Thematic evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) : final report. Volume 1, Main report.
Date: 2022-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Partnerships
Subjects: Bolivia, China, Congo, EU strategy, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Ukraine, Union delegation, aid evaluation, biodiversity, climate change policy, development policy, environmental cost, governance, green economy, report, sustainable development, third country

Thematic evaluation of the 
EU support to environment and 
climate change in third countries 
(2007-2013) 

Final Report 
Volume 1 – Main Report 
September 2015 

___________ 

Development 
Development 
and Coopera-
and Coopera-
tion EuropeAid 
tion EuropeAid 

Evaluation carried out on behalf of  
the European Commission 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
Consortium composed by 

Ecorys, Particip, ECDPM, Mokoro, Lattanzio e Associati 

Leader of the Consortium: Ecorys 

info@ecorys.com 

Contract No EVA 2011/Lot 1 

Specific contract No 2013/328359 

Thematic evaluation of the EU support to environment and  

climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 

This evaluation was commissioned by the Evaluation Unit  

of the Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – 

EuropeAid (European Commission) 

The opinions expressed in this document represent the authors’ points of view  
which are not necessarily shared by the European Commission  
or by the authorities of the concerned countries. 

© Cover picture rights:  
Álvaro Malavé Mora, María del Carmen Bueno Barriga, EuropeAid Photo Library 

This report has been prepared by 

Merzhauser Str. 183 
79100 Freiburg, Germany 
Phone: +49 761 790 740 
Fax: +49 761 790 7490 
E-mail: info@particip.de 
Web: www.particip.de

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evaluation team comprised of: Eric Buhl-
Nielsen (Team Leader), Kris Prasada Rao, Mette 
Hendrich Junkov, Bjørn Bauer (Senior Thematic 
Experts). The team has been supported by: Georg 
Ladj (QA Director); María del Carmen Bueno Barri-
ga (Evaluation Manager) and Meike Pollakowski, 
Michael Lieckefett (Junior Consultants), David 
Watson (Assistant in Green Economy/SCP). 

The evaluation was being managed by the DG 
DEVCO Evaluation Unit. 

The author accepts sole responsibility for this re-
port, drawn up on behalf of the Commission of the 
European Union. The report does not necessarily 
reflect the views of the Commission. 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, as part of the evaluations of the Directorate-General for International 
Partnerships (INTPA). However, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any consequence 
stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 
PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-52138-9 

MN-01-22-375-EN-N 

ISSN 2529-3338 

doi: 10.2841/447773 

Manuscript completed in September 2015 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 

reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a 

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is 

allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the 
respective rightholders. 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) 
Directorate D - Sustainable Development Policy and Coordination 
Unit D.4 - Performance, Results and Evaluation; Internal Communication, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Methods 
Email: INTPA-EVALUATIONS@ec.europa.eu  
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium 

EU International Partnerships: 
https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/our-impact/monitoring-and-evaluation_en 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to  
environment and climate change in third countries 
(2007-2013) 

Final Report 

The report consists of 4 volumes:  
Volume I: Main report  
Volume II: Detailed information matrix 
Volume III: Annex 1-13 
Volume IV: Annex 14 

VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT 
1. Introduction 
2. Key methodological steps 
3. Overall policy framework 
4. Intervention logic analysis 
5. Inventory analysis 
6. Answers to the Evaluation Questions 
7. Overall assessment 
8. Conclusions 
9. Recommendations 

VOLUME II: DETAILED INFORMATION MATRIX 
1. EQ1 Policy & instruments 
2. EQ2 Low emission 
3. EQ3 Sustainable energy 
4. EQ4 Biodiversity 
5. EQ5 Green economy 
6. EQ6 Environmental governance 
7. EQ7 Climate governance 
8. EQ8 Mainstreaming approach 
9. EQ9 Mainstreaming practice 
10. EQ10 Complementarity 

