Evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative

The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) is carrying out a evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. Norad’s consultants need to ask some hard questions about NCFI’s activities globally and about Norway’s massive oil industry that is ultimately paying for the forestry handouts.

Obviously such an evaluation is to be welcomed. The fact that the evaluation is taking place while the money is being given (rather than years after the damage is done) means that there’s a chance that feedback might actually prevent some problems from happening in the first place. The evaluation will run from 2010-2013. The evaluation is being carried out by LTS International, with a team of consulting firms: the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI); Indufor and Ecometrica. Details of the evaluation are below (from CMI’s website) and further details are available from Norad’s Evaluation Department (Jørn Stave jsta@norad.no or Hans Peter Melby hpm@norad.no).

Clearly, there are many areas that LTS International and its team need to investigate. REDD-Monitor recommends sending comments to Norad, with copies to their consultants. Here’s a small sample, to whet your appetites:

• Norway’s dual role in conserving the Amazon, while at the same time helping to destroy it.
• What exactly, has been agreed with Indonesia and why have indigenous rights been omitted from the Letter of Intent?
• The agreement with Guyana appears to allow an increase in deforestation, while the Amerindian Peoples Association is concerned at the lack of an adequate legal framework to uphold indigenous peoples’ rights as well as the lack of adequate participation in the decision-making on President Jagdeo’s Low Carbon Development Strategy.
• And then there’s the 3 billion kroner question. Where does Norway’s money come from? Largely from its oil industry. To its credit, the Norwegian government notes that REDD must be additional to reducing emissions from fossil fuels:
  

  Measures to reduce deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries will be essential to achieve the target of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C. However, it should be emphasized that efforts to reduce these emissions must be additional to and not a replacement for efforts by more developed economies to reduce their emissions.

  Yet every day, Norway produces 2.2 million barrels of oil. This year, it will invest US$21.7 billion in its petroleum industry. There is a fundamental problem here. Once oil is removed from the ground, there is no way of preventing it from being burned, and unless we massively reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn, we will not prevent runaway climate change. As UK-based journalist George Monbiot pointed out during the 2007 UN climate negotiations in Bali, we desperately need a supply-side policies on fossil fuels. Monbiot concluded:

  “When you review the plans for fossil fuel extraction, the horrible truth dawns that every carbon-cutting programme is a con. Without supply-side policies, runaway climate change is inevitable, however hard we try to cut demand. The talks in Bali will be meaningless unless they produce a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground.”

  Even if LTS International manages to conclude that Norway’s financing of REDD is successful, there is another question that Norad’s consultants must ask: Where is Norway’s (or any other country’s, for that matter) supply-side policy on fossil fuels?

Real-Time Evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative

The Norwegian Government launched its International Climate and Forest Initiative in December 2007, pledging up to 3 billion Norwegian kroner per year to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD).

In order to progressively assess the results of the Initiative with regard to its objectives and the general objectives of Norwegian development cooperation, Norad’s Evaluation Department will organise a realtime evaluation starting in early 2010. A consortium of independent consultants and experts led by LTS International has been assigned to carry out the evaluation under a framework agreement covering a four-year period (2010-2013). CMI’s Johan Helland and John McNeish form part of the evaluation’s core team and play key respective roles regarding Monitoring and Evaluation and Indigenous Rights. Other consortium members come from Indufor and Ecometrica.

The real-time evaluation shall provide timely information and rapid learning opportunities about the fast-moving developments on REDD. The approach will involve a range of evaluation activities to be repeated at regular intervals during the life of the Initiative, as well as stand-alone evaluations of specific thematic or geographic areas.

Evaluation objectives
The objectives of the real-time evaluation are to assess the results of the Initiative’s support:

1. for improving the prospects of the inclusion of a REDD mechanism in a post-2012 climate regime
2. for the preparation of mechanisms and implementation of activities to attain verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
3. for the conservation of natural forests to maintain their carbon storage capacity
4. with regards to the general objectives of Norwegian development cooperation, such as those related to livelihoods, economic and social development and the environment.

Scope
The main period under study is from the start of the Initiative including its initial preparations until the end of 2013. The evaluation will focus primarily on the work of the major recipients of funding, and cover:

• management and administration in Norway
• multilateral, bilateral and nongovernmental agencies funded by the Initiative
• international negotiations and related global and regional policy processes
• national REDD processes, plans and actions

The real-time evaluation is intended to serve both a documentation function and a learning function. The concerned partners will therefore be actively consulted during the evaluation process, also on issues related to the terms of reference and timing of the different evaluation activities.

Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative
The Norwegian Government launched its International Climate and Forest Initiative in December 2007, pledging up to 3 billion Norwegian kroner per year to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD). The objectives of the Initiative are (1) to work towards the inclusion of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in a new international climate regime, (2) to take early action to achieve cost-effective and verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and (3) to promote the conservation of natural forests to maintain their carbon storage capacity. To this end, the Initiative supports the UN Collaborative Programme on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD Programme) jointly managed by FAO, UNDP and UNEP, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) managed by the World Bank, the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) managed by the African Development Bank, and the Amazon Fund managed by the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDS). Norway has also entered a bilateral agreement with Tanzania and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Guyana. Civil society organizations are funded through a grant scheme administered by Norad.

Evaluation reports will be made available to the general public. The evaluation will apply internationally – recognised best practices to ensure objective, transparent, evidence-based and impartial assessment and learning during the course of the evaluation programme. The methods may include document review and analyses, interviews with key stakeholders, and field visits to selected countries. Validation and feedback workshops will be held during the course of the evaluation

The real-time evaluation is intended to serve both a documentation function and a learning function. The concerned partners will therefore be actively consulted during the evaluation process, also on issues related to the terms of reference and timing of the different evaluation activities.