Page History

...

2.1.3. Greening programming

Background

The greening of programming focuses on the policy dialogue and preparation of the programming documents (multi-annual indicative programmes (MIP) and their mid-term review (MTR) under the NDICI- Global Europe, and IPA III programming framework’s strategic responses prepared by each IPA III beneficiary), as well as the related joint programming documents and Team Europe Initiatives.

Entry points for programming

Image Removed

➡️ Policy dialogue: include environment, climate change and DRR in policy engagement with partners, including governments, civil society and other stakeholders

Greening the policy dialogue implies promoting EU values and objectives for a green and just transformation; it can be supported by coordinated action with like-minded partners and sustained with an evidence base. The promotion of mutual priorities and support for partner country in advancing national commitments, policies and strategies on environment, climate action and DRR must be on the agenda.

➡️ Analyse the country (or regional) environmental and climate change context

As part of the programming cycle – and preferably before programming starts – the EU Delegation should prepare an analysis of the country’s (or the region’s) environmental and climate change context, and lessons of past and present EU cooperation as it relates to environment and climate change (including mainstreaming). The analysis covers the country’s key environmental and climate-related challenges and opportunities, the way they are addressed in the national/regional development plans and other policies, and their implications for future EU cooperation and policy dialogue. This assessment informs the evaluation of the national policy documents on which the programming will be based, as well as the policy dialogue and the preparation of the EU response (e.g. the MIP) and its implementation. The assessment should be based, to the extent possible, on existing analyses and data.

Image Removed

Details on the Country Environmental Profile (CEP) can be found in Annex 1 on Greening Tools, including links to a repository of CEPs and REPs.

Where possible, the CEP/REP should be undertaken as a joint exercise with national and other development partners. Annex 3 provides model ToR for a CEP.

The country’s Risk Management Framework Plus (RMF+) also provides insight into environment- and climate-related issues that affect structural/cyclical risks in the country. Further details and guidance on the environment and climate aspects of the RMF+ can be found in Annex 15.

➡️ Align the programming document with environment, climate and DRR objectives

In aligning programming with key environment, climate change and DRR objectives (shared by both the EU and the partner country/region), the EU should consider prioritising sectors where its support can contribute to a transformational change towards environmentally sustainable, climate resilient and low-carbon development. These sectors often offer opportunities for the EU to add value by bringing in experience and expertise. Environment and climate change can be considered as priority areas in their own right, but should be considered in all cases in the EU response strategy as cross-cutting issues influencing interventions across all areas.

The programming documents should maximise opportunities for positive contributions to climate and nature, and ensure they adhere to the DNH principle. Wherever relevant, the objectives, expected results and indicators should address environmental and climate change concerns.

Wherever feasible, the EU should consider including a component to support the partner country’s efforts to green its policies and investments, in particular in the MIP priority sectors/areas: the tools developed by the Poverty-Environment Action programme, notably the interactive handbook can be useful to strengthen environment and climate change integration in national policies, planning and budgeting.

➡️ Consider, where relevant, a Strategic Environmental Assessment

The EU should systematically consider supporting Strategic Environmental Assessments of sectoral plans and programmes when EU support is envisaged to sectors that include substantial climate and environmental risks/opportunities or that are central to the green transition, as SEAs are useful to inform both the partner’s policy design and the EU’s support programme. If this is the case, the preparation of an SEA should already be considered in the MIP. This will facilitate the mobilisation of financial resources at an earlier stage and lead to a more effective process with a higher impact on the greening of sector policies/strategies and associated EU support programmes. Climate and environmental sensitive sectors include notably: agriculture, rural development, energy, water, transport, private sector development, urban development, tourism.

Image Removed

➡️ Include indicators in the programming document that capture key environmental and climate change concerns

Including indicators in programming documents to assess country progress towards environmental, climate and DRR objectives and the green transition is critical to ensure effective environment and climate integration.

The Global Europe results framework (GERF)[13] should be used to the extent possible, complemented by other ad hoc indicators that may be necessary; these include thematic indicators based on a set of sector-specific results chains. In relation to its Green Deal strategic priority, the GERF proposes nine indicators to monitor progress at country level (GERF level 1- impact[14]) and 10 additional indicators for progress at action level (GERF level 2 – outcome and output[15]), covering SDGs 2 (zero hunger), 7 (energy), 11 (cities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate change), 14 (life under water) and 15 (life on land). These indicators should be used in the programming document, whenever relevant.