VOLUME III: ANNEX 1 TO 13 
1. Annex 1: Terms of Reference 
2. Annex 2: Key methodological steps 
3. Annex 3: Overall policy framework analysis 
4. Annex 4: Analysis of EU strategy in environment and climate change in third regions 
5. Annex 5: Inventory methodology 
6. Annex 6: Inventory analysis 
7. Annex 7: Final Evaluation Matrix 
8. Annex 8: Inventory list 
9. Annex 9: List of interventions considered by EQ 
10. Annex 10: Survey to EU Delegations 
11. Annex 11: List of People interviewed 
12. Annex 12: List of documents and sources of information 
13. Annex 13: RG meeting presentation synthesis phase 

VOLUME IV: ANNEX 14: COUNTRY NOTES 
1. Bolivia 
2. China 
3. DRC  
4. Egypt  
5. Ghana 
6. Kenya 
7. Rwanda 
8. Ukraine 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 
1 
Mandate and scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................... 1 
1.1 
Structure of the report ................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 
2  Key methodological steps ...................................................................................................... 3 
Overall methodological approach ................................................................................................. 3 
Challenges and limitations ............................................................................................................ 4 

2.1 
2.2 

3  Overall  policy  framework  of  the  EU  strategy  in  relation  to  environment  and 

climate change ........................................................................................................................ 5 

4  The  intended  Intervention  logic  of  EU  support  to  environment  and  climate 

change in third countries ..................................................................................................... 10 
The Intervention logic diagrams .................................................................................................. 10 
4.1 
The different levels of the reconstructed intervention logic ........................................................ 10 
4.2 

5.4 

5  The realised Intervention logic: Analysis of EU worldwide financial resources 
allocated  to  sectors  related  to  environment  and  climate  change  in  third 
countries in the period 2007-2013 ....................................................................................... 20 
Methodological limits and challenges ......................................................................................... 20 
5.1 
Main findings ............................................................................................................................... 21 
5.2 
5.3 
Global overview of total environment and climate change versus all DG DEVCO 
allocations ................................................................................................................................... 22 
Global overview of total allocations ............................................................................................. 22 
6  Answers to the Evaluation Questions ................................................................................. 33 
EQ1: Policy & instruments .......................................................................................................... 33 
EQ2: Low emission ..................................................................................................................... 41 
EQ3: Sustainable energy ............................................................................................................ 48 
EQ4: Biodiversity ......................................................................................................................... 54 
EQ5: Green economy ................................................................................................................. 60 
EQ6: Environmental governance ................................................................................................ 67 
EQ7: Climate governance ........................................................................................................... 72 
EQ8: Mainstreaming approach ................................................................................................... 78 
EQ9: Mainstreaming practice ...................................................................................................... 84 
EQ10: Complementarity .............................................................................................................. 89 
7  Overall assessment .............................................................................................................. 95 
8  Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 102 
Policy framework and strategic focus ....................................................................................... 102 
Results and impacts .................................................................................................................. 104 
Environment and climate change governance .......................................................................... 106 
Mainstreaming ........................................................................................................................... 108 
9  Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 110 
Policy framework ....................................................................................................................... 111 
Implementation approach ......................................................................................................... 113 

6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 
6.5 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
6.9 
6.10 

8.1 
8.2 
8.3 
8.4 

9.1 
9.2 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
ii 

List of tables 
Table 1 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Contracted  amounts  by  decision  year 
(global analysis) .......................................................................................................................... 23 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Allocation  of  funding  by  region  and 
sector in EUR (global analysis) ................................................................................................... 29 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Top  20  countries  receiving  EU  support 
(global analysis) .......................................................................................................................... 30 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Distribution  by  channel/sub-channel 
(ENRTP) ...................................................................................................................................... 32 
Prioritisation of recommendations ............................................................................................. 110 

