Other Wikis
- EC Internal Users
- EC Internal Users
This is under maintenance, please use the Acceptance environment
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
➡️ 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.
Click here for examples of potentially relevant 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.
Examples of potentially relevant evaluation questions
- 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)?
References
(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] 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 11th 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.
Overview
Content Tools
Apps