the climate change evaluators‘ community of practice: meta-evaluations for climate change...

The Climate Change Evaluators‘ Community of Practice: Meta-Evaluations for Climate Change Mitigation; Tools and Usability

PresentationIPEN 2012

Astana, KazakhstanDr. Christine Wörlen

Outline

• The Climate-Eval Community of Practice• The tools for evaluating climate mitigation projects • --- and how they can be used for project design• The other opportunities for knowledge creation at the

community of practice

The Climate-Eval Community of Practice

History

• 2007 Astana Workshop• 2008 Alexandria Conference• 2009 Website• 2010 linked-in• 2011 Jordan; Durban• 2012 – Russian-language group in Linked-In

Functions: Knowledge repositoryAnalytical work

Important elements

• Andrew• Website• Linked-in• Webinars• Discussions (online, telephone)• Some face-to-face interaction

Analytical work of the Climate-Eval Community of Practice: The Mitigation Meta-Evaluation as an example

Typical climate change mitigation evaluation challenges (I)

– Baseline issues: counterfactual can be difficult

– Ultimate impact: GHG-emission reduction together with economic development (→ indicator and measurement challenges)

– is mostly not reached directly but through changes in behaviour (investment, utilization) of GHG emitting actors and their supply chain

Evaluation Framework (Tokle and Uitto (2009))

GHG emissionsreduction or avoidance

Sustainable market transformation for increased energy savings

or applications of renewable energy

Demonstrate creative project approaches

and technologies

Develop and disseminate

Information and knowledge

Develop business models and provide enterprise support

Develop financing instruments

and mechanisms

Develop enabling policies standards and certification

Innovation and technology diffused

Awareness created

Adequate business infrastructure

Adequate finance available

Enabling policies, strategies, standards and certification in place

RESU

LTS

PERF

ORM

ANCE

Impacts

Outcomes

Strategies

Evaluation framework

Typical climate change mitigation evaluation challenges (II)

– Not only one group of stakeholders plays a role in achieving that result, but a whole sector; consisting of users, suppliers, financiers and policy .

– But: many climate mitigation interventions affect only one group of stakeholders (e.g. users OR supply chain OR policy makers OR financiers).

– Issues with attribution and context complicate „usual“ measurement challenges – even for the evaluation of a single awareness or capacity building measure, the context and other initiatives need to be taken into account.

Keep developing this Framework Theory of Changeso that it will be able to :

– Reproduce „complete“ theory of change – not just the groups / capacities / factors / aspects that are the subject of the project

– Reflect sectoral context in a complete but „lean“ manner– Reflect relative importance of impeding / supportive factors for

intervention results– Allow for the development of (outcome) indicators across

stakeholders and interventions and GHG savings potentials– Be flexible and rigorous at the same time

Evaluation Framework (Tokle and Uitto (2009))

GHG emissionsreduction or avoidance

Sustainable market transformation for increased energy savings

or applications of renewable energy

Demonstrate creative project approaches

and technologies

Develop and disseminate

Information and knowledge

Develop business models and provide enterprise support

Develop financing instruments

and mechanisms


Innovation and technology diffused

Awareness created

Adequate business infrastructure

Adequate finance available

Enabling policies, strategies, standards and certification in place

RESU

LTS

PERF

ORM

ANCE

Impacts

Outcomes

Strategies

Evaluation framework

Policy makers

Financial sector

Financial sector

Supply chain and infrastructure

Theory of Non-Change: Barriers to energy-efficiency behavior

Every group of stakeholders can slow down the diffusion of new technologies / behaviors. Typically, they are impeded by

• IGNORANCE, • LACK OF MOTIVATION, • LACK OF ACCESS; • LACK OF EXPERTISE; • LACK OF BUSINESS MODELS, • LACK OF COST EFFECTIVENESS; • LACK OF AFFORDABILITY

