WRI submitted comments to the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Trust Fund Committees suggesting ways to improve the CIFs Results Frameworks.
- For full text, download the PDF
- See also: World Resources Institute Comments on the Forest Investment Program Results Framework
The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) Results Frameworks are important tools to objectively assess the effectiveness of CIF investments, and they will inform the design of the new Fund in the UN climate change negotiations. Extensive efforts have gone into developing the results frameworks for each fund or program, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on how they could be strengthened.
The current drafts reflect a quest for a balance between comprehensiveness and robustness with adequacy and pragmatism. We recognize that not all indicators that can be covered need to be covered, but that it is important to cover an adequate number of clear and well-defined indicators in sufficient depth to provide a fairly accurate picture of the effectiveness of the CIFs. Our comments are intended to maintain this balance, while sharpening the focus of the results frameworks.
In this submission, we have compiled comments for each of the programs; these comments were shared separately with the CIF Administrative Unit and other relevant stakeholders for each of the programs. The comments reflect an initial effort on the part of World Resources Institute (WRI) analysts to provide constructive suggestions on improving the results frameworks. In preparing these comments, we have drawn extensively on work that WRI has undertaken in recent years, as well as on the insights we have gained through our ongoing engagement and collaboration with civil society organizations in the realm of policy, finance, and technology issues related to climate change.
This first section highlights some of the key issues, particularly cross-cutting ones, which emerged in the process of reviewing the results frameworks for each fund or program—the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), the Forest Investment Program (FIP), the Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program (SREP), and the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). In each of the subsequent sections, we have provided detailed comments on how specific indicators could be defined more clearly, where new indicators may be necessary, and what metrics or methods could be used to measure progress against specific indicators. Where relevant, we have also provided comments on the Logic Models and Performance Measurement Strategy.
Overview of key issues
The link between the indicators for lower-level outcomes and the indicators for higher-level outcomes are not always clear. The results frameworks for each fund or program follow structured approaches in mapping the relationship of lower-level results with higher-level results in the Logic Models. Implicit in their design is the assumption that the achievement of lower-level outcomes will automatically lead to the achievement of higher-level outcomes. However, the link between the indicators for lower-level outcomes and the indicators for higher-level outcomes are not always clear. For example, there are no indicators at the outcome level to measure the higher-level impact on “improving functioning of forest-related institutions” in the FIP. This linkage is important to be able to logically demonstrate that progress on the higher-level outcomes is indeed a result of progress on the lower-level outcomes. Addressing the linkages between the indicators will also help overcome the challenge currently faced of attributing higher-level transformational outcomes to specific investments of the CIFs.
A key set of indicators that need to be monitored across all the programs include the development and effective implementation of enabling policies, laws, regulations, and plans that support and mainstream low-carbon, climate-resilient development. The catalytic and transformational impact of these indicators cannot be overemphasized. The inclusion of indicators that measure progress against these elements across critical sectors and at various levels of government will create the right incentives for limited CIF resources to be deployed more strategically. While current drafts of the results frameworks do contain indicators to measure the performance of policies, laws, regulations, and plans, we have provided several specific suggestions to define the indicators more clearly and also suggested methods and resources that can be drawn upon to assess progress against these indicators.
The indicators for each program should be defined in such a manner so as to provide existing and emerging national-level monitoring and evaluation institutions with sufficient flexibility to define the indicators more precisely to capture nuances particular to their countries. These national-level institutions can then work with the multilateral development banks (MDBs) to ensure that the CIF indicators are integrated with results frameworks of the MDBs’ mainstream lending portfolios and the country’s own monitoring and evaluation frameworks. This will help avoid duplication and minimize the reporting burden on the countries.
The results frameworks would be enhanced significantly by the inclusion of specific indicators that track progress in the development of national systems. These indicators would seek to ensure that governments are transparent in providing information and in their decision-making, enable public participation in planning and implementation processes, and ensure that governments are accountable to the legislatures and their citizens. The indicators for monitoring progress on these aspects are absent from the current drafts. We encourage the inclusion of specific indicators for monitoring the development of institutions and processes for transparency, public participation, and accountability, and offer some suggestions in this regard.
To continue reading, download the PDF