Table 2 

Table 3 

Table 4 

Table 5 

List of figures 
Figure 1 
Figure 2 
Figure 3 
Figure 4 

Figure 5 

Figure 6 

Figure 7 

Figure 8 

Figure 9 

Key steps of the evaluation process ............................................................................................. 3 
Chronology of International commitments and EU/EC normative documents .............................. 9 
Reconstructed intervention logic ................................................................................................. 11 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Total  contracted  amount  vs.  total  EU 
overall contracted funding ........................................................................................................... 22 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Total  contracted  amount  by  financing 
instrument in % (global analysis) ................................................................................................ 22 
EU support to environment and climate change: Geographical distribution of funds (global 
analysis) ...................................................................................................................................... 23 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Geographical  distribution  of  funds 
(ENRTP) ...................................................................................................................................... 24 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Geographical  distribution  of  funds  by 
level of coverage (ENRTP) ......................................................................................................... 24 
EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Distribution  of  funds  by  intended 
Intervention Logic clusters (global analysis) ............................................................................... 25 

Figure 10  EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Main  sectors  receiving  funding  (global 

analysis) ...................................................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 11  EU support to environment and climate change: Repartition of the funding in sub-sectors 

by contracted amount (global analysis) ...................................................................................... 27 

Figure 12  EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Sectoral  aggregated  repartition  of  the 

funding by contracted amount (global analysis) .......................................................................... 28 
Figure 13  EU support to environment and climate change. Distribution by channel (ENRTP) ................... 31 
Figure 14  EU support to environment and climate change: Distribution by sector/channel (ENRTP) ........ 31 
Figure 15  Major links between EQs, conclusions and recommendations ................................................. 110 
Figure 16  Prioritisation of recommendations, schematic overview ........................................................... 111 

List of boxes 
Box 1  
Box 2  
Box 3  
Box 4  
Box 5 
Box 6 
Box 7 
Box 8 

Box 9 

The 1992 Rio Summit conventions ............................................................................................... 5 
The ENRTP ................................................................................................................................... 7 
Outcome areas ............................................................................................................................ 16 
Limits and key challenges ........................................................................................................... 20 
Key findings of the inventory ....................................................................................................... 21 
Regional funds ............................................................................................................................ 50 
Key mainstreaming tools promoted ............................................................................................ 80 
Elements  of  success:  Country-led  prioritisation  of  environment  and  climate  change  – 
Egypt ........................................................................................................................................... 95 
Elements of success: Partner-led mainstreaming – Rwanda ..................................................... 97 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
iii 

List of acronyms and abbreviations 

AAU 

ABS 

ACP 

ALA 

ASIE 

BASIC 

Assigned Amount Units  

Access and Benefit Sharing  

African, Caribbean and Pacific countries 

Latin America 

Asia 

Brazil, South Africa, India, China 

BIOPAMA 

Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Programme 

BIP 

BRIC 

CAP 

CBD 

CC 

CDM 

CEP 

CEPF 

CITES 

CMS 

COM 

COP 

Biodiversity Indicators Partnership 

Brazil, Russia, India, China 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Convention on Biological Diversity  

Climate Change 

Clean Development Mechanism  

Country Environmental Profile 

Critical Ecosystem Partners Fund  

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

Convention on Migratory Species 

Communication of the European Commission 

Conference of Parties 

CREMA 

Community Resources Management Area 

CRIS 

CSO 

CSP 

DAC 

DCI 

DFID 

DG 

Common RELEX Information System 

Civil Society Organisation 

Country Strategy Paper 

Development Assistance Committee 

Development Co-operation Instrument 

Department for International Development UK 

EU Directorate-General 

DG CLIMA 

EU Directorate-General for Climate Action  

DG DEVCO 

EU Directorate-General for International Co-operation and Development  

DG ENER 

EU Directorate-General for Energy 

DG ENV 

EU Directorate-General for the Environment 

DG RELEX 

EU Directorate-General for External Relations 

DOPA 

DRC 

EaP 

EBRD 

EC 

Digital Observatory for Protected Areas 

Democratic Republic of Congo 

Eastern Partnership 

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

European Commission 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
iv 

ECD 

European Consensus on Development  

ECOFAC 

EU Conservation and sustainable management of Central Africa’s forests programme (Eco-
systèmes Forestiers en Afrique Centrale) 