Policy makers

Consumers / Users

Financial sector

Supply chain and infrastructure

Strategies to remove the barriers to energy-efficiency behavior

• IGNORANCE, • LACK OF MOTIVATION, • LACK OF ACCESS; • LACK OF EXPERTISE; • LACK OF BUSINESS

MODELS, • LACK OF COST

EFFECTIVENESS; • LACK OF AFFORDABILITY

• Information campaigns • Incentives (financial / nonfinancial) • Buildup of infrastructure • Capacity building• Business model development and

demonstration • Reduce cost (economies of scale,

economies of scope, subsidies)• Make financing available

•motivation•awareness• expertise•affordability

•awareness•expertise•affordability•Business model

•awareness•motivation • expertise •access•cost effectiveness• affordability

Potential barriers to market transformation and intervention strategies (TOC 2)

•awareness•expertise•access•business model•cost effectiveness•affordability

Consumers / users

Supply chain and

infrastructure

Financial sector

Policy makers

Necessary precondition for MT and immediate outcome ccm intervention

Stakeholder Group

Market transformation from GHG-emitting to GHG non-emitting behavior

GHG emission reduction / reduced climate change impact Overarching objective

Barrier Removal Strategies (incomplete)

Develop and disseminate Information and knowledge for awareness

Technical training

Financial assistance (investment subsidies , loans, financial risk guarantees)

Provision of external advice and best practice models


Develop locally adapted solutions (business models, contractual arrangements, technologies)

•Lack of motivation / interest•Lack of awareness of energy efficient technology (ignorance)•Lack of technical competence (expertise) for designing effective policies•Lack of fiscal means (affordability)

•Lack of technical competence for evaluating

technology (expertise)•Lack of business model (risk)•Lack of cost effectiveness

•Lack of liquidity (affordability)

•Lack of awareness of energy efficient technology (ignorance)•Lack of motivation / interest•Lack of technical competence

(expertise)•Lack of access to technology •Lack of cost effectiveness•Lack of investment capital

(affordability)

Stakeholder and potential barriers to market transformation

•Lack of awareness of energy efficient technology (ignorance)•Lack of technical competence (expertise)•Lack of access to technology for manufacturing or distribution•Lack of business model•Lack of cost effectiveness•Lack of working capital (affordability)

Market Transformation

GHG redu +econ. benefit

“Barrier Circle” – or “why things are NOT changing”

Red: “This barrier is a show-stopper for the market.”

Orange: “This is a significant barrier.”

Yellow: “Not a good situation, but no significant challenge.”

Green: “This potential barrier is not impeding market development.”

Ignorance

lack of expertise

Lack of cost effectiveness

Lack of business model

Lack of interest/ motivation

ignorance

lack of expertise

lack of affordability

Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access

Lack of affordability



Households: Lighting and Refrigeration, 1992

Consumers/ UsersSupply Cain

and Infrastructure

Policy makers

local financiers

Market Transformation

GHG Mitigation plus Economic

Benefit

Simplification: leave off inner two circles (intermediate and ultimate objectives)

Ignorance

lack of expertise




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access





Consumers/ Users

Supply Cain and Infrastructure

Policy makers local financiers

Then: Overlay with project

Ignorance

lack of expertise




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access





Consumers/ Users

Supply Cain and Infrastructure

Policy makers local financiers

Project strategies can be aligned with the respective barriers.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Awareness Campaign

Labels

Labels

Labels

bulk purchases

Consultancy

bulk purchases

TONC-Circle and Barrier Removal Strategies

Ignorance

lack of expertise




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers IgnoranceLack of interest/ motivation

lack of expertise

Lack of access



Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access


Lack of cost effectivenessLack of business model


Consumers/ UsersSupply Cain

and Infrastructure

Policy makers

local financiers

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Awareness Campaign

Labels

Labels

Labels

bulk purchases

Consultancy

bulk purchases

Approach of this study

- Test Theory of Non-Change (TONC) on a set of climate mitigation interventions from one sector (e.g. energy efficient products)

- Refine TONC, clarify terminology and barrier-strategy couples- Test on other sectors- …to develop generalized Sector Transformation TOC- (Develop indicators for the barriers. As barrier removal is the result of

the project, these can also be the result indicators for market transformation interventions.)