➡️ Update ambition in the mid-term review

The evolution of the country context and the progress made at implementation level can lead to the need for programme amendments at the mid-term stage.

The mid-term review (MTR) is an opportunity to verify if EU support at country level is on track to achieve its environmental, climate and green transition objectives by the end of the MFF period. The results of the MTR should be discussed, and necessary changes integrated to enhance EU environmental and climate performance.

2.1.4. Annual action planning: greening identification

Background

Identification requires a good understanding of the relevant political, institutional, economic, social and environmental context; it must show a clear articulation of the action’s intervention logic with initial (draft) result indicators. At this stage, sufficient elements of the actions proposed are known that can allow the application of the environment & climate risk screening.

Entry points for identification

Image Removed

➡️ Address environment and climate change concerns in the different analyses leading to the design of the action

The identification of an action involves different types of studies and analyses (including context, public policy, feasibility, stakeholders, problem, risks)[16]. Environment and climate change should be an integral component of these analyses. For example, how does environmental degradation and climate change affect the sector issues that will be addressed by the action? How will stakeholders related to environmental and climate issues be consulted and involved in the design of the action?

➡️ Involve the environment and climate change thematic units in the co-creation process

Co-creation is about working together with relevant staff from the outset (e.g. relevant thematic colleagues being contacted as early as possible), so as to gather all necessary expertise and know-how for the effective development and implementation of actions and policies.[17]

In the case of INTPA, the SSC Fiche indicates the members of the country cooperation team (CCT), the region cooperation team (RCT) or the thematic cooperation team (TCT) that will be involved in the formulation of the action. The thematic units on environment and climate change[18] should be indicated as part of the co-creation teams.

Under IPA III, and according to the IPA III Programming Guidelines, identification is the first phase of programming during which potential actions are discussed with internal stakeholders, the Commission (EU Delegation, DG NEAR, other Commission services), external stakeholders (civil society organisations, other donors, etc.) and potentially external experts (e.g. such as experts from the NEAR Greening Facility).

In the case of NEAR, the thematic unit in charge of environment and climate change[19] should be consulted during identification.

➡️ Avoid excluded activities

In line with Art. 29 on activities that are excluded from financing (see NDICI-GE and IPA III regulations: green highlights):

✅ Ensure the action does not include support to fossil fuels. More generally, common sense should apply to activities related (even indirectly) to the fossil fuels sector, considering EU reputational risks.

✅ Check the beneficiary country’s NDC and ensure that the action is not in conflict. Ensuring compliance with Article 29 requires reviewing the beneficiary country’s NDC to determine any conflicts with the action proposed. NDC can be found in the NDC Registry.

✅ Identify activities with potential significant adverse impacts on the environment, including biodiversity, the climate or climate resilience, determined through the environment & climate risk screening procedure (see below) and avoid them by exploring alternatives. For unavoidable high-risk activities, ensure appropriate measures to avoid, prevent, reduce and/or offset adverse effects of these activities are identified through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and/or a Climate Risk Assessment (CRA), and spelled-out in an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), reflected in the action’s design, and integrated in the project’s monitoring system.

➡️ Maximise positive contributions

When initiating the identification, identify opportunities and areas to support green transformative action.

Almost all areas/sectors can contribute positively to sustainability, but some offer more opportunities:

• Energy: support to the energy transition, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
• Agriculture, forestry and other land use: agro-ecological and climate smart agriculture, carbon sequestration, avoidance of deforestation, sustainable land management, biodiversity and ecosystem restoration.
• Water management: integrated water resources management, water pollution control, water use efficiency, nature-based solutions for flood management or water purification.
• Green and circular economy: sustainable and circular industries, green business development, promoting resource efficiency and circularity in value chains and sustainable chemicals management.
• Urban development: sustainable and smart mobility, low carbon buildings, waste management, climate-resilient cities, nature-based solutions in infrastructures, green areas, sustainable lifestyles, nature-based solutions.
• Migration: building climate resilience and environmental sustainability of displacement-affected communities, tackling environmental and climate change drivers of migration.
• Transport: smart and sustainable mobility, public transport, shift to low-carbon transport, nature-based solutions for transport infrastructures. Support to aviation and road sectors should be carefully assessed and justified before starting the design of the programme.
• Digital: digital applications for the green transition, green data centres, risk information platforms.
• Governance: environmental and ocean governance, natural resource governance, addressing IUU fishing, illegal logging, poaching, wildlife trafficking.
• Human development: build resilient communities, promote green education through policy, curricula, learning, teacher training and green schools; develop ‘one health’ approaches, sustainable lifestyles, developing skills for green jobs through TVET and health sector preparedness to climate change; strengthen higher education, research and innovation to provide local knowledge and skills to support all societal sectors in the green transition.