EDF 

EEAS 

EG 

EIA 

EMP 

ENP 

ENPI 

European Development Fund 

European External Action Service 

Environmental Governance  

Environmental Impact Assessment 

Environmental Management Plan 

European Neighbourhood Policy 

European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument 

ENRTP 

Thematic Programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources 
including Energy  

ENVSEC 

Environment and Security Initiative 

EQ 

EU 

EUD 

EUEI 

EUR 

Evaluation Question 

European Union 

European Union Delegation 

EU Energy Initiative 

Euro 

EUROPOL 

European Police Office 

EUWI 

FAFA 

EU Water Initiative 

Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement 

FLEGT 

Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade 

GBO 

GBS 

Global Biodiversity Outlook Report 

General Budget Support 

GCCA 

Global Climate Change Alliance 

GCF 

GDN 

GE 

Green Climate Fund  

Green Diplomacy Network  

Green Economy 

GEEREF 

Global Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Fund 

GEF 

Global Environment Facility  

GEOSS 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems  

GEREEF 

Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund 

GHG 

GIZ 

GOB 

GOR 

GPP 

Greenhouse Gases 

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit 

Government of Belize 

Government of Rwanda 

Green Public Procurement 

GREEN 

Greening Economies in the Eastern Neighbourhood  

HQ 

Headquarters 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
v 

ICAO 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICCWC 

International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime 

ICLEI 

IEG 

IFI 

IGO 

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (Local Governments for 
Sustainability) 

International Environment Governance  

International Financing Institution 

Intergovernmental Organisations 

InforMEA 

United Nations Information Portal on Multilateral Environmental Agreements  

INGO 

IPBES 

IPCC 

IRP 

IUCN 

JRC 

JC 

LDCs 

LECB 

LEDS 

MAP 

MDG 

MEA 

MIKE 

MRV 

MTR 

MW 

NAMA 

NAPA 

NF 

NGO 

NIP 

NP 

International Non-Governmental Organisation 

International Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

International Resource Panel 

International Union for Conservation of Nature 

Joint Research Centre 

Judgement Criterion 

Least Developed Countries 

Low Emission Capacity Development 

Low Emission Development Strategies 

Mitigating Action Plan 

Millennium Development Goal 

Multilateral Environmental Agreement  

Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants 

Measuring, Reporting and Verification 

Mid-Term Review 

Megawatt 

Nationally-Appropriate Mitigating Action 

National Adaptation Plan of Action 

Network Facility 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

National Indicative Programme 

National Park 

NREG 

Natural Resource and Environmental Governance 

NRM 

ODA 

OECD 

OFAC 

Natural Resource Management 

Official Development Assistance 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Central African Observatory on Forests 

PACSBIO 

Programa de Apoyo a la Conservación Sostenible de la Biodiversidad (Support Programme 
for Sustainable Biodiversity Conservation) 

PADP 

Protected Areas Development Project 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
vi 

PAGE 

Partnership for Action on Green Economy  

PEI 

PMR 

PPP 

PSC 

QSG 

Poverty and Environment Initiative 

Programme for Market Readiness 

Public-Private Partnership 

Policy Support Component 

Quality Support Group 

RAPAC 

Network of Protected Areas of Central Africa  

REAF 

REDD 

Renewable Energy Asia Fund  

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation 

REEDTE 

Resource Efficiency and Eco-Innovation in Developing and Transition Economies 

RF 

RFSF 

RG 

ROM 

Regional Fund  

Regional Funds Support Facility 

Reference Group (of the present evaluation) 

Results Oriented Monitoring 

SAARC 

South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation 

SBS 

SCA 

SCP 

SEA 

SEED 

SIDS 

Sector Budget Support 

Strategic Co-operation Agreement 

Sustainable Consumption and Production 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Social and Environmental Entrepreneurship Development  