NB: Evaluation studies are the only possible source for this type of analysis. However, due to the variations in evaluation questions and other factors, not all of them are equally useful for this analysis.

Testing the TONC: Market Transformation through Demand Side Management in Thailand since 1992• Thai economy: 10.6% annual growth between 1986 and 1995• Energy demand increased in step• In 1992: Energy Conservation Law with obligatory energy reporting for large consumers and

other (softer) measures.• The national energy utility EGAT started • We look at 2 cases:

– energy efficient lighting in households and – energy efficiency in industrial and commercial facilities

• Crises: – Thai / Asian Financial Crisis in 1997– Privatization of EGAT in 2000-2002

• Test Question: can the model reflect market transformation successes and failures?

Three different markets

• Replacing T12 tubes by T8 tubes• Replacing light bulbs with energy savings bulbs (compact

fluorescent lamps, CFLs)• Replacing inefficient building chillers (large AC units) in

commercial and industrial buildings with efficient building chillers.

Market barrier cycle for efficient T8 light tubes in 2002 (Na Phuket; WB Post-IA)

Ignorance

lack of expertise




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



IgnoranceLack of expertise

Lack of access




Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers

Supply Chain and Infrastructure

Local Financiers

WB DSM + GTZ project activities for T8 light tubes(Na Phuket, Sulyma, WB)

Ignorance

lack of expertise


Lack of business modelLack of interest/ motivation

ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access


Lack of cost effectiveness#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access




Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

consensus building

Labels

Labels

consensus buildingConsultancy

Awareness Campaign

Labels

campaign

Labels

T8 market after DSM Project in 2000 (WB evaluations)

Ignorance

lack of expertise


Lack of business modelLack of interest/ motivation

ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access


Lack of cost effectivenessIgnorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access




Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Market barrier cycle for energy savings bulbs (CFL)(Na Phuket; WB Post-IA)

Ignorance

lack of expertise


Lack of business modelLack of interest/ motivationignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access


Lack of cost effectiveness#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!

Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access




Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


local financiers

Project approach for efficient CLF (Na Phuket; WB Post-IA)

Ignorance

lack of expertise



lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access

lack of affordabilityLack of cost effectiveness

#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access




Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

bulk purchase

bulk purchase

Consultancy, GTZ ENEP

Awareness Campaign

Labels

campaign

distribution through 7/11

bulk purchase

bulk purchase


local financiers

Market barrier cycle for efficient CLF at the end of project (2000) (WB ICR)

Ignorance

lack of expertise



lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access


Lack of cost effectiveness#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!#BEZUG!IgnoranceLack of expertise

Lack of access




Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers

Interim test result

• Tool can reflect changes in market barriers and barrier removal strategies

• Easy to handle• It becomes clear that every “market” (in the sense of a GHG

emission reducing activity) needs its own set of analyses as the barriers are not of the same strength

• Currently only qualitative analysis possible – more standardization needed for it to have more predictive power

Industrial Energy Efficiency in 1992

4

F-Ignorancelack of expertiseLack of cost effectiveness


PM-Lack of interest/ motivation

ignorance

lack of expertise

PM lack of affordability

Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access


C-Lack of cost effectivenessSC-Ignorancesc Lack of expertise

Lack of access




IA-Ignorance

IA- lack of expertise


iaLack of cost effectiveness


Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency

Overall economic boomRapid investment in new industrial and commercial facilitiesEnergy efficiency is an afterthought

Supply chain is happy to provide inefficient chillers

Policy makers know what to do but not how

Industrial Energy Efficiency in 1992: ENCON law, WB/GEF DSM project, GTZ project

Law requires large facilities to conduct Energy Audits

DSM project with EGAT as implementing agency to include industrial energy efficiency

