Fact-sheet 27 - Regional - 8214-00/2007
8.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the key environmental
criteria
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
8.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the key criteria
ʺenvironmental protectionʺ, and which external factors
contributed to these changes?
8.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the key criteria for
“sustainable management of natural resources”, and which
external factors contributed to these changes?
8.3
… ʺreduce conflicts about the use of resourcesʺ
8.4
… ʺimprovement of standard of livingʺ
8.5
… ʺimproved access to energy and resourcesʺ
8.6
… ʺcontribution to climate change adaptation and mitigationʺ
8.7
… ʺstrengthening of governmental institutions and civil societyʺ
8.8
… ʺimproved possibility to implement multilateral
environmental agreementsʺ
8.9
… ʺothersʺ
3 (v) p. 26
9.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the thematic
operational fields for environment and development
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.1
Sustainable natural resource management and preserving
biodiversity
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.2
Sustainable chemicals and waste management
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.3
Climate protection
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.4
Water and sanitation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
10.
Assessment of the impact on the beneficiaries and the
institutions
Sources
10.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to change the beneficiariesʹ lives?
own assessment
10.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention contribute to the
beneficiaries’ change in attitude and behaviour?
own assessment
10.3
What were the contributions of the beneficiaries to the main
observed changes?
(i) p. 8
10.4
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the institutions
involved?
own assessment
Explanation_Explanation_Explanation_Explanation'>Explanation
Explanation
Explanation
Explanation
A REC study from 2009 on eco‐finance in SEE states that ʺthe current financing mechanisms, both domestic and international, are overly administrative and
slow in most cases. Still, there are examples where procedures have been quick, since the time needed does not depend only on the financing mechanisms but
also on the capacity of the project proponents to provide all necessary documentation.ʺ It is also interesting to note that the Website is not cited in the report
nor in the accompanying conference. It can therefore be assumed that the website had a weak impact on the improvement of access to finance for
environmental protection.
As the project was carried out entirely by a consultancy firm (with subcontracted experts) no changes in institutions involved can be traced.
Explanation
Regarding the beneficiaries stated in the project document, it is not possible to assess changes for the funding institutions. As for experts/consultants and the
additional beneficiary of institutions searching for funds for environmental projects, it can be assumed that they had a better information basis for
developing proposals. However, there is no documentation available on this.
It is not possible to assess any impact based on the available information.
Explanation
Explanation
Some funds provided their own profile for the website through filling in the information in a questionnaire.
Page 8
Fact-sheet 27 - Regional - 8214-00/2007
11.
Sustainability
Sources
11.1
To what extent did the benefits of the intervention continue after
the funding had ceased?
own assessment
11.2
What were the major factors which influenced the achievement
or non‐achievement of sustainability of the intervention?
own assessment
12.
Counterfactual question
Sources
12.1
What would the situation be like if there had been no
intervention?
(ii) p. 7
13.
General assessment of the intervention
Sources
13.1
What is the evaluatorsʹ general assessment of the intervention?
own assessment
14.
Lessons learnt
Sources
14.1
What are the three most important “lessons learnt” from this
intervention for the environmental sector in general
own assessment
There would not have been any information in English and in a common format which provides details on funding areas, procedures etc. on domestic funds
in SEE countries.
Explanation
Explanation
1. Providing a hub of a broad variety of easy to access and up to date information on a specialized issue like eco‐finance fills a gap in SEE (and other)
countries.
2. Such an initiative needs an institutional framework to improve its impact and sustainability.
3. Such a website has little influence on the developments within the sector (i.e. funding available, procedures...).
Explanation
As the continuation and updating of the website and the information contained depends on external funding, it is highly unlikely that the benefits continued
for very long after the funding ceased.
As the website depended on the work done by the consultancy firm there was no institutional framework with people following the issue in their daily work
and would have been able to maintain the webstie without large or additional funding.
The concept and implementation (from the reports) of the website sounds interesting and as something which nowadays is still not available. There seems to
still be a gap and it would fit in well with the expansion of internet based information sources. It is, however, an intervention which needs a longer
perspective and preferrably an anchoring within an established institution which can better promote it and link it to other processes (instead of just being
based at a consultancy in Western Europe).
Explanation
[1] assessment 1=no impact, 2=very weak impact, 3=weak impact, 4=moderate impact, 5=strong impact, 6=very strong impact, 7=extremely strong impact. 0=not relevant.
Page 9
Dostları ilə paylaş: |