2.1.7. Greening evaluation

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.