Evaluability Assessment of Austria’s bilateral development finance contribution to Climate Action

Project Background

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), industrialized countries have committed to regularly mobilizing funds to support developing countries in climate adaptation and emission reduction measures. Austria is committed to this goal. Against this background, the Austrian Climate Finance Strategy 2013-2020 (CFS) has been developed and adapted in 2017. The main contributors to Austria’s Climate Finance, which has a total volume of 300,53 million Euros in 2021 are the Development Bank of Austria (OeEB) (40%), the Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF) (39%), the Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (MCA) (10%) as well as the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (MFA) and the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) (10%).
Due to this multitude of agencies, a joint evaluation of the CFS has been envisaged. To consider the complexity of evaluating a multi-layered evaluation object such as the CFS and to minimize possible risks, it was decided first to conduct an Evaluability Assessment (EA) which determines the extent to which an intervention can already be evaluated and what measures need to be taken to facilitate an evaluation at a later stage.

Type and scope of services provided

Within the framework of the EA Arepo
• assessed the evaluability of Austria’s bilateral development finance contribution to Climate Action as set out in the CFS and other strategic documents. This comprises four aspects of evaluability: (i) the quality of the design, (ii) the availability of data, (iii) stakeholders’ interests and demands, and (iv) the institutional and contextual circumstances for conducting an evaluation.
• identified the requirements and adaptations needed to ensure the CFS’s evaluability and identify the entities responsible for implementing these changes.
• identified indicators and/or pathways for a meaningful evaluation based on outcome indicators.
• identified two to four components (or pathways of change) as potential objects for a future impact evaluation. Put forward different methodological designs for evaluating impact along each identified pathway of change, including respective cost estimations and identify necessary adaptations and responsible entities.