overnight. This takes time; in fact the impact assessment done at the end of the
project asked for “adequate time” to pass and for a stable situation to be achieved
before impact is assessed (Ittyerah et al. 2005, p. xv). And if individual projects
need adequate time to have an impact, it follows that market change can only be
observed and measured over even longer stretches of time. Longer time lapses are
well known in environmental circles and on environmental impact, as Hilde ´n
(2009) and Rowe (2014, 54–55) have pointed out, but they tend to be less associated
with market change. The slow pace of market change is more often observed with
impatience, raising the question why no change is happening, which led W€ orlen
(2014) in her study of climate mitigation evaluations to reformulate the “theory of
change” approach to a “theory of no change approach” that focuses on a better
understanding of market barriers and how they can be overcome.
In general environmental boundaries do not follow jurisdictional boundaries.
One ecosystem may spread over several countries, and one country may have
several ecosystems. Rowe (2012) asked attention for the fact that location may
differ conceptually and practically between a social and economic system that is
targeted for change and an ecosystem that is influenced through the same intervention or action. But this is not only an issue of different locations of systems, but also
of scope of an intervention: it may be focused on a direct impact in the villages in
which it is implemented, while other areas are still outside the scope of the project
or have not yet been approached by suppliers, or invited to participate by State or
Federal government.
It is an issue of scale when impact needs to be observed at several levels: that of
energy supply and demand, of greenhouse gas emissions related to energy, of
greenhouse gas emissions including deforestation and alternative sources of energy,
of livelihood and financial resources issues in the villages, of hilly rural areas in
general, and perhaps somewhat more removed, whether greenhouse gas emissions
in India are positively influenced by what happens in remote hilly areas. The last
does not seem likely, and it may lead to a feeling of disenchantment – if it does not
help India, it does not help the world, and it does not stop climate change.
3 But that
was the reason the project was co-funded by the Global Environment Facility in the
first place!
Scale is not easily defined. It seems clear that while interventions or actions
move from one actor to multiple, from one location to many, from a “local” to a
“national” or even “global” level that moving up scales is involved, but scales can
also be understood in terms of different dimensions or sectors. Kennedy et al.
(2009) recognises jurisdictional and management dimensions as different scales,
and Bruyninckx (2009) asks attention for overlap and discrepancies between
social, economic, environmental and spatial scales. Yet even though there is no
universal agreement on how scales should be defined or what their boundaries are,
3 And a good overall conclusion on the project was formulated by Ratna Reddy et al. (2006, 4078):
the overall impact of the project appears to be slightly positive or neutral in a majority of key
indicators. Certainly not a major contribution to reduced greenhouse gas emissions as hoped for.
3 Mainstreaming Impact Evidence in Climate Change and Sustainable Development
43
project asked for “adequate time” to pass and for a stable situation to be achieved
before impact is assessed (Ittyerah et al. 2005, p. xv). And if individual projects
need adequate time to have an impact, it follows that market change can only be
observed and measured over even longer stretches of time. Longer time lapses are
well known in environmental circles and on environmental impact, as Hilde ´n
(2009) and Rowe (2014, 54–55) have pointed out, but they tend to be less associated
with market change. The slow pace of market change is more often observed with
impatience, raising the question why no change is happening, which led W€ orlen
(2014) in her study of climate mitigation evaluations to reformulate the “theory of
change” approach to a “theory of no change approach” that focuses on a better
understanding of market barriers and how they can be overcome.
In general environmental boundaries do not follow jurisdictional boundaries.
One ecosystem may spread over several countries, and one country may have
several ecosystems. Rowe (2012) asked attention for the fact that location may
differ conceptually and practically between a social and economic system that is
targeted for change and an ecosystem that is influenced through the same intervention or action. But this is not only an issue of different locations of systems, but also
of scope of an intervention: it may be focused on a direct impact in the villages in
which it is implemented, while other areas are still outside the scope of the project
or have not yet been approached by suppliers, or invited to participate by State or
Federal government.
It is an issue of scale when impact needs to be observed at several levels: that of
energy supply and demand, of greenhouse gas emissions related to energy, of
greenhouse gas emissions including deforestation and alternative sources of energy,
of livelihood and financial resources issues in the villages, of hilly rural areas in
general, and perhaps somewhat more removed, whether greenhouse gas emissions
in India are positively influenced by what happens in remote hilly areas. The last
does not seem likely, and it may lead to a feeling of disenchantment – if it does not
help India, it does not help the world, and it does not stop climate change.
3 But that
was the reason the project was co-funded by the Global Environment Facility in the
first place!
Scale is not easily defined. It seems clear that while interventions or actions
move from one actor to multiple, from one location to many, from a “local” to a
“national” or even “global” level that moving up scales is involved, but scales can
also be understood in terms of different dimensions or sectors. Kennedy et al.
(2009) recognises jurisdictional and management dimensions as different scales,
and Bruyninckx (2009) asks attention for overlap and discrepancies between
social, economic, environmental and spatial scales. Yet even though there is no
universal agreement on how scales should be defined or what their boundaries are,
3 And a good overall conclusion on the project was formulated by Ratna Reddy et al. (2006, 4078):
the overall impact of the project appears to be slightly positive or neutral in a majority of key
indicators. Certainly not a major contribution to reduced greenhouse gas emissions as hoped for.
3 Mainstreaming Impact Evidence in Climate Change and Sustainable Development
43