From 1996: GTZ provides training to policy makers




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Lack of access




IA-Ignorance





Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

add. Staff, training

GEF grant

consultancy

GTZ training

Energy Audit

law

energy audit

Industrial Energy Efficiency in 2000: no success, due to financial crisis

Energy Audits have been conducted by many but not implemented

EGAT as implementing agency is in the process of being restructured

Financial markets broke down, so that users can’t afford investments

They also have other worries…




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Lack of access




IA-Ignorance





Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency

Industrial Energy Efficiency in 2001: WB GEF Building Chiller Replacement Project

Took three years to develop

EGAT unavailable

New implementing agency is a large bank




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Lack of access




IA-Ignorance





Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency EGAT

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

bank as implementation partnerzero-interest loan to bank

demonstration

Monitoring role in the project

Monitoring role in the project

outreach

call for LOI

provide loans through IAdemonstration


Is removing a number of barriers

4




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance

Lack of interest/ motivationlack of expertise

Lack of access



Lack of access




IA-Ignorance




Lack of access

Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency


Is removing a number of barriers

…but receives competition from EGAT once national funds are released

4




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance

Lack of interest/ motivationlack of expertise

Lack of access



Lack of access




IA-Ignorance




Lack of access

Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

revolving fund

revolving fund

…leading to a vibrant building chiller market in 2005.

4




ignorance

lack of expertise


Consumers Ignorance


lack of expertise

Lack of access



Lack of access




IA-Ignorance




Lack of access

Consumers/ Users

Policy Makers


Local Financiers

Implementing Agency

Impact of 1997 Asian financial crisis on energy efficiency projects in Thailand

• Original motivation for energy efficiency efforts was economic growth, not climate change!

• Projects that were designed and implemented immediately after the financial crisis were affected more strongly than those that were under implementation during the financial crisis (example: Building Chiller Replacement, Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund).

• Impact of financial crisis on ongoing projects: extension in time, slowdown of privatization of public entities (EGAT), more difficulties to include private sector in projects, households were comparatively less affected.

Alternative display: comp table

• Color code allows to compare several projects in tables

• Here: case study Poland district heating

prior to project

2004prior to project



2002

Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access to technology


Lack of motivation / interest


Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of access to technology




Ignorance

Lack of expertise



Ignorance

Lack of expertise

Lack of motivation / interest


Local Financiers

Policy Makers

Users

Barrier

Geothermal Coal to Gas BiomassDistrict heating

Supply Chain

Use of TONC in project design

• Theory of No Change: Analyzing barriers helps find out where the next project can push the envelope, cost-effectively (Climate Works evaluation, GEF EO impact study); it looks across different stakeholder groups

• Use of Tool for comparing different projects can help transfer lessons learned / useful project approaches / best practices from one project ot another.

• Use of Comparison Table allows for choice of most appropriate alternative behavior to be implemented in next project.

Overall, this analysis tells you what to do next.

How do people use the Climate-Eval Community of Practice?

Elements of the Community of Practice

• Mostly online• Members register, • Weekly (periodic – maybe twice or once a month) newsletter• Other social media: Twitter (@climateeval with 247 ‚followers‘)• Discussions through linked-in (language subgroups – French,

Spanish and soon, Russian)• Online resources:

– Database of evaluations (500+)– Multimedia content – recordings of webinar, etc– Blog posts– Job announcements

Membership

• Institutional evaluators • Project managers• Consultants / independent and consulting firms• Researchers in universities and think-tanks

Important elements

• Andrew• Website, newsletter• Linked-in (including a group in Russian)• Webinars• Discussions (online, telephone)• Some face-to-face interaction

How could you envision using it? What would make it more helpful to you?

Thank you for your attention.

• Further Questions?

• www.climate-eval.org• Climate-eval(at)climate-eval.org

• Christine Wörlen, woerlen(at)arepo-consult.com

the climate change evaluators‘ community of practice: meta-evaluations for climate change...

Documents

climate mitigation projects

mitigation metaevaluation

complete theory of change

ghg abatement

utilization of ghg

group of stakeholders

ghgemission reduction

economic development