✅ Ensure that the problem analysis and the stakeholder review identify environment and climate change-related issues. This may imply involving environment and climate stakeholders in the problem analysis.

✅ Identify options and pathways that will contribute to the green transition through nature- and climate-positive impacts and outcomes. The Quick Tips for the integration of environment and climate change under different sectors provide inspiration and guidance to this effect.

✅ Seek opportunities to contribute to the implementation of the country’s NDC, National Adaptation Plan and long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies under the Paris Agreement, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) under the Convention on Biological Diversity and supported by National Biodiversity Finance Plans[20], or action plans under the UN Convention on Combating Desertification, and Sendai Framework targets.

➡️ Identify environment/climate risks and apply the ‘do no harm’ principle

From an environment and climate change perspective, the principles of ‘do no harm’ and ‘leaving no one behind’ imply that actions should not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment or on climate[21].

The mandatory environment & climate risk screening helps identify high risk actions that should be either excluded or subject to a dedicated impact assessment (Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA, and/or Climate Risk Assessment – CRA), which will help identify the appropriate measures, including alternative options, to avoid, mitigate, offset or compensate adverse impacts on environment or the climate. In the case of impact assessments, these tools inform the decision-making process and, if the impacts on the environment are considered unacceptable, it may be decided not to support the project in question.

Image Removed

The environment & climate risk screening allows to identify areas of potential impact that should be addressed in the design of the action, even if a dedicated tool (SEA, EIA and/or CRA) is not required. All actions must avoid harmful impacts on the environment and climate, in line with the DNH principle.

➡️ Assess the environmental and climate vulnerability of the action and identify options to ensure its resilience

The effectiveness and sustainability of the action can be compromised by climate change and environmental degradation processes that are often beyond the control of the action. These risks must be understood, and the action designed to be climate-proof and resilient to relevant environmental degradation processes. Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) is a useful tool to address climate-proofing; if a full-fledged CRA is not necessary, the CRA screening will be useful to identify climate risks and climate-proofing opportunities.

Project vulnerability from environmental degradation should also be examined, and relevant measures foreseen for the action. For example, promoting sustainable land management in the upper watershed to reduce the risk of accelerated siltation of a dam, working with industry in the project area to curb water pollution.

Adaptation to climate change and disaster risk reduction may also be closely linked, climate change being increasingly a driver of disaster risk. The common ground between adaptation and DRR[22] should entice building climate resilience through a disaster risk reduction lens, i.e. by preventing and reducing risks, reducing hazard exposure and vulnerability to disasters, and increasing preparedness for response and recovery[23].

➡️ Assess indicative contributions to the climate and biodiversity spending targets

The identification should provide a first indication of the contributions to the climate and biodiversity spending targets. Application of the Rio markers must be done carefully as it is the basis for the EU to report climate finance to the OECD; if not applied consistently, this may lead to reputational risks for the EU.

Financial contributions indicated during identification are indicative and must be validated in the related action documents. For further details on the definitions and eligibility criteria for the Rio markers, refer to Annex 2.

2.1.5. Greening formulation

Background

The action document should concretely and explicitly integrate environment, climate change and DRR into the action design, in particular in the definition of the objectives, outcomes, outputs, activities and/or indicators.

Entry points for formulation

Image Removed

➡️ Build on the greening steps from identification

✅ Seek further opportunities to maximise positive contributions to environmental sustainability, biodiversity, climate resilience and low carbon development. The Quick Tips for the integration of environment and climate change can be used as inspiration to identify options to enhance positive contributions.

✅ Ensure climate proofing of the project and integrate measures to address its vulnerability to environmental degradation processes that can affect its effectiveness and sustainability.

