How do we know that climate projects actually work?

As climate change intensifies and resources remain limited, the stakes for getting climate mitigation and adaptation projects right only increase. How do we know if they’re making a difference?

Climate change projects come in many shapes: expanding renewable energy, promoting energy efficiency, halting deforestation, restoring degraded land, improving water management, supporting vulnerable communities. These initiatives don’t exist in a vacuum. A project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a rural area isn’t just about installing energy-efficient equipment; it’s entangled with water scarcity, land degradation, local politics, economic constraints, cultural factors, and conflict over resources. Add in extreme weather events, government budget cuts, and community skepticism, and you have a recipe for complexity that can derail even well-designed initiatives.

This is precisely what makes monitoring and evaluation (M&E) so critical. We need to understand how to induce lasting, transformative change. M&E is not just about how projects track progress, but it’s also about learning from experience and adapting to changing realities. Strong M&E can make the difference in whether a project not only produces its outputs but actually makes an impact. Evaluation also helps to learn and transfer lessons to future projects, policies and strategies.

We examined three Global Environment Facility (GEF) projects for insights into what separates climate initiatives that succeed from those that stumble. In our study, we focused on the role of M&E.

What M&E really does

Monitoring and evaluation are often misunderstood as compliance exercises: reporting outputs to donors or justifying budgets (or finding reasons for cutting those budgets). In practice, they can be much more powerful.

Monitoring asks whether activities are on track producing their outputs on time and on budget, while evaluation asks deeper questions: Are the assumptions valid? Was the intervention design appropriate? Are we reaching the right people? Is the intervention leading to a meaningful change in the problem that it targeted? What unintended effects are emerging? What needs to change – for this project and for further initiatives?

For climate action, these questions are critical. Climate projects operate at the intersection of human systems (institutions, livelihoods, politics, culture) and natural systems (land, water, ecosystems, weather). Both are complex and unpredictable. Without strong M&E, project managers are flying blind.

 Three countries, three different M&E stories

 We examined projects in three countries facing severe climate pressures. The experiences from Mali, Nepal, and Uzbekistan illustrate how M&E can either strengthen or weaken climate interventions.

Mali: navigating through multiple chappenges

In Mali, the project aimed to help communities adopt sustainable land and water management practices. In this West African drought-prone country, the context was extraordinarily challenging: widespread poverty, land degradation, insecure tenure, political instability, and conflict-driven displacement. The project’s theory was straightforward: give people alternative livelihoods and training, and they’ll stop practices that degrade the land. Reality proved messier. Political instability displaced thousands of people into project areas already under demographic pressure. Communities feared displacement and questioned whether promised benefits would materialize.

The project’s M&E system tracked activities and gathered feedback from communities, helping managers adjust implementation along the way. Importantly, it supported downward accountability, giving local stakeholders a voice and improving transparency.

Yet capacity constraints, funding shortages, and instability limited data quality and continuity. While M&E helped keep the project moving, its longer-term sustainability remained fragile, especially once external funding ended.

Nepal: M&E as a strategic asset

Nepal’s renewable energy project tells a different story. Working through an established national agency, the project expanded off-grid renewable energy in rural areas while supporting livelihoods and reducing emissions, achieving highly satisfactory results. Solar systems and micro-hydro grids reached communities that had never had reliable electricity.

A clear success factor was the exemplary M&E system that detected problems early, enabled quick corrections, and kept all stakeholders informed and engaged. Regular reporting built trust; continuous assessment provided insights that guided smart decision-making. Here, M&E was not an afterthought. Continuous data collection and analysis allowed problems to be identified early and corrected. Stakeholders trusted the process because reporting was consistent and transparent.

As a result, the project delivered strong results and built durable capacity that continued beyond the project’s lifetime.

Uzbekistan: ambition meets weak feedback loops

In Uzbekistan, the project aimed to introduce renewable energy technologies and combat land degradation in a country facing severe climate-related development challenges, such as drought and ecological degradation. The goals were ambitious, and the rationale strong: high emissions intensity, water scarcity, and land degradation posed major risks to rural development.

External shocks – extreme weather, economic volatility, institutional bottlenecks – undermined results. The M&E system provided valuable information, but capacity gaps and funding constraints limited its effectiveness. While some course correction occurred, inconsistent data collection, and delayed analysis and reporting hampered adaptive management and limited the project’s ability to respond effectively to challenges.

What can we learn from these contrasting experiences?

Lessons

The Nepal project offers the clearest blueprint for success. Its M&E system didn’t just collect data — it created a feedback loop that kept the project aligned with objectives, allowed real-time adjustments, and built transparency that fostered trust among government agencies, implementing partners, and local communities.

In contrast, both the Mali and Uzbekistan projects struggled with capacity issues. Local partners lacked the skills or tools for consistent data collection. External funding dependency meant that even successful monitoring systems faced uncertain futures once international support ended.

What all three projects revealed was that external factors often matter more than internal project design. Political instability in Mali, extreme weather events in Uzbekistan, and changing government priorities in all three countries shaped outcomes as much as any project activity. A good M&E system doesn’t just track what the project is doing. It monitors the broader landscape in which the project operates.

Without timely, reliable information, even well-designed climate projects can lose momentum and impact. When M&E is well-designed and adequately resourced, it becomes a management tool, not just a reporting requirement. Even under challenging conditions, M&E can support adaptive management but it cannot substitute for institutional capacity and domestic financing.

Why theory of change matters

Across all three cases, one insight stands out: a clear theory of change matters. A theory of change explicitly maps how activities are expected to lead to outcomes and longer-term impacts, while identifying key assumptions and risks. For climate projects, this is especially important because success depends on factors beyond the project’s control, including policies, markets, social norms, and climate variability itself. A strong theory of change forces project designers and implementers to articulate their assumptions and identify the risks (internal and external) that could break the chain. It is also essential to identify potential unintended consequences: to the environment and to various groups of people, especially the most vulnerable groups, including women and Indigenous peoples.

For instance, the Mali project assumed that providing alternative livelihoods would reduce pressure on natural resources. The theory-of-change approach made it clear that this depended on secure land tenure, effective governance, community buy-in, predictable climate conditions, and political security. When instability disrupted these conditions, the M&E system could flag the problem and suggest adaptations.

When embedded in M&E systems, theory-based approaches help teams ask the right questions: Are external conditions shifting? Which assumptions no longer hold? Where are unintended consequences emerging? This makes adaptive management and learning systematic rather than ad hoc.

From accountability to learning and back again

The GEF Independent Evaluation Office assesses the design and performance of M&E in the Facility-funded projects. The experience shows steady improvement in M&E quality over time: 84 percent of recent projects now have satisfactory M&E design, up from 69 percent historically. Newer projects are better designed, use clearer indicators, and place greater emphasis on learning.

Still, challenges remain. Too often M&E is underfunded and capacity to implement the systems is inadequate. As climate impacts intensify, projects must continuously adapt. That requires credible data, analytical capacity, and institutional willingness to learn. It also requires M&E to be flexible and timely.

What this means for future climate action

Three practical implications emerge from our review:

1. Invest early in M&E capacity, especially at national and local levels.
2. Use theory-based evaluation to navigate complexity and uncertainty.
3. Treat M&E as a management function, not just an accountability mechanism.

Climate change is not a linear problem. Effective responses cannot rely on fixed plans and static indicators. They require feedback, learning, and adjustment over time. How we monitor and evaluate climate action may determine whether good intentions translate into lasting impact.

The most vulnerable countries and communities often have the weakest capacity for monitoring and evaluation. Climate finance frequently flows through short-term projects that end before long-term impacts can be assessed. And the interconnected nature of environmental problems – climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, water scarcity, access to resources, inequality, policies, markets – demands integrated approaches that are inherently harder to monitor.

The good news? We’re learning. These three case studies show that even in difficult circumstances, strong M&E systems can guide climate projects toward better outcomes. They help identify what works, for whom, and under what conditions. They build accountability and trust. And they generate lessons that can inform future efforts.

In the fight against climate change, measuring progress isn’t bureaucratic overhead. It is essential infrastructure for success.

[This piece draws upon an article written by Juha I. Uitto and Peter H. Koehn and published in Public Organization Review in 2025. The blog was originally published in https://juhuitto.substack.com on 1 February 2026.]

 

Adventures in the Aid Trade: Forty Years Practicing Development in Forty Countries, by Richard Holloway

Richard Holloway is a veteran who has worked in the international development business for decades and lived in multiple countries. He’s avoided—mostly successfully—working with large aid organizations (he has worked on some projects funded by the World Bank and DFID) instead preferring to work with people on the ground through a variety of civil society organizations. This book distills his experiences and is intended as advice to young persons embarking on a career in the field. The lessons are valuable and the book is interesting even to someone like me who has had his own four decades in the air trade, albeit mostly at the policy level and not the “coalface” like the author (Holloway’s term).

The book also tells stories from his adventures in Africa, Asia, and the islands of the West Indies and the South Pacific. The chapters are organized in a similar fashion, starting with a description of the country and its situationula and what the author did there; followed by a sections on “What did I learn from the coalface?” and “What happened to it all?” This latter probes into whether anything good stayed after he left; i.e., whether the benefits of the projects he worked on were sustained. The chapters often end with “What were we thinking at the time?” explaining the logic behind the interventions and containing some published resources. Several chapters also have a section on “And on a personal note” which tells about the author’s life (and in later chapters that of his wife who made her own career mostly in UNICEF) in the countries through illustrating and sometimes amusing anecdotes. Richard Holloway is not a particularly eloquent writer. His prose is straightforward and does the job.

Some of the chapters stand out to me. South Sudan’s civil war is nowadays often in the news (although not as often as it would deserve to be). Holloway worked there in 1973-75, before the current troubles started, although their roots can be detected already then. He worked extensive periods in Bangladesh (1989-1995) and especially in Indonesia (1979-84 and 1999-2004). This latter also included work in Timor Leste as it became independent from Indonesia after a brutal war. His description of the gradual shift from emergency relief to long-term development with an emphasis on human rights is enlightening with a description of the complex socio-political situation in the new island nation.

To me, perhaps the most interesting section pertains to Myanmar (2015-16) and the travails of working in an ethnically divided country ruled by a violent junta. The latest of the many coups d’état there took place in 2021.

Several important themes arise. One of them is corruption, which is a way of life in many of the countries in the global South. Another is the frequent tension between civil society and the government. Holloway emphasizes the need for aid and development workers to thoroughly understand the places they work in. He urges aspiring development workers to start by being sociologists or anthropologists, understand the history, and to learn the local languages to the extent possible. Development must reflect the needs and aspirations of the people on the ground. It is very important to understand the people’s livelihoods to be able to support their own development efforts.

Evidence for Hope -- A Review

This is an interesting and quite original book. The topic is very important, given the two crises facing humanity today: those of environmental sustainability (or lack thereof) and misinformation / disinformation. Rob van den Berg, the former director of evaluation at the Global Environment Facility and, before that the Netherlands government, tackles these interconnected challenges from a personal perspective. Anchored in an understanding of philosophical traditions, he emphasizes the importance of worldviews to how evidence is perceived. A historian by training, van den Berg explores the historical roots of such worldviews and how the understanding of what constitutes evidence has evolved from religious texts to science to more heterodox views.

He identifies four worldviews that are prevalent today and how they view evidence. These are: sustainable economic growth; social and economic interactions; social, economic and environmental sustainability; and populism, patriotism and conspiracies. He points out that “detachment from evidence may be a contributing factor to our failures to reign in conspiracy theories and/or racist inspired theories of our world” (p. 4).

Van den Berg defines evidence as consisting of observations, explanation, and expectations. He points out that data and observations per se do not constitute evidence. Explanation is based on theories of what the observations tell us. As for expectations, “(I)f we have credible observations that are explained by a credible theory, we can verify that the observations and explanations are correct, by making a hypothesis on what we would observe in the future” (p. 33). Evidence is thus the well-considered and reasoned judgement of the above three.

He is not afraid of expressing controversial views (in the biography at the end of the book he states that he prides himself on "independence of mind"). A main target is the mechanistic perspective adopted by many scientists. He critiques medical science that relies on randomized controlled trials as the only method for testing and approving medicines and treatments (recognizing the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical industry)—and the evaluators who have embraced RTCs as a “gold standard.” He is equally critical of physicists who focus on sub-atomic level and extrapolate these rules to human behavior (he does find some consolation in physics that recognizes the interconnectedness of all things). The strongest arguments are contained in the chapters on causality (9-10). He takes a systems perspective, arguing that higher level systems behave in non-linear ways and human actions are intentional and informed by our own will, rather than predetermined by molecular interactions. 

While causality has fallen out of favor among some physical scientists, the author makes a strong case for the importance of causality in the real world. It is also essential for the applied science and practice of evaluation (as well as policy in general). His argument is that “If we want to be successful in dealing with the sustainability crises, we need to agree on the meaning of causality, and how it helps us get out of the hole we dug for ourselves and our societies and this planet” (p. 179) and that “causality is a key ingredient to come to action based on reasoned judgements of evidence” (pp. 193-194). However, causality in real life is rarely linear: it is nearly always composite and very often complex. Two further concepts that emerge as important refer to blocked causality (in essence, barriers to change) and catalytic causality. Two chapters (10 & 11) focus on systems, including causality for transformational change and how to transform systems.

While environmental, social and economic sustainability is a constant backdrop to the book, it is in the last few chapters where it takes center stage. The penultimate chapter (12) focuses on action for transformational change based on evidence. Referring to the title of the book, the author outlines what he calls “evidence for despair” before moving to “evidence for hope.” He draws primarily from the fast advancements in energy generation and storage, and their catalytic impact. He also cites his own experiences, including with the Transformational Change Learning Partnership of the Climate Investment Funds. The author remains critical of the orthodox economics worldview but he also thinks of ways of harvesting this kind of thinking for transformation. One such way pertains to how market forces are harnessed for the energy transition. He points out that, contrary to the misinformation supplied by the fossil fuel companies and their allies, renewable energy is actually getting cheaper than the traditional alternatives, which will make market transformation inevitable. He calls for the systematization of knowledge into an easily accessible repository, thus turning “a mountain of evidence” into “a fountain of knowledge” (pp. 264-267).

Rob van den Berg is ultimately an optimist. At no point minimizing the challenges we face, he still concludes that the world is on the verge of a sustainability revolution—in fact, it is the only option for humanity. Refreshingly, he notes that many climate activists argue that “humanity needs to scale down, needs to live close to nature, needs to become sober, needs to return to living off the land, needs to stop consuming and so on” (p. 276). However, their approach would basically doom humanity to poverty and scarcity. According to van den Berg, renewable sources have the potential to provide enough energy for all of us not needing to sacrifice our comforts. “The Third Energy Revolution has barely started but shows huge promise!” (p. 278).

Rob van den Berg is extremely well-read in a wide variety of subjects and disciplines, citing equally from philosophical and historical tracts, as well as texts concerning economics and the environment. This alone makes his line of argumentation compelling and fascinating. Despite the heavy content, the book is an easy read. This is largely because of Rob’s writing style, which is quite conversational, drawing on his personal experiences and emphasizing his own viewpoints.

Highly recommended to people from a variety of backgrounds—and a variety of worldviews—this is an important contribution towards how we understand evidence and causality, and how we can all contribute to a sustainability transition.

The Asian 21st Century, by Kishore Mahbubani

 

This new book by Kishore Mahbubani, a senior Singaporean diplomat and academic, deals with the same issues as his earlier book Has China Won? The Chinese Challenge to American Supremacy. The new one is a collection of essays that have been published elsewhere in a variety of sources, with a few interviews with the author thrown in. This results in an inevitable repetitiveness throughout. This is not only the case for substance, but Mahbubani has the tendency of using same phrases and metaphors and to cite same research multiple times. Having said that, one must largely agree with Mahbubani’s analysis and viewpoints or at least take them seriously.

The first part of the book is called ‘The End of the Era of Western Domination’ in which he makes the case that the West is in denial and must learn to act strategically in a world where it is no longer Number One. He likes to quote a prescient speech by Bill Clinton at Yale University. The then-President said that at the time when the US will become No. 2 in the world, it will benefit from clear international rules. This is an excellent observation but there are many Americans who won’t accept the inevitable that the US would not always remain No. 1 and it would be almost certain political suicide for any American politician to suggest otherwise. (The propaganda about American exceptionalism starts early in US schools and society, but is not unique to America: similar indoctrination is prevalent also in other large nations, not least in China and Russia.)

Much of Mahbubani’s writing focuses on the United States and here he is at his sharpest. His main point is that the US is no longer a democracy, but has turned into a plutocracy in which a rich minority dictates national policy. As he likes to say, it is now government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. He cites research by prominent authorities, such as the Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and the Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, who have also observed this undeniable truth.  Evidence includes that the United States is the only developed country where the economic status of the lower 50% of the population has actually declined in the past three decades. He also refers several times to the “sea of despair” (a phrase coined by Princeton economists Angus Deaton and Anne Case) of American working classes, which led them to elect Donald Trump as president, mistaking his crude rhetoric for concern for the working poor, not realizing that Trump himself is a prime representative of the plutocracy. Again, despite all evidence to the contrary, most Americans are in denial that their country would no longer be a democracy.

At the root of the current situation is the Thatcher-Reagan revolution of the 1980s. It was—and remains—popular when Reagan made his speech, stating that government is not the solution to your problems; government is the problem. Mahbubani is obviously absolutely correct that this dogma of unfettered markets fixing all problems has led to many, if not most, of the problems the American society (and many others) now are beset with. Mahbubani quotes another Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen as saying that societies are best when they combine the invisible hand of markets with the visible hand of good government.

Mahbubani identifies three strategic mistakes that were made that led to the troubles that we are now experiencing. First was the failure of the elites to protect the working classes from the inevitable disruptions caused by globalization. This was partly due to the illusion of the “end of history”, as proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama, that the Western capitalist democracies had won the global competition and would thus not have to adjust to new realities. Mistake number two was the trust placed in markets and the intentional weakening of government institutions in the US. The third and final mistake was caused by the antipathy of the American business elites to paying attention to the larger social concerns, which then led to the creation of the plutocracy. Logically, they are all fixable, but it is impossible to fix a problem if you deny its existence.

The title of the book refers to the 21^st century belonging to Asia, the focus of the second part: ‘The Asian Renaissance’. It makes a historically accurate points that the past 200 or so years have been an anomaly in world history. Before that China and India’s were the two largest economies in the world. The standards of living were higher in Asia than in Europe for much of preceding history. It was Western colonialism and imperialism, enforced by military might, that changed this. Now, China and other Asian countries are just returning to their rightful place in the world as powerful countries in their own right. It is a dangerous moment as the current hegemon, USA, is in decline (at least in relative terms) but wants to ensure its continued primacy. Mahbubani cites ample statistical data to back up this contention.

He makes the great point that if American policymakers truly believed that state-led economic policy is detrimental and that markets steer capital to the most optimal allocations, why would the US harp about the Chinese government interfering in the country’s economy? Why not just let China waste its resources through planning and state-led policy? The undisputed truth is that all current developed countries have used state-led economic policy and protection of infant industries as tools during the phase when they were rising. Now they want to deny this right from other countries threatening the interests of their multinational companies and their primacy.

Mahbubani also cites the Asian response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The mortality rates paint a picture that suggests that most Asian countries have done much better than those in the West (both North America and Europe). Perhaps, however, countries like Japan, Korea, Vietnam or Singapore (as well as New Zealand and Australia) are better examples than China where the Zero-Covid policy has led to draconian lockdowns and major societal disruptions.

The third part of the book is entitled ‘The Peaceful Rise of China’. Mahbubani has strong faith in China, which may at times seem misplaced. He admits that China is not perfect but that the mistakes that have been made are excusable. He claims that China is not expansionist and does not seek to export its model of governance beyond its own borders. As evidence, he cites that China over its thousands of years of history has not sought colonies. Yet, its actions towards Taiwan (which it considers an inalienable part of One China) and around the South China Sea cast doubt on this claim. (Of course, it would be unthinkable that China would conduct “freedom of navigation” patrols in the international waters of the Caribbean, like the US and its allies do in the South China Sea.) It may be that China prefers to concur the world through economic means, like its Belt and Road Initiative would suggest. President Xi Jinping has, however, gone on record suggesting that China’s example provides an alternative development model to current developing countries (as it obviously does; again, after the fall of communism in Europe, there was a naïve belief that, given the opportunity to vote, all people in the world would naturally choose liberal democracy; a belief that was proven dramatically wrong in Egypt and in countries that US and NATO would “liberate”, in Iraq and elsewhere.)

Mahbubani also casts an understanding eye on China’s crackdown of democracy protests in Hong Kong, writing that no society tolerates violent protest and the Chinese did well in quelling such protests in Hong Kong with no lives lost (in contrast to several protest events in the US where people were killed). He also reminds us that, in general, state should have the monopoly on violence; a very valid point which, however, may not sit well with Second Amendment enthusiasts in the United States.

Overall, Mahbubani argues that, as opposed to the American plutocracy, China is a true meritocracy. This is then reflected in the highly competent government in the country an the fact that China has the highest government approval ratings anywhere in the world. He points out (several times) that the past four decades have been the best for the Chinese people in the country’s 5000-year history. The approval ratings are verifiable and may be in response to good governance (the Chinese people have made a bargain with their leaders: as long as the economy continues to grow, political rights are secondary), although one also suspects that they reflect the significantly increased patriotism among especially young Chinese caused by indoctrination and censorship (see, e.g., Tracy Wen Liu’s article in the spring 2022 issue of Foreign Policy). The fact remains that the West (and especially the US) loses many of the brightest graduates to the private sector due to the salary differential and the anti-government sentiment. Singapore, where Mahbubani is from, is arguably the most meritocratic and best run country where the best graduates go to government jobs, which are well paid and powerful (perhaps out of modesty, Mahbubani does not emphasize this).

The final part focuses on ‘Globalization, Multilateralism and Cooperation’. Mahbubani is a strong proponent of multilateral action, both at the global (the United Nations) and regional (EU, ASEAN) levels. He rightly underscores that many of the problems that the world faces—the pandemic, climate change, migration, the global economy—are beyond the ability of nation states to manage. He berates the United States and the West more generally for intentionally weaking multilateral institutions, such as the WHO which would be needed more now than ever. He recognizes that powerful countries think that multilateralism constrains them, but points out the fallacy in this argument. One of his metaphors repeated a couple of times is that today’s world is like a cruise ship with nation states as cabins. It doesn’t make sense only to keep the individual cabins clean without taking care of the entire ship.

Mahbubani is a strong believer in globalization, free trade, and competition. He laments the isolationist tendencies that populist leaders around the world favor. The US withdrawal during President Trump’s tenure from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is one of his targets. He also believes that economics will trump military strength and, therefore, in terms of four-letter abbreviations, the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that brings together 15 nations in the Asia-Pacific region)  will be more powerful than QUAD (the quadrilateral security dialogue between the USA, Australia, India and Japan).

He also emphasizes the importance of economic growth and frequently cites GDP growth figures as evidence of Asia’s (notably China and India) success. In this sense, his economic views are quite traditional. Although he mentions the problem of climate change several times, he doesn’t seem to make the connection to the growth in extraction of natural resources, production, and consumption as the drivers of climate change and wider environmental destruction. The problem with GDP is that it measures only economic output based on monetary transactions. It does not discriminate between positive and negative outputs, it doesn’t measure unpaid work (like, care of children or the elderly), and it is not negatively affected by reduced natural capital or environmental degradation.

Mahbubani clearly considers himself a practitioner of Realpolitik. His idols whom he frequently evokes include the legendary American diplomat George Kennan, the founder and long-term leader of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, and Henry Kissinger. The latter sounds odd, even callous, given how much blood, especially Asian blood (think, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh…), the man has on his hands.

Kishore Mahbubani is a significant thinker on the global policy arena. Reading him is stimulating. He is not afraid of slaying sacred cows. This is not a book to the liking of those who think that the US is the greatest country on earth and that Western style democracy will always win, but it is them who would most benefit from reading it.

Ympäristö, ilmastonmuutos ja arviointi – kohti kokonaisvaltaista näkemystä

Elämme antroposeenissä, jossa ihmisen toiminta on tärkein maapallon luontoa muokkaava tekijä. Tämä tuo uusia haasteita kehityspolitiikalle ja -ohjelmille sekä niiden arvioinnille. Ilmastonmuutos on todellisuutta, jonka kanssa meidän on pakko elää ja yrittää sopeutua sen vaikutuksiin. Maaliskuussa 2022 hallitustenvälinen ilmastopaneeli, IPCC, julkaisi uusimman raporttinsa, jonka mukaan ilmastotuhot tapahtuvat luultua nopeammin. Lämpöaalloista, metsäpaloista, kuivuudesta, myrskyistä ja nousevasta merenpinnasta aiheutuu haittoja enenevässä määrin. 

Ilmastonmuutos on kuitenkin vain yksi vakavista ympäristöongelmista. Luonnon monimuotoisuus niin laji kuin ekosysteemitasolla katoaa nopeammin kuin koskaan ennen ihmiskunnan olemassaolon aikana. Ilman, veden, maaperän ja merien saastuminen on yhä erittäin merkittävä syy ylikuolleisuuteen maailmassa, vaikka sitä ei tule puhtaan Suomen kantilta aina muistaneeksi. Maailma hukkuu jätteisiin, joita syntyy aina vain enemmän ihmisten vaurastuessa. Maailman meret kärsivät muovijätteistä. 

Covid-pandemia on muistutus siitä, kuinka luonnon ja ihmisen terveys ja hyvinvointi ovat kiinteästi toisistaan riippuvaisia. Luonnon tasapainon rikkoontumisen seurauksena ovat lisääntyneet sellaiset zoonoosit, joissa virus siirtyy eläimistä ihmisiin. Kun ihmisen toiminta tunkeutuu syvemmälle aiemmin pilaantumattomaan luontoon ja metsät kaadetaan maatalouden, kaivostoiminnan ja rakentamisen tieltä, avaamme portin uusille viruksille ja hyödytämme niitä kantavia ihmisten parissa menestyviä eläimiä, kuten rottia ja lepakoita. Samaan aikaan esim. hyttysten levittämät taudit, kuten malaria, leviävät kohti napoja ilmaston lämmetessä. 

Kaikella yllämainitulla on tärkeä sosioekonominen ulottuvuus. Haavoittuvassa asemassa olevat ihmiset ja kehitysmaat ovat myös alttiimpia ilmastonmuutokselle ja ympäristön pilaantumiselle, kun eriarvoisuus maiden välillä ja yhteiskuntien sisällä on kasvanut. 

Evaluointi tarvitsee uuden perspektiivin

Tällä on merkitystä sille, kuinka arvioimme. Perinteisesti evaluointi katsoo ohjelmia sisältäpäin: tarkastellaan onko hanke tehnyt ennalta suunniteltuja asioita ja tuottanut sovittuja palveluita tai tuotteita. Tässä lähestymistavassa keskitytään arvioimaan ohjelman onnistumista erillään laajemmasta ympäristöstä ja välittämättä siitä, tapahtuiko varsinaista muutosta siihen asiantilaan, johon haluttiin vaikuttaa. Riskinä on, että yksittäinen evaluointi jää teknokraattiseksi rasti-ruutuun harjoitelmaksi. 

Todellisen muutoksen aikaansaaminen vaatii, että kehitys- ja ympäristöpolitiikan ja ohjelmien tulee keskittyä kestämättömän kehityksen taustatekijöihin eikä vain oireisiin. Esimerkiksi Maailmanlaajuinen ympäristörahasto (Global Environment Facility, GEF) on siirtänyt strategiansa painopisteen yhteiskunnallisiin tekijöihin, joilla on eniten vaikutusta ympäristön tilaan. Sen uudet ohjelmat pyörivät ruoantuotannon, kaupunkien ja metsäkadon ympärillä sen sijaan, että rahoitettaisiin vain ympäristöystävällistä teknologiaa tai suojelualueiden perustamista. Myös näiden ohjelmien evaluointi vaatii uusia lähestymistapoja. Jos tarkastelemme vaikka maataloustuotantoa kestävän kehityksen kannalta, emme voi keskittyä ainoastaan paikallistason hankkeiden tarkasteluun irrallaan laajemmasta kokonaisuudesta. Kolme päivittäistä tuotetta – soijapavut, palmuöljy ja pihviliha – ovat vastuussa lähes 80 prosentista trooppisesta metsäkadosta. Niiden vaikutus linkittyy paikallistasolta pienviljelijätuotannosta kansainvälisen markkinoinnin ja kuljetuksen kautta kulutukseen meillä kotona. Nämä kaikki tasot on otettava huomioon niin ohjelmoinnissa kuin sen arvioinnissakin. 

Tässä muutamia ajatuksia siitä, mitä tämä kaikki merkitsee evaluoinnille. Ensinnäkin, evaluoinnin tulee hahmottaa sen kohde kokonaisvaltaisesti. Jokainen interventio tapahtuu laajemmassa kontekstissa, ja se konteksti vaikuttaa monella tapaa intervention menestykseen. GEFin itsenäisessä evaluointitoimistossa teimme hiljattain kolme evaluointia rahaston toiminnasta kolmessa eri maaryhmässä: vähiten kehittyneissä maissa, pienissä saarivaltioissa ja haavoittuvaisissa maissa tai tilanteissa. Evaluoinnit osoittivat selvästi, kuinka maan tai alueen tilanne voi heikentää tilastollisesti merkittävästi ohjelmien tuloksia. Vaikuttavat tekijät liittyvät mm. turvallisuustilanteeseen, poliittiseen epävarmuuteen ja heikkoihin instituutioihin. Jokaisessa maaryhmässä on omat erityispiirteensä ja niiden sisällä jokainen maa on erilainen. Tämä kyseenalaistaa universaalien ”parhaiden käytäntöjen” löytämisen. 

Kaikki ohjelmat toimivat laajemmassa järjestelmässä, jossa eri osat – talous, politiikka, sosiaalinen ulottuvuus, muut ohjelmat – ovat toistensa kanssa vuorovaikutuksessa. Ei ole siten mielekästä tarkastella erillisiä hankkeita eristyksessä tästä muusta ympäristöstä. Näemme usein tilanteita, joissa hankkeet ovat saavuttaneet kaikki tavoitteensa, mutta niiden vaikutus laajempaan systeemiin on merkityksetön, koska muut seikat tekevät tavoitteet tyhjiksi. Ympäristöohjelmissa tämä on valitettavan usein lopputulos. Vaikka maailmanlaajuisesti ympäristörahoitus on noussut tietoisuuden ja kansainvälisten sopimusten myötä, jää se pahasti jälkeen ympäristöön negatiivisesti vaikuttavista toimista. Kokonaisrahoitus julkisista ja yksityisistä lähteistä ilmastonmuutoksen hillintään on nykyisin arviolta 590 miljardin euron vuosiluokkaa, kun taas maat käyttävät Kansainvälisen valuuttarahaston (International Monetary Fund, IMF) mukaan noin 5,4 biljoonaa euroa vuodessa yksinomaan fossiilisten polttoaineiden tukemiseen! 

Toiseksi on tärkeää ottaa evaluoinnissa huomioon sekä ihmisten että luonnon järjestelmät. On mahdotonta saavuttaa kestävää kehitystä, jos keskitymme yhteen toisen unohtaen. Jos luonnon järjestelmät hajoavat, voimme unohtaa myös sosiaalisen ja taloudellisen kehityksen, sillä ne perustuvat hyvin pitkälti luonnonvaroihin ja vakaaseen ympäristöön. Viime vuonna julkaistu Dasguptan raportti luonnon monimuotoisuudesta tekee tämän selväksi. 

Tämä ei päde yksinomaan ympäristöohjelmien arviointiin vaan ennen kaikkea ohjelmiin, joiden kohteena on taloudellinen kehitys. Voidaan näet todeta melko kategorisesti, että kaikella ihmisen toiminnalla on ympäristövaikutuksia. Ne voivat olla positiivisia tai negatiivisia, tarkoitettuja tai tarkoittamattomia, mutta evaluoinnin on silti tuotava ne esiin. Tässä siis toinen syy, miksi evaluointi ei voi keskittyä vain tarkastelemaan onko ohjelma tehnyt sen, mitä lupasi. Evaluoinnin täytyy identifioida odottamattomat vaikutukset, ei ainoastaan ympäristölle, mutta myös haavoittuville ryhmille, vähemmistöille, naisille, alkuperäiskansoille jne. On selvää, että jos nämä vaikutukset eivät ole olleet ennalta nähtävissä, niitä ei myöskään ole huomioitu ohjelman muutosteoriassa. Siksi evaluoinnin pitää katsoa kokonaisuutta laajemmin.

Monissa tapauksissa ei ole mahdollista löytää kaikkia niin luontoa kuin ihmistä hyödyttäviä ratkaisuja, vaan tarvitaan kompromisseja. Evaluoinnin rooli ei ole päättää, mitä sellaisissa tapauksissa tulee tehdä, mutta sen velvollisuus on tuoda esiin mahdolliset ristiriidat esim. luonnonsuojelun ja taloudellisen kehityksen välillä. Evaluointi voi myös valottaa synergisiä tilanteita, joissa kaikkien tahojen edut on pystytty maksimoimaan, ja siten edistää tietoa asian tiimoilta. 

Metodit evaluointikysymysten mukaan 

Kaikki yllämainittu vaatii monimetodista lähestymistapaa evaluoinnille. Ei ole olemassa ”kultastandardia,” jossa yksi menetelmä olisi aina muita parempi. Esimerkiksi kokeelliset menetelmät, joissa hankkeen tuloksia kohderyhmälle verrataan tilastollisesti kontrolliryhmään hankkeen ulkopuolella, ovat usein hyvin vaikeita käyttää todellisissa tilanteissa, joissa puntarissa on ihmisten ja luonnon hyvinvointi. Niiden käyttö voi sopia tarkasti rajattuihin hankkeisiin, mutta ei ohjelmatasolla tai laajempien yhteyksien ymmärtämiseen. Vaikka joissain tilanteissa voitaisiinkin näyttää tilastollisia eroja hankkeen kohderyhmän ja kontrolliryhmän välillä, on niiden selittäminen vaikeaa pelkän tilastoanalyysin kautta.

Koska GEFin hankkeet keskittyvät ympäristöön, käytämme niiden arviointiin usein geospatiaalisia menetelmiä. Kaukokartoitus auttaa näkemään muutokset aikajaksojen yli vaikkapa kasvillisuuden tuottavuudessa, metsäpeitteessä ja -tyypeissä, maaperän eroosiossa tai asutuksen ja tieverkon laajentumisessa. Tarvitsemme muita tiedonlähteitä, jotta voimme ymmärtää muutoksiin vaikuttaneet tekijät. Kenttätyö ja haastattelut ovat tärkeitä, mutta vastauksia voi myös etsiä jo julkaistusta kirjallisuudesta. Esimerkiksi evaluointimme GEFin metsänsuojeluhankkeista Kambodzhassa ja Vietnamissa paljasti, miten sama lähestymistapa johti varsin erilaisiin tuloksiin maitten välillä. Näiden erojen selittäminen vaati evaluaattoreiltamme paneutumista tieteellisiin artikkeleihin ja paikalliseen tutkimukseen. Näistä selvisivät ne poliittiset, sosiaaliset ja taloudelliset tekijät, joiden johdosta hankkeiden vaikutukset erosivat toisistaan niin merkittävästi.

Evaluointi voi auttaa meitä hillitsemään tehokkaammin ilmastonmuutosta ja ympäristön tuhoutumista. Tämä kuitenkin vaatii evaluoinnilta uutta, laajempaa perspektiiviä. Meidän on tarkasteltava ohjelmia ja hankkeita kokonaisvaltaisesti. Systeemiteoreettisesti nähtynä nämä ovat osa laajempaa rakennetta. Pystymme näkemään ihmisen ja luonnonjärjestelmät yhtenä toisiinsa liittyvänä kokonaisuutena ja myös huomioimaan ennakoimattomat vaikutukset. Tällöin evaluointi pystyy tuottamaan hyödyllistä tietoa perusteellisemman muutoksen aikaansaamiseksi.

[Published originally in the 2021 Annual Report on Evaluation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.]