Evaluating climate program impact and scalability

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

Slightly late but here: Excited that this paper that examines the impact and cost-effectiveness of 40 commonly used interventions in #foodsecurity #nutrition and #climate #resilience is finally out. We did this paper jointly with the @Innovation Commission for Climate Change and I led the team from International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), while also being an advisor overall. The nice thing about the paper is that for the first time (I think) there's an analyses of available causal evidence to understand and measure impact as well as cost-effectiveness in the food, climate resilience space. We reviewed more than 600 papers to understand and measure these. The analysis includes studies with experimental designs–such as randomized control trials–or high-quality quasi-experimental designs, as well as meta-analyses. To be included, studies had to measure primary outcomes associated with food security (yield, profit, income, consumption, etc.), nutrition (BMI, prevalence of anemia, etc.), and climate (reforestation, resilience to shock, etc.). We also distinguished between 'Great Evidence', Good evidence and make operational recommendations that can be used by funders to design high impact programmes. Here's the paper https://lnkd.in/eE2_3iVD and this is the ''money slide'' where the axes refer to the consistency and quantity of evidence. Cash and in-kind transfers and graduation programmes are great bets.... University of Chicago, Tilman Brück, Kyle Murphy, Jess Rudder, Maximo Torero, Karen Macours, Paul Winters, Joshua W. Deutschmann Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Tisorn Songsermsawas, Lenyara Fundukova and many others.

If someone offered you $1M, could your organisation actually handle it? I just finished evaluating 12 organisations competing for a $1M climate grant. Reading them side by side clarifies something most people don’t say out loud: 1) Good work is common. 2) Investment-ready organisations are rare. Here’s what actually separates the two. 1. A visible causal chain. The strongest applications made it easy to see how their activities lead to measurable climate outcomes. Not aspiration. Not intention. A clear line from intervention to impact. If a reviewer has to “figure out” your theory of change, you lose ground. 2. Evidence over energy. Workshops. Convenings. Campaigns. Those are outputs. The applications that scored highest showed adoption rates, resilience indicators, emissions proxies, policy traction, behavioral shifts. They measured what matters and adjusted based on it. 3. Institutional strength. Seven-figure capital is a risk decision. Funders are underwriting governance, financial controls, leadership depth, and execution discipline, not just ideas. If $1M would strain your systems, you’re not ready for it. 4. Community power, not proximity. There’s a difference between serving communities and being led by them. The latter shows up in decision-making structures, feedback loops, and representation, not just language. Reviewers can tell the difference. 5. Scaling logic. The strongest proposals didn’t say, “We will scale.” They said, “With $1M, we will unlock X partnerships, expand to Y geography, and achieve Z measurable outcome and at this cost structure.” - Precision builds confidence. - Large grants are not random. - They reward clarity, credibility, and operational maturity. If you are a nonprofit leader preparing to raise catalytic capital, ask yourself one uncomfortable question: Would you invest $1M in your own organisation today, based on your systems, evidence, and strategy? The climate sector doesn’t need more good intentions. It needs institutions built to absorb capital and multiply impact. That gap is where the next generation of leadership will emerge. #ClimateLeadership #Philanthropy #NonprofitStrategy #ImpactMeasurement #climateasia

Africa’s most scalable climate solutions are not the most technologically sophisticated. In Tanzania’s rangelands, pastoralist volunteers with basic mobile phones are outperforming satellite systems that cost millions. They measure grass height with rulers, assess bare ground percentage and note invasive species on foot. The data is stored offline-first and later flows to grazing committees who make land management decisions. This is the Sustainable Rangelands Initiative (SRI) by African People & Wildlife. It operates across 800,000 acres in over 50 villages and has restored more than 20,000 acres of degraded land. In 2024, the initiative won the NatureTech Stewards category at the IUCN Tech4Nature Awards in Abu Dhabi. What looks boring to funders often proves exceptional to markets. A quick look at today's newsletter: • Africa’s most scalable climate solutions prioritize resilience and trust over technological complexity • Tanzania’s Sustainable Rangelands Initiative (SRI) won the IUCN Tech4Nature Stewards award for using offline-first mobile monitoring across 800,000 acres • Community-generated data is emerging as investable infrastructure with Kenya’s rangeland carbon project generating USD13.2 million in verified credits • Capital continues flowing to over-engineered solutions that impress boards but fail in the field PS - Read ‘Simple Phones are Beating Smart Satellites in Africa's Rangelands’ here https://lnkd.in/d54EHytd

We've been working with entrepreneurs in East Africa building profitable, energy-enabled businesses in some of the most climate-exposed communities on the continent. Many climate-development “win-wins” sound great in theory but fall short under rigorous testing. This one delivered. The first study in this new series examines solar-powered cold chains for small-scale fisheries in Kenya, evaluating the Keep IT Cool (KIC) model around Lake Turkana. The model: In Kenya, ~40% of fish catch is lost to spoilage. Drying is often the fallback option—locking fishers into lower-value markets—but that fails when temps hit 50°C. With KIC cold storage and logistics, fresh fish can reach urban markets, where value is significantly higher. Fishing households reported 5–7 major economic and climate shocks per year. A single bad month can erase years of progress. In this context, these sorts of findings are critical for livelihoods on the knife’s edge: • Large reductions in post-harvest losses • No increase in total catch. This is about efficiency, not increased extraction • Greater dietary diversity and nutrition among fisher households • Increased investment in productive assets like boats and gear Policy brief: https://lnkd.in/eV7xZhgj KIC is no secret in climate-smart development circles. The wider lessons are about enabling those that follow: 1. Private-sector delivery models CAN reach some of the most vulnerable and climate-exposed households. As we adjust to the pullback in aid, identifying these enterprises becomes more important. 2. The cost of capital for small companies delivering these services is too high. DFIs and impact investors need better ways to reach early-stage enterprises with smaller ticket sizes and lower-cost capital to enable scale without being strangled by expensive debt. 3. Once a viable delivery model is identified, build from it. For example, with KIC delivering cold-chain services, now is the time to pair it with credit lines, insurance products, and targeted TA to help fisherfolk manage cash flow, invest in productive assets, and plan for shocks. 4. I have problems with how blurred the line between climate finance and dev finance has become. But this is a case where the overlap is real. Resilience is what these communities are asking for—and, crucially, this study shows they are willing to pay for it when services deliver. That demand signal makes scale and long-term financial sustainability feasible. High-five: Francis N., Mbithe Kiio and the Keep IT Cool | Earthshot Prize Winner 24 team, the Duke University and University of Nairobi/EfD_Kenya research team: Alejandro Diaz Herrera, Mirna Elsharief, Marc Jeuland, Richard Mulwa, ELLY MUSEMBI, Liilnna Teji, Ferran Vega Carol; Juliette Keeley, Ama Bartimeus MBA, Tanya Kothari and the Shell Foundation team; UK's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.

🥦 From Fields to Systems: Evaluating Climate-Smart Rice Production in Vietnam Rice production accounts for a significant share of global methane emissions and remains highly exposed to climate shocks. In Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, adjustments in water management, fertilizer use, and residue handling are reducing methane emissions and water use while maintaining yields in a region increasingly affected by floods, droughts, and salinity. These production-level shifts raise a core evaluative question for climate and environmental programming: under what conditions do interventions enable practices that advance food security and environmental objectives simultaneously? The Evaluation of Global Environment Facility Food Systems Programs, conducted by Senior Evaluation Officer Carlo Carugi, examines how GEF-supported interventions are designed and implemented to support such outcomes—and where limitations in design coherence, coordination, and incentives constrain effectiveness. 🔎 What the evaluation finds: ✔️ GEF food systems programs primarily address environmental impacts at the production stage, while more recent programming reflects emerging attention to markets, consumers, and value-chain integration.  ✔️  More durable results where interventions link production with storage, markets, institutions, and policy frameworks—allowing environmental and socioeconomic gains to reinforce one another across the value chain.  ⚠️  Weaker and uneven outcomes where designs were overambitious or unclear, attention to political economy and sociocultural drivers was limited, and coordination and monitoring mechanisms were insufficient to support system-level change. Overall, the evaluation highlights the importance of aligning adaptation objectives with catalytic financing—strengthening the capacity of communities and ecosystems to respond to climate stress while mobilizing sustained public and private investment. 🔗 Read the full evaluation: https://lnkd.in/e696EdEu 🇻🇳 Learn more about our evaluation work in Vietnam: https://lnkd.in/eZGAagdq #GEFIEO #Evaluation #FoodSystems #ClimateChange #ClimateAdaptation #EnvironmentalSustainability #LearningFromEvidence #SustainableDevelopment 

Your programme works. You have data to prove it. Then the hard questions came: 'How do you KNOW it was YOUR intervention?' 'Which parts must stay the same when we replicate this in 12 countries?' 'Why did it work in the first place?' Silence. You're not alone in not having the answers. Most programme (innovative or traditional) can't answer these questions because they collected activity data, not evidence for scale. Here's what you should be measuring at each stage instead: 📍 Early stage (Pilot): Don't just count participants. Measure: Did it work? Was it feasible? Do users actually want this? 📍 Mid-stage (Acceleration): Don't just report more numbers. Measure: What are the core elements that CAN'T change? What CAN flex for different contexts? 📍 Scale stage: Don't just show reach. Measure: Can you prove YOUR intervention caused the change? Can others sustain it without you? UNICEF's Innovation MEL Toolbox breaks down exactly what evidence you need at each stage (from ideation to scale) including practical tools like: →Theory of Change for different stages →Contribution Analysis (when RCTs aren't possible) →Fidelity & Adaptation Monitoring →Scaling Approach frameworks Whether you're testing something new, expanding what works, or adapting proven approaches to new contexts, this document is for you. 🔥 If this resonated, follow me. I break down Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) concepts daily with practical, implementable tips that are grounded in facilitation experience across sectors. #MonitoringAndEvaluation