market for hydro-electric power in remote hilly areas and would lead to considerable reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. More challenging was the perspective
that this would also lead to reduced deforestation and to biodiversity benefits (Ratna
Reddy et al. 2006, 4071).
The demand for evidence of impact can be placed at various levels in this theory
of change. First of all, the hydroelectric power plants are supposed to produce
energy with greater efficiency in greenhouse gas emissions than other local energy
sources: these emissions should be lower than the same levels of energy produced
through burning wood and through fossil fuel generators. Technological expectations in this regard need to be met and one could argue that the first impact question
would be whether the hydroelectric plants deliver what they promise. The second
question is whether the village manages to integrate the hydroelectric mills into
their society: will they maintain the mills, pay their energy bills and use this source
of energy instead of reverting to wood and fossil fuels? This is the kind of behaviour
question that is beloved in traditional impact evaluations. A third question concerns
whether the shift towards hydro-electric power is leading to a change on the energy
market in remote hilly areas. Have demonstration and the first verifiable outputs of
the project led to an increased supply on this market; i.e. is the private sector
offering hydroelectric technologies to villages? And if so, is there a demand for
this? Are villages actively taking this up for consideration when looking at their
energy options? And is the financial sector willing to provide loans for investments
to the communities or villages? A fourth impact question is then whether the market
has changed – if it has changed – locally, regionally or nationally. These questions
need to be looked at from three different perspectives: time, space and scale.
3.4 Key Questions Related to Time, Space and Scale
Especially with a global issue like climate change the demand for impact evidence
ranges from “what works here and now” to “has it contributed, or will it contribute,
to stop climate change”. The first is very local, time and scale bound, just looking at
whether a specific mechanism works as it is supposed to. The second looks at the
planet, at scenarios that go into the future and that are at the highest (global) scale.
Both are relevant questions and need to be answered.
This translates into issues of time, space and scale. It is quite clear that a project
of $ 14.6 million cannot change the national energy market for remote hilly areas
42
R.D. van den Berg
these villages. The behavioural assumption was that villagers would be willing to
spend more money on energy given the benefits in reliability of supply, reducing the
need for wood and thus reducing deforestation, reducing pollution and saving time
in searching for wood. The hydroelectric power plants would be made available
through public-private arrangements, supported by the States and by the Federal
Government, and legitimized and promoted through a national strategy. The theory
of change provided a series of causal linkages that together would change the
market for hydro-electric power in remote hilly areas and would lead to considerable reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. More challenging was the perspective
that this would also lead to reduced deforestation and to biodiversity benefits (Ratna
Reddy et al. 2006, 4071).
The demand for evidence of impact can be placed at various levels in this theory
of change. First of all, the hydroelectric power plants are supposed to produce
energy with greater efficiency in greenhouse gas emissions than other local energy
sources: these emissions should be lower than the same levels of energy produced
through burning wood and through fossil fuel generators. Technological expectations in this regard need to be met and one could argue that the first impact question
would be whether the hydroelectric plants deliver what they promise. The second
question is whether the village manages to integrate the hydroelectric mills into
their society: will they maintain the mills, pay their energy bills and use this source
of energy instead of reverting to wood and fossil fuels? This is the kind of behaviour
question that is beloved in traditional impact evaluations. A third question concerns
whether the shift towards hydro-electric power is leading to a change on the energy
market in remote hilly areas. Have demonstration and the first verifiable outputs of
the project led to an increased supply on this market; i.e. is the private sector
offering hydroelectric technologies to villages? And if so, is there a demand for
this? Are villages actively taking this up for consideration when looking at their
energy options? And is the financial sector willing to provide loans for investments
to the communities or villages? A fourth impact question is then whether the market
has changed – if it has changed – locally, regionally or nationally. These questions
need to be looked at from three different perspectives: time, space and scale.
3.4 Key Questions Related to Time, Space and Scale
Especially with a global issue like climate change the demand for impact evidence
ranges from “what works here and now” to “has it contributed, or will it contribute,
to stop climate change”. The first is very local, time and scale bound, just looking at
whether a specific mechanism works as it is supposed to. The second looks at the
planet, at scenarios that go into the future and that are at the highest (global) scale.
Both are relevant questions and need to be answered.
This translates into issues of time, space and scale. It is quite clear that a project
of $ 14.6 million cannot change the national energy market for remote hilly areas
42
R.D. van den Berg