Small Island Developing States 

SMART 

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound 

SME 

SPSP 

TA 

TEEB 

ToR 

UN 

UNCCD 

UNCED 

UNCSD 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise 

Sector Policy Support Programme 

Technical Assistance 

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 

Terms of Reference 

United Nations 

UN Convention to Combat Desertification 

UN Conference on Environment and Development 

UN Conference on Sustainable Development 

UNDESA 

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 

UNDP 

UNEA 

UN Development Programme 

UN Environment Assembly 

UNECE 

UN Economic Commission for Europe 

UNEP 

UN Environment Programme 

UNFCCC 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 

UNHABITAT 

UN Human Settlements Programme 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
vii 

USAID 

United States Agency for International Development 

USD 

VPAs 

WB 

WCMC 

WSSD 

US Dollar 

Voluntary Partner Agreement 

World Bank 

World Conservation Monitoring Centre 

World Summit on Sustainable Development 

Note: The Evaluation uses the common acronym “EC” to refer either to the “Commission of the Eu-
ropean Union” (post-Lisbon Treaty) or to the “European Commission” (pre-Lisbon Treaty), as appli-
cable. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
viii 

Definitions 

Low emission 
development 

MRV 

NAMA 

LEDS 

Climate change 
adaptation 

Low emission development aims at decoupling economic development from 
greenhouse gas emissions, so that economic growth is maintained, while emissions 
are reduced. The low emission development term is closely related to the green 
economy term. 

Measuring, Reporting and Verification. MRVs are systems to track the progress in 
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in relation to Low Emission Development 
Strategies (LEDS), Nationally-Appropriate Mitigating Actions (NAMAs) and Mitigation 
Action Plans (MAPs). 

Nationally-Appropriate  Mitigating  Action.  NAMAs  refer  to  any  action  that  reduces 
emissions in developing countries, and are prepared under the umbrella of a national 
governmental  initiative.  They  can  be  policies  directed  at  transformational  change 
within  an  economic  sector,  or  actions  across  sectors  for  a  broader  national  focus. 
NAMAs  are  supported  and  enabled  by  technology,  financing,  and  capacity  building, 
and  are  aimed  at  achieving  a  reduction  in  emissions  relative  to  “business  as  usual” 
emissions in 2020. 
NAMAs are defined in two contexts: 

  At  the  National  Level  as  a  formal  submission  by  parties  declaring  intent  to 
mitigate GHG emissions in a manner commensurate with their capacity and in 
line with their national development goals; 

  At  the  Individual  Action  Level  as  detailed  actions  or  groups  of  actions 
designed to help a country meet its mitigation objectives within the context of 
national development goals. 

Low Emission Development Strategies outline the intended overall economic, energy, 
and  emissions  trajectory  for  a  country  and  help  to  identify  trigger  points  for  policy 
intervention  (including  identifying  and  prioritising  NAMAs  and  ensuring  coherence 
between NAMAs and national development goals).  
(http://lowemissiondevelopment.org/work-areas/namas-and-leds) 

Adaptation  refers  to  adjustments  in  ecological,  social,  or  economic  systems  in 
response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to 
changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to 
benefit from opportunities associated with climate change. 
(http://unfccc.int/focus/adaptation/items/6999.php) 

Climate change 
mitigation 

The  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  −  e.g.  from  industrial  processes, 
transport, energy consumption, agriculture, deforestation, or land use. 

Sustainable 
energy 
development 

Biodiversity 

Green economy 

Increasing  the  energy  supply  from  renewable  sources  (e.g.  solar,  wind,  hydro), 
increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption. 

The  variety  in  plant  and  animal  life.  High  biodiversity  refers  to  a  high  number  of 
species. Loss of biodiversity refers to the extinction of species. 

There is not a single  universal definition of green economy (see EQ5  in  vol. 2).  The 
United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP)