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.

Exploring Miyagi Wetlands

All photos by the author

The wind was blowing hard across the open flat space as we arrived at Izu-numa. All boats had been stranded and moored by the lakeside. This was a disappointment but understandable. I could see the bamboo thickets on the northern side of the lake bending in the wind while hawks soared above taking advantage of the lift provided by the airflow.

Izu-numa is one of the wetlands in Miyagi Prefecture of Japan, designated as a Ramsar Site. It’s located north of the prefectural capital of Sendai, which received some international fame during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people and led to a partial meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant. We had arrived from the opposite direction, from Oshu in Iwate Prefecture just some 100 km further north on the Japanese mainland. I was traveling with a small group of friends from Oshu in their van.

Instead of getting on a boat, we walked around the shore where the lake gave way, first, to a carpet of water lilies, then a brush of reeds growing in the soft, muddy soil. Some birds, including a couple of egrets with their wings shiny white under the summer sun, took of from the undergrowth as they detected our approaching steps. The whole landscape was deep green against a blue sky on which fluffy cumulus clouds traveled fast driven by the wind.

The lake, although shallow – 1.6 meters at its deepest point – is very rich in biodiversity. There are 40 fish species that have been identified in the lake. That is many more than in most freshwater lakes or ponds. Several of these fishes belong to the family of carps. The lake and the surrounding wetland is one of the most important wintering locations for birds, such as whooper swans, in Japan. It is estimated that 90 percent of the greater white-fronted geese traversing Japan stop at the lake. All of 236 bird species have been identified in the area. The wetland is also well-known for its insect life, especially that of dragonflies. For all these reasons, the Isu-numa – Uchi-numa wetland complex was the second in Japan to be designated a Ramsar site in 1985, just after the Kushiro wetlands in Hokkaido. Wetlands are among the most productive and biologically rich ecosystems in the world. As such, they are also essential for human well-being.

After spending time on the lake shores, we entered the well-equipped Sanctuary Center on a knoll just above the wetland. Operated by the Miyagi Prefectural Izunuma-Uchinuma Environmental Foundation, the modern building is designed to resemble a white swan spreading its wings. Despite its size, it fits well into the landscape, with large panoramic windows overlooking the natural area. The Foundation engages in conservation, information and research work. The exhibits in the two-story hall were very interesting. Luckily for me, there was a staff member who was delighted to explain some of it in fluent English to me.

The Ramsar Convention was adopted in 1971 and came into force in 1975. It is thus one of oldest modern international environmental agreements. Its official name is the Convention on Wetlands and it provides an international framework for the conservation and wise use of these productive landscapes that are extremely important for the preservation of biological diversity, water and other assets that are essential for the survival of our species. Ramsar is a city in Iran where the agreement was created. Since then, almost nine-tenths of the world’s countries have become “contracting parties” to the Convention. The United States has been a member since 1986 and boasts 41 Ramsar sites, ranging from the Aleutian Islands and Hawaii to all over the continental lower 48 states.

Japan joined in 1980 and has all of 53 Ramsar sites, again ranging from Hokkaido in the north to Okinawa in the south. Six of the sites are in the Tohoku region, which comprises the northern segment of the main island, Honshu. 

These include the Izu-numa and Uchi-numa National Wildlife Protection Area and Nature Protection Area covering 559 ha. Izu-numa and Uchi-numa are two interconnected freshwater lakes and their surrounding peat swamps in the In the Hasama River basin. Outside of the protected area, agriculture and especially rice cultivation prevails. The Hasama itself is a tributary of the Kitakamigawa, the largest river in northern Japan and one of my absolute favorites in the world, flowing from its origins at Mt. Nanashigure through Iwate and Miyagi prefectures until it reaches the Pacific Ocean. 

The two lakes and wetlands have extensive reed beds and are characterized by submerged vegetation, including water lilies. The alluvial plain is also one of the very few locations in Japan where wild rice grows, providing important nutrition to visiting waterfowl. Numerous species of Anatidae — ducks, geese, swans and related water birds — winter in the Izu-numa / Uchi-numa area. Already in 1967, the Government of Japan designated the area’s birdlife and habitat as a National Monument. One of the curiosities that demonstrates the closeness of the Japanese people and nation to nature is the designation of national soundscapes. In 1996, the call of the greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons) was selected as one of the 100 Soundscapes of Japan by the MInistry of Environment (in another blog, I mentioned that the wind chimes at Mizusawa train station are also designated as such). 

Current Ramsar-related research in the area focuses on the declining growth of wild rice and the wintering bird populations. Some of this research – and conservation action – is conducted by the Izunuma-Uchinuma Environmental Foundation, which engages in prevention of further shallowing of the lakes, eradication of harmful invasive species (like the largemouth bass), planting wild rice, and clearing excessive reed beds.

Leaving Izu-numa and its excellent information center, we circled the lake by its eastern end, exiting the nature protection area. Our next destination was Naga-numa, another shallow lake of similar size and oblong shape. It is located about 10 km southeast of Izu-numa and Uchi-numa in the town of Tome.  At the entrance to the lake there is a park, Naganuma Futopia Park, with its landmark Dutch windmill erected in 1991.

Luckily for us, the wind had abated and we were able to find a boater who would take us on the lake. We entered the small vessel covered with a canopy made of reeds. Even more than Izu-numa, Naga-numa was almost entirely covered by water lilies, except for two open water areas, in front of the small boat harbor and the center of the lake. The local boatman explained that this summer there were more water lilies than ever in the past decade.

Traversing the water lily beds, the boat gained speed entering the open water until we reached the other side of the lake where the lilies floated thick in a wide stretch. We lingered a good while, floating amongst the beautiful red flowers and large green leaves. The day was hot and sunny but there was a cooling breeze on the water. I felt very calm and satisfied with our outing in the beautiful and unique nature.

My friends taking a selfie among the Lotus

I want a world where evidence counts

Today’s world is not my kind of place. I want to live in a rational world where intelligent women and men debate ideas in a reasoned way and in which they make decisions based on evidence: scientific evidence, evaluative evidence, evidence based on analyzing facts and past experiences. A world where emotions and feelings have a role but they don’t replace knowledge. Instead, they help us define the goals about what kind of future we want. In my preferred world, the women and men – all of us – who look at data and think about how we got here, and which way we should go next and how to get there, are educated and cultured. They know history and they understand culture.

We will still disagree with each other, as we come from different backgrounds and we have had different experiences that have shaped our worldview. We can disagree on issues of societal importance: Where shall we place our limited resources? What is the right level of government involvement in the economy? How large income differences can we tolerate? How should we punish offenders? How much immigration is good? We can debate all these important policy matters in a civilized manner, and evidence of what actually brings us towards our policy goals will inform our decision-making.

There is no one great truth. Intelligent, thoughtful people can arrive at very different conclusions. Furthermore, the devil is often in the details. The answer is seldom, if ever, all or nothing. For example, in education, as Matthew Yglesias points out on Substack, there are “tradeoffs between cultivating the performance of the strongest students and shoring up the performances of the weakest ones.” The trick here, as in most policy matters, is to calibrate the policies so that they produce an optimal outcome in terms of encouraging the best students to excel without creating excessive inequalities. There are empirical ways of finding that sweet spot.

There, nevertheless, are truths that are fixed: the Earth is not flat; dinosaurs did not roam around with cavemen; gravity causes light to bend; emitting CO₂ and methane into the atmosphere warms up global climate. Journalists who present “both sides of the story” in the name of evenhandedness when one side represents an obvious falsehood do a great disservice. People are entitled to their opinions but if someone claims something that is patently false – like, the world was created 5,000 years ago – they are dismissed as a crank. People worship thousands of different gods and an increasing number of us are at the very least agnostic about the existence of even one. Yet, every believer also believes that believing in their god and worshipping him or her exactly the way prescribed by their religion is the only way to heaven, while others are sent to eternal damnation. Going to war or killing each other based on religious differences may be the most irrational thing humans engage in.

Today, identity politics seem to rule. It is somewhat ironic that the origin of identity politics is at the Right end of the spectrum (the white supremacists with their “great replacement theory”), but it has now been owned by the progressive Left – and for them, the identity that overwhelms everything else is race. Well, we know, of course, that the continuum, rather than a straight line, is circular and the opposite ends eventually meet. Humans naturally have multiple identities. I personally don’t think of myself primarily as white or even a man. I am also a father and a husband in a multi-cultural and multi-racial family,  a son of my parents (who both have left us), a Finn, a European and an immigrant, speaker of a minority language, a jazz afficionado, an environmentalist, a culinarist, etc. etc. The notion of reducing everything to race (and gender) is plain insulting. Not to mention intellectually lazy, especially in a world where a steadily increasing proportion of people defy simple racial categories. Like my own daughter. Yet, now we see segregation again, this time voluntarily initiated by some colored persons, including at some universities. What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. think? His goal was a colorblind society where every human is judged by their character, not by the color of their skin. Or Nelson Mandela who prioritized peaceful coexistence and forgiveness over revenge and mayhem?

The preposterous ”great replacement theory” assumes a wide conspiracy whereby Jews and liberal elites are intentionally promoting immigration (illegal and otherwise) of colored non-Christian people to America and Europe so that whites would become a minority. Conspiracies tend to be generally implausible because they assume that, well, large numbers of people actually conspire towards some nefarious goal – and no-one ever spills the beans. This doesn’t mean that conspiracies are non-existent. But many of the conspiracy theories going around sound like they came from a 1950s B-list horror-movie, like the one about elites actually smuggling children whom they would eat at a secret basement of a pizzeria in Washington, DC (coincidentally, a pizzeria that I and my family have personally frequented). In an election year, there have been congressional efforts to solve the immigration crisis at the southern border of the USA, but a certain group of rightwing representatives has blocked any solution or compromise because they want to use the administration’s inability to deal with illegal immigration as an election trump card (on June 4, President Joe Biden used executive authority to impose new restrictions on illegal immigration). If that’s a conspiracy – and maybe it is – it certainly isn’t a secret one. Cynical it is: to prevent a solution to a problem that ranks high on people’s list of worries just so you can paint your opponent as incapable.

The debate on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic provides another example of the politicization of an issue that should be evidence-based. While both theories of a natural origin and a lab leak are plausible, there is compelling evidence that would point to the latter (the principle of Occam’s razor would strongly favor a lab leak). Yet, in the US congress the issue has become sharply divisive along party lines. Despite scientific evidence, the Democrats flatly refuse even to consider the possibility of a lab leak, apparently fearing that it would further erode trust in the government and the scientific community.

The cynicism of politicians breeds cynicism among regular people. If we are concerned about democracy, we should fight cynicism, which makes people feel that their actions – or voting – have no influence on anything. Cynicism’s sibling, sarcasm, is an unhelpful attempt at humor but it seems to be the dominant form now.

I believe that a key to the gridlock on many fronts would be placing evidence in its rightful place. Evidence comes from a variety of sources and in different shapes. However, it is not evidence just because it’s written in a book that some consider holy. Nor is it evidence if it simply is based on some person’s feelings. We know that in a criminal court, the rules of evidence are stringent. Prosecutors must present the evidence in a systematic way so as to convince the judge and the jury that there is no reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt. The system is not infallible but, as a rule, no single piece of evidence alone is sufficient to convict a person. And when new evidence – or better methods of discovering evidence – is presented, this will be weighed against the previous verdict. This is pretty much how science works as well. Scientists use the best available methods, considering all possible factors and alternative explanations, to home in on the theory that best stands up to scrutiny – convincing the peer reviewers and the broader scientific community is a bit like convincing the jury of your peers – until something comes along that calls for rethinking or refining the theory.

Evaluative evidence equally draws upon multiple sources of information using multiple methods. Some methods – like randomized controlled trials – have been borrowed from medicine but they are by no means the only, or even the best, source of evidence. Apart from quantitative methods, there are qualitative approaches that can be equally rigorous. Participatory approaches engage the claimholders and intended beneficiaries, so that their experiences weigh in on the assessment (again, the experience of a single individual does not constitute evidence and it’s important to recognize that different groups of people may win or lose and have different priorities and expectations in the first place). We need what Michael Quinn Patton has called bricolage, a full set of approaches and methods from which to select the most appropriate for each question to be answered.

One of the founders of the discipline of evaluation, the American psychologist and methodologist Donald T. Campbell (1916-1986) wished for a society that would be guided by evidence. Policies would be developed on the basis of what works, instead of political convictions. This vision may never come to pass – and maybe that’s a good thing, as we do need a healthy debate on the goals that we would like to advance as a society. However, today we seem to be further away from this vision than in a long while. Not only is trust in science and expertise at an extraordinarily low level, we don’t even want to hear any opinion or counterargument that contradicts our deep-seated beliefs. On both the Left and the Right there are efforts to silence, sometimes violently, voices that do not conform with their worldview.

This is a sad state of affairs. Without a reasoned, evidence-based debate society will not be able to advance.

The High Death-toll of American Traffic

Earlier this year, my wife witnessed a pedestrian being hit by a car on our city street in Maryland. It wasn’t tragic and no-one got badly hurt but the event was in some ways enlightening. There’s a four-way crossing with a bit complicated arrangement for the traffic lights. There’s a moment when all lights are red, both for cars and pedestrians, from all directions. This gives pedestrians the temptation to start crossing just when one of the lights for cars turns green. This is what happened this time around, too: a mother with a young daughter made the wrong decision to start crossing just when the driver saw it was her turn. The driver was in hospital scrubs, perhaps a doctor on her way to work, given that she was driving a Mercedes. She bumped lightly into the mother who fell, but quickly got up. Nevertheless, the police arrived a few minutes later. 

The New York Times did a widely publicized study a couple of months back about pedestrian deaths in the USA going up. They found that in 1980, pedestrian deaths in the US started to decline sharply, but three decades later this trend was reversed and has been going up since then. In this respect, the US is bucking the international trend of declining accidents involving pedestrians.

When it comes to overall traffic deaths (not only pedestrians), deaths per capita and per distance driven are highest in Africa. However, the US is an anomaly when it comes to advanced industrial societies. In the US, there were 12.9 traffic deaths per 100,000 people. This compares unfavorably with all European countries (e.g., in the UK, the number is 2.9; in Finland 3.8; in France 5.0; and in Sweden only 2.2), Australia (4.1) and Japan (2.5). Now, especially if you’re American, you would retort that Americans drive more. But the ratio remains even if compared with distances driven: USA 8.3 deaths per 1 billion vehicle-kilometers vs. 5.2 in Australia, 5.1 in Finland, 5.8 in France, 4.4 in Japan, 3.3 in Sweden, and 3.8 in the UK. By any measure, thus, traffic is more deadly in the US than in peer countries.

In 2021, 7,300 pedestrians died in the USA, three-quarters of them at nighttime. The NYT article put forth a number of reasons why this was happening. One reason is that speed limits on local roads in the US are often higher than in other countries. Another obvious one is that American infrastructure was built for cars, as opposed to countries where cities predate cars. NYT also suggests that US laws and cultural norms don’t penalize dangerous driving.

An important factor identified by the Times reporter, which also coincides perfectly with the timing of increased pedestrian deaths about 15 years ago, is the prevalence of smartphones. In the same period, car dashboards and control systems have become more complicated, especially with the rise of hybrid and electric vehicles. Both of these factors mean that drivers can become quite distracted fiddling with their electronic screens. I might add to the technological factor that cars have also become more quiet making their approach less obvious to pedestrians.

Each of these reasons is a likely partial explanation. I’d like to focus on the cultural dimension.

The Times article points out that there has been a geographical and demographic shift where more people have moved to the sunbelt in the south where urbanization came later and roads and cities were built particularly for cars. Data show that in the older cities (like New York City or Chicago), pedestrian deaths have actually fallen but they have risen steeply in suburbs where sidewalks and public transit options are lacking. This is combined with the “suburbanization of poverty” whereby poorer people and immigrants often have been pushed out from city centers and have to walk along big roads to get to work. They also often have to walk during dark hours when they are hard to spot.

A friend of mine lives in a Virginia suburb not far from the capital. Their community is intersected by a big road on which speeds are often quite fast. As there is perhaps a kilometer between the traffic lights where pedestrians can cross, the residents petitioned the county to establish another pedestrian crossing between the two existing ones. The county sheriff didn’t allow this on the grounds that it would “encourage risky behavior by pedestrians.” Crossing the street on foot in one’s own neighborhood to reach shops and services is considered too risky and inconveniencing drivers.

But even in urban areas like ours where sidewalks exist and walking is common, the general mindset is that cars go first. Might makes right. This is the polar opposite of how things are seen in Europe where pedestrians in cities always have the right of way. I remember decades ago when I was attending driving school in Helsinki, I got slammed by the instructor for the fact that I only slowed down to let a pedestrian cross the road, instead of stopping fully. (That is another difference: In the US, few people ever go to driving school. They just learn with an older family member, then go to the department of motor vehicles and take a multiple choice test. Consequently, many drivers never internalize the rules of traffic.) Irrespective of the speed limit, in places like Finland the authorities judge that your situational speed was too high if you were not able to stop before hitting a pedestrian. You will get fined for that. Here it is not so. Cars drive fast, are hard and heavy, and therefore you have to give them way.

There’s a traffic rule that is uniquely American: the right to make a right turn against a red light. I’ve heard men say how great this is because it gives so much flexibility and reduces wait times. However, the rule is widely abused and few drivers remember that it still means that you’ll first have to stop at the red light to see whether there’s anyone coming from the left. Instead, people often just turn into the middle of a stream of cars forcing others to give way, as if it were the birth right of the person coming from behind the red light. At busy intersections there are “no turn on red” signs and even traffic light arrows that turn red, but these have little or no impact on many drivers. Needless to say, if there’s a pedestrian or a biker with the right of way, such drivers couldn’t be bothered to watch out for them. A former biking colleague of mine has been knocked over at least twice by drivers who didn’t recognize the equal rights of a bicycle on the street.

I remember years ago when living in Brooklyn, NY – another urban area with proper sidewalks where people walk everywhere – I was walking home from the subway. I was crossing at a zebra crossing in the same direction I was walking when a car turned right and almost hit me. The driver, a young white hipster-looking fellow, screamed at me from his window: “Watch out! If I wasn’t paying attention, you’d be dead.” I guess I should be happy that he was paying attention while speeding through a city block in his metal box (even if it was a Mini).

Another factor also identified by the NYT research is that Americans drive extraordinarily large vehicles and that their size has been steadily growing in the past 15 years. As cars get larger and heavier they also become far deadlier to those they hit. Furthermore, they have longer brake distances and are harder to handle. Even in the city where there can be no need for such a large vehicle, I often observe soccer moms driving a massive Chevy Suburban or Ford Expedition. It’s often hard to even detect a small lady from the cockpit of the truck.

In 2023, the list of best selling cars, trucks and SUVs in the USA was topped by three massive trucks: Ford F-series, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram pickup (weighing between 1,800 and 3,100 kg). In Finland, in contrast, the top-3 the year before were Toyota Yaris, Toyota Corolla and Toyota RAV4; the two first ones being small compact cars (489-710 kg). A friend of mine who moved back to the Netherlands from Washington, DC, decided to sell his Prius because in his country it was considered unnecessarily large.

I claim that this trend towards larger and larger vehicles is also culturally determined. It sits well with the American image of a frontier man or woman, ploughing his own way forward irrespective of what or who comes in their way.

At the risk of stereotyping, there are certain kinds of drivers that may be more aggressive than average. One category consists of people driving luxury vehicles, possibly because such persons may feel entitled or just want to show off. There is some evidence for this. A research team supported by the Academy of Finland found that there are two types of people who drive what they called “high-status” cars: disagreeable men and conscientious people. (Their research was published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Psychology with subtle title, Not only assholes drive Mercedes.)  Even after controlling for wealth, these two characteristics stood out in statistically significant form. The researchers, led by Prof. Jan Erik Lönnqvist, concluded that “certain personality traits, such as low agreeableness, may be associated with both unethical driving behaviour and with driving a high-status car.”

This research is in a way confirmed in a 2023 report by a Finnish insurance company that found that BMWs and Audis top the list of cars that are involved in traffic accidents in Finland, with over 20% more accidents compared with other car brands. When it comes to collissions with animals (Finland has a lot of deer and other wildlife right outside of cities), BMWs are the unfortunate leaders, while Audis come second in this dubious list with 15% less collisions.

I also suspect a general American characteristic, which may be a trait stemming all the way from the kinds of immigrants this country attracted hundreds of years ago. The Europeans who voluntarily moved to the New Continent were not a random selection of Europeans. No, there was a preselection of people who were individualistic risk takers seeking their fortunes on the new frontier. While many were forced to leave due to food shortages caused by bad harvest, many were escaping established hierarchies back home, some being misfits in the more staid European societies. Even today, the USA is known for its emphasis on individual action and a me-first attitude. This may have produced many good things along the way, but when it comes to traffic behavior it does not emphasize safety. In fact, incidents of aggression, even road rage are a regular feature when driving in the States.

This cultural trait also makes Americans overall a very impatient lot. Drivers feel certain of their own rights. Bikers think that traffic rules don’t apply to them, so they seldom stop at red lights and feel free to ride against the traffic on one-way streets or jump on the sidewalk when convenient. For most pedestrians, it seems to be psychologically impossible to wait for the light to turn green. This impatience and sense of entitlement appears to have been the cause of the accident that my wife witnessed, when a mother and daughter ran against the red light just as an impatient driver stepped on the gas.

Integrating Environmental and Socioeconomic Domains for Sustainability

 This blog was published on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Independent Evaluation Office website in connection with the 4th Conference on Evaluating Environment and Development, March 5-7, 2024.

The world is facing a triple environmental crisis of climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem loss, and pollution. Inequality between and within countries is on the rise. While many formerly developing countries now have moved to the middle-income category, many others have fallen into fragility and vulnerability. Tensions and wars proliferate: the number of armed conflicts around the world is now at their highest level in three decades. The current refugee crisis is a hot political issue all over the world.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognize the equal importance of the social, economic, and environmental dimensions. However, current trends show that progress is highly uneven and that most of the universal goals will not be achieved by the target date of 2030. All these challenges are tightly interwoven. Therefore, the theme of the 4th Conference on Evaluating Environment and Development is integrating environmental and socioeconomic domains for sustainability.

On the environmental front, there has been a proliferation of treaties and funds, mostly focusing on climate change – the Green Climate Fund, the Climate Investment Funds, and the Adaptation Fund, just to name a few. At the COP28, in December 2023, the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund was seen as a major breakthrough. While the GEF has long been the only one focusing on ecosystem management, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Fund has recently been added to its purview. There are also new international agreements developed on plastic waste and biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These important developments hide the fact that financial flows still favor activities that are harmful to the global environment. IMF estimates that fossil fuel subsidies alone amounted to a mind-boggling $5.9 trillion in 2020, while total financing for the global environment from both public and private sources is estimated at $632 billion during the same timeframe.

For organizations like the GEF, it is not enough to focus strictly on conservation. There has been a realization that we must address the root causes of environmental degradation. This insight has led to the development of a set of programs that focus on critical issues, such as food systems and sustainable cities in an integrated manner. There is also a new emphasis on policy coherence, so that the strides made in the environmental arena are not undone by policies and actions in other areas. This problem has led to the paradoxical situation that while many projects succeed in reaching their objectives, the environmental macro trends are still declining.

This all has implications for evaluation. Lots of progress has been made and the environment is increasingly recognized as important by evaluators. However, much remains to be done. Evaluation is still largely focusing on individual projects without paying attention to the larger context in which they operate. Similarly, evaluations are still often ignoring the natural environment. The focus on individual projects also risks missing the unintended consequences of interventions, be it to the environment or to vulnerable groups, such as Indigenous peoples. If evaluation wants to contribute to sustainability transitions and remain relevant to the pressing contemporary problems, it must up its game and take a comprehensive look at both human and natural systems. Sustainable development happens at their nexus, if it is going to happen at all. I believe that conferences like this will help us move the needle in the right direction.

This conference brings together streams of sessions that deal with critical issues, building upon the science of integration and the importance of systems thinking. While there are sessions on the more traditional environmental issues – climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable forestry and land use, biodiversity, chemicals and waste – we also focus on the drivers of (un)sustainability. We look into how fragility, conflict and vulnerability influence program performance and how evaluation must incorporate them. Behavior change is another important topic for evaluation where innovation is needed. Similarly, inclusion, appreciating Indigenous worldviews, and decolonizing evaluation are areas where we are happy to partner with our co-sponsors, including the International Evaluation Academy and the International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS). The Global Evaluation Initiative (GEI) brings us valuable perspectives from governments helping to mainstream the environment into evaluations. And I’m very pleased that we will have discussions on the role of the private sector and philanthropy, and environmental finance more broadly, as these actors are sorely needed.

It is my sincere hope – and conviction – that the conference will advance how evaluation can better and more effectively respond to the demands for sustainability in our interconnected world.