✅ Avoid excluded activities under Article 29 of the NDICI-Global Europe Regulation (see section above on Identification) and ensure compliance with the national environmental and climate legislation.

✅ Wherever relevant, integrate environment and climate change concerns and objectives in the definition of the objectives, outcomes, outputs, activities and/or indicators; and ensure that the proposed implementation modalities/implementers will be conducive to their implementation.

✅ Ensure that formulation of the action is informed by meaningful consultations with key environment and climate stakeholders.

✅ Mobilise specific expertise to address environment and climate change opportunities and risks and foresee specific attention to these matters during milestones of the design process.

✅ Ensure that the design of the action respects the DNH principle. Refer to the corresponding section under Identification for more details.

✅ Involve the thematic units on environment and climate change in DG INTPA or DG NEAR as part of the co-creation process[24].

 ➡️ Finalise the screening process

Image Removed

The results of the environment & climate risk screening must be summarised in the mainstreaming section of the action document and annex f3 to the action document[25] must provide the rationale for the risk category and for whether or not an SEA, an EIA and/or a CRA is required. The questionnaire in Annex f3 must also indicate the opportunities to minimise environment and climate risks, and maximise opportunities to contribute to environmental sustainability, climate resilience and low-carbon development, even in the case that an SEA, EIA and/or a CRA is not required.

For actions with a potentially high environment- or climate- risk[26], it is recommended to engage partners and key stakeholders in the screening process. Annex 5 on Sources to understand the environment and climate change context can be useful to apply the screening.

✅ If the screening indicates that an EIA, SEA or CRA is necessary, ensure sufficient financial resources are available for their preparation. These can be from the action’s budget or from other sources such as ‘Support Measures’ or a ‘Cooperation Facility’ potentially available at EUD level.

 ➡️ (If relevant) finalise any required environmental or climate assessments

Ideally, the environment & climate risk screening should be undertaken during identification, or even programming, in which case it is good practice to complete any required assessments in time to inform the formulation of the action. However, these assessments can take time to complete and there is a possibility that they may not be ready by the time the funds have to be committed.

If an EIA is required for a particular project/activity under national legislation, its completion will be mandatory before development consent can be given.

Early completion is also particularly relevant for SEA, which should inform the design of a budget support programme. The SEA approach should be adapted to the stage at which the formulation of the national/ sector strategy in question is at. Ideally SEAs should be an integral component of the policy making/ planning process, although often they will be prepared on the basis of an already advanced or even a final version. This is why it is encouraged to identify the need for an SEA as early as possible, even from the programming phase.

➡️ Develop specific green measures and indicators

✅ Identify options to minimise the action’s adverse impacts on the environment and climate, which should be integrated into the design of the action independently on whether an SEA, EIA and/or CRA are required. The Quick Tips provide concrete ideas.

✅ Identify climate-proofing measures and other measures necessary to address the potential impact of environmental degradation processes on the project.

✅ Identify indicators to measure progress on the achievement of positive environmental and climate objectives, and ensure the effectiveness of adverse impact mitigation measures. In the latter case, and for high-risk activities, these indicators will be provided by the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and/or the Climate Risk Management Plan (CRMP).

➡️ Score policy and Rio markers

✅ Score the policy markers for aid to environment and DRR, as well as the Rio markers as either ‘principal objective’, ‘significant objective’ or ‘not targeted’. Refer to the OECD DAC eligibility criteria and guidance available to ensure the correct use of the markers. A compilation of guidance material on the relevant markers can be found here.

✅ Remember to consult the thematic units dealing with environment and climate change early in the design and at the latest as part of the quality review processes.

➡️ Ensure partners’ processes are aligned

When it comes to the environment & climate risk screening and ensuring the adherence to do the DNH principle, partner organisations can apply their own processes and safeguards, as long as they are not less stringent than the EU’s screening procedure described in this toolbox. Please keep in mind that partner organisations are not pillar-assessed for their environmental and climate safeguards and standards.

✅ Enquire about the environmental policies and safeguards used by the selected implementing partners to ensure alignment with the minimum requirements defined in this toolbox. Assistance can be obtained from the thematic units and their support facilities to this effect.

2.1.6. Greening implementation

Background

It is during implementation that all the previous efforts to ensure a good integration of environment and climate change need to be put into practice. It is an obligation of the implementing partners to ensure strict compliance with the country’s environment and climate legislation at all stages of implementation. The measures proposed below seek to go beyond this obligation.

Entry points for implementation

Image Removed

➡️ Complete environmental and climate impact/risk assessments

If an SEA, EIA and/or CRA were required, these should be completed in time to inform formulation; this is especially the case for SEA, which should inform the eligibility assessment for budget support and the design of budget support programmes.

In some cases, these assessments are prepared only during the action’s implementation. This can be the case for EIAs and CRAs concerning specific interventions that will be developed during implementation and which, if required under national legislation, must be submitted to the competent authority for development consent.

➡️ Ensure the contract/agreement for implementation fully reflects the environment and climate ambition of the action

The environment and climate ambition spelled out in the action document must be reflected in the contractual documents and agreements, in particular the detailed project description and logframe, including a description of what is expected from the implementing partners on these aspects. Safeguards and provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the national legislation and the DNH principle need to be put in place.

➡️ Encourage green procurement and the integration of environment and climate change in calls for proposals and technological choices

Opting for green and low carbon technologies and approaches in the implementation of the action provides further opportunities to maximise positive impacts. Implementing partners should be systematically encouraged to use green procurement and include environmental sustainability and climate change criteria in the contract’s implementation. Refer to Annex 11 on Greening Procurement.

Implementing partners should be systematically encouraged to include environmental sustainability criteria in calls for proposals (CfP). Refer to Annex 10 on Greening Calls for Proposals.

➡️ Ensure environment and climate change are integrated in project monitoring

The monitoring should include a focus on the achievement of environmental and climate-related outputs and outcomes and possible unintended negative impacts. Monitoring not only offers an opportunity to realign the project/programme in case the information collected shows unsatisfactory performance, but it also allows to identify new opportunities to enhance environmental and climate performance by ensuring that the action:

• delivers its expected contributions to environmental sustainability, climate resilience and low-carbon development in an effective and efficient manner;
• does not create unexpected environmental impacts that could have been avoided;
• minimises residual impacts, restores the damaged environment and implements any agreed offsets and nature-positive actions;
• does not support maladaptation or unsustainable practices, create, or increase climate vulnerability;
• is not jeopardised by climate change or environmental degradation;
• monitors risks related to the above and undertakes appropriate remedial action as necessary;
• is not infringing domestic environmental laws and regulations.

Environmental and climate indicators in the action’s monitoring system should be related to environmental status, pressure factors, environmental effects and response measures (see DPSIR framework in Annex 9). Response measures potentially include those implemented by the action, interpreted in light of EU pre-identified indicators (GERF indicators). EIAs, CRAs and EMPs can also be used as tools to identify relevant environmental and climate indicators for the action.

• Selecting an indicator implies that sources of environmental and climate information should be available, at least at project level (notably, when the indicator is not part of a national data system).
• It may be useful to determine threshold criteria which trigger the consideration of remedial action[27]. Remedial action can be undertaken at the planning and/or implementation level.

The monitoring system should also be designed to foresee dialogue on potential contributions of the action to environmental and climate impacts. The availability of quality data can substantially improve learning regarding the relationship between the intervention, the environment and climate change.

Annex 9 presents additional guidance on indicators.

Environment and climate change can be reflected in the result-oriented monitoring (ROM) reviews. For example, they can be used to tackle potential design weaknesses (e.g. to strengthen climate or environmental integration in the intervention monitoring system); give external advice on specific shortcomings and needs (e.g. related to the improvement of climate resilience or disaster risk management, the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services, or addressing equal access to natural resources); support lessons learnt and the design of future actions.

ROM review questions under the eight monitoring criteria with a focus on environment, climate change and disaster risk reduction are found mainly under the sustainability criteria and cross-cutting issues[28]. Yet the ROM handbook also relates the effectiveness criteria to environmental and climate issues^[29]. Notably, the review should consider the influence of the intervention on the partner’s environmental policies. It should also consider the intervention’s unintended positive or negative environmental and climate impacts.

➡️ Implement the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Climate Risk Management Plan (CRMP)

If an EIA and/or a CRA were completed for the project/action, it must be ensured that the corresponding Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and/or Climate Risk Management Plan (CRMP) are reflected in the relevant contractual documents, as well as in the project/programme monitoring system. The EMP and CRMP specify measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate adverse impacts on the environment and climate, and to manage climate risks. They specify how these will be monitored to verify their implementation and effectiveness.

National partners and implementing organisations are responsible for monitoring compliance with the EMP and CRMP. During the support period, EU Delegations receive monitoring reports, and thus have an opportunity to provide additional support to strengthen national monitoring systems. Once support operations have stopped, the EU Delegation is (in principle) no longer party to the compliance monitoring of environmental and climate-related conditions. Consequently, it is crucial that the national partner’s capacity to monitor is built during the implementation period.

➡️ When implementing a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

If an SEA was completed for the sector strategy that will be supported and/or for the corresponding EU support programme, the SEA recommendations can be taken up in the delegation’s policy dialogue with the partner government.

If the action will support the development or updating of a sector strategy in an environmentally sensitive sector (see Annex 4), an SEA should be foreseen as one of the activities, in which case the SEA will be prepared during implementation.

➡️ Score markers at contract level

A DAC form must be completed at the level of contracts. This includes the aid to environment and DRR policy markers as well as the four Rio markers. Unless there are specific reasons to score the markers otherwise, the marker scores at contract level should be aligned to those of the decision.

Guidance on policy and Rio markers is available in Annex 2.

2.1.7. Greening evaluation

Background

Mid-term and final evaluations of projects and programmes should be encouraged to assess the environmental outputs/outcomes/impacts, provide elements to improve their environmental performance (in the case of mid-term evaluations) and draw lessons from a climate and environmental perspective.

Evaluations can be helpful in different ways. In the case of a mid-term evaluation, its results should be discussed with stakeholders and necessary changes integrated in the programme/project to enhance its environmental and climate change performance.

A final evaluation usually provides lessons regarding environmental and climate change performance which should be drawn and disseminated to inform the design of future programmes and projects.

Wherever feasible, evaluation results should also inform environmental and climate-related policy dialogues.

Entry points for greening evaluation

Image Removed

➡️ Prepare evaluation terms of reference with a green scope

An evaluation typically focuses on performance against the DAC criteria, including relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability and lessons learnt, with the view to improve the implementation, inform the preparation of future projects and programmes and ensure accountability. The assessment of the performance of EU actions may also include coherence and EU added value.

Environmental and climate issues can be included in the evaluation scope through the lens of each of its criteria.

To define the green scope of the evaluation, perform a preliminary and internal review of the design, ambition, and constraints of the action from an environmental and climate change perspective.

This can be done through reviewing the following questions:

• To what extent did the initial action identify potential harmful impacts on the environment, climate and vulnerability to climate change, or opportunities for positive impacts? Which mechanisms were foreseen for implementation to address these issues?
• In the action’s context, are there environmental and climate-related risks and constraints that may jeopardise the intended achievements of EU support? How were these considered at design and implementation level?
• Did the action intend to bring about a meaningful contribution (well-defined, evidence-based, constructive, measurable) to environmental and climate objectives? Did it support opportunities for longer-term benefits for the transformation to a green and circular economy?
• Using the above, what is the potential for lessons learnt? Notably, which elements related to environmental or climate issues can contribute to the ongoing policy dialogue and potentially enhance the commitment of stakeholders?

 ✅ Include relevant environmental and climate-related issues in the evaluation questions.

...

In the requirements section, the ToR should stipulate that the evaluation team demonstrates proficiency in environmental, climate and/or disaster risk reduction in the related sector and/or country.

➡️ Review the quality of the evaluation

The evaluation manager is the person with the responsibility to supervise the methodological quality of the evaluation, including how well the evaluation addresses project performance over environmental and climate issues and disaster risk reduction, when relevant.

The following questions can be helpful in this process:

• Does the evaluation consider the environment in all its dimensions: climate change, pollution and human health, biodiversity, land, soil, water, air and climate, material assets, cultural heritage and landscape, as well as the interactions between these elements?
• Do all evaluation stages (inception, desk and field phases, final report) give an account of how the action interacted with the environment and considered climate change, analysing and justifying the choices made in the light of the issues identified in the area concerned?
• Is the evaluation’s analysis proportionate to the environmental and climate risks, including the sensitivity of the area likely to be affected, the scale and nature of the interventions and their foreseeable impact on the environment?
• Are the proposed methods for data collection and subsequent analysis of environmental and climate performance well-conceived?
• Will the evaluation lead to concrete and relevant recommendations to improve the environmental and climate related impacts of on-going interventions and to findings that will help improve future decision-making e.g. by considering how the design of a project could be optimised to minimise or avoid negative environmental impacts?

To ensure a smooth follow-up, it is good practice for the evaluation manager to mobilise the evaluation reference group to obtain feedback on how the evaluation is considering climate and environmental performance.

• Were environmental and climate-related stakes, risks and opportunities adequately addressed by the identification and formulation studies?
• Was an SEA, EIA and/or CRA required? If so, was it carried out, of good quality, and were its recommendations implemented?
• Has the action addressed environmental/climate change issues in a relevant manner?  In other words, were the most important issues and options identified in the problem analysis, were activities appropriately designed to address them and were they effectively implemented (e.g. implementation of soil and water conservation techniques in areas threatened by desertification and land degradation)?
• If the action intended to contribute to environment, DRR, biodiversity, combating desertification, climate change mitigation and/or climate change adaptation, as per the indicated policy and Rio markers, did these intentions effectively materialise as expected (as principal or significant objectives of the action)?
• Was the action effective in promoting environment-friendly, low-carbon and climate-resilient systems, practices and technologies?
• Did the action promote an efficient use of resources (e.g. minimising the use of polluting materials and substances, minimising water use, promoting energy efficiency, implementing green procurement)?
• Did the action contribute to climate change mitigation/low-carbon development (renewable energy, energy efficiency, afforestation) or climate change adaptation/resilience (e.g. through climate-smart agriculture, integrated watershed management)?
• Did the action have any positive impact in terms of contributing to sustainable development, including through enhancing natural capital, environmental sustainability, soil quality, water quantity and quality, reduction in air pollution (e.g. health benefits arising from the introduction of improved cooking and heating apparatus)?
• Did the action have a direct or indirect negative impact on the environment and climate resilience (e.g. loss of biodiversity, deforestation or land degradation due to mono-cropping or agricultural expansion)?
• Is the action’s sustainability threatened by environmental degradation and/ or climate change (e.g. hydroelectric power supply threatened by reduced water flows and proliferation of invasive plants in reservoirs)?

Click here to continue reading.

...

(12) Measures to address potential significant adverse impacts on the environment and climate must follow the following hierarchy: (1) avoid impacts; (2) minimise impacts; (3) restore degraded sites; (4) offset impacts; (5) identify measures to bring about positive contributions.

[1] SWD(2022) 22 final

[1] Development impact achieved in collaboration with partner governments, donors and other international cooperation and development actors including the private sector and civil society.

[1] International cooperation and development outcomes and outputs to which EU funded interventions have contributed in collaboration with partner governments and other funding providers.

[1] See ICM Guide.

[1] Vade Mecum – Working as a team, and INTPA’s Strategic Governance System. Revision 2022.

[1] i.e. INTPA units F1 and F2: INTPA-GREENING-FACILITY@ec.europa.eu; INTPA-F1@ec.europa.eu; INTPA-F1@ec.europa.eu

[1] i.e. NEAR A3

[1] As supported by the EC/UNDP Biodiversity Finance Initiative BIOFIN, or similar instruments at national level.

[1] See Article 8.8 of the NDICI-GE Regulation.

[1] As cited in the EU Adaptation Strategy and the OECD position paper on CCA and DRR.

[1] Sendai Framework.

[1] INTPA: units F1 and F2 (notably via the CCT/RCT/TCT), NEAR: unit A3

[1] As per the INTPA Companion to financial and contractual procedures applicable to external actions financed from the general budget of the EU and from the 11^th EDF.

[1] Sectors with potentially high environment and climate risk include: agriculture and land use change, energy, transport, water, private sector development, urban development and tourism.

[1] e.g. in the context of a water delivery project, minimal level of water quality.

[1] Notably, Question 7.3 on environmental constraints and opportunities, thereby also dealing with environmental sustainability; Question 7.4 on the contribution to EU climate change commitments; Question 7.5 on the application of the Do No Harm principle, inequality and governance, (including on the management of natural resources).

[1] See ROM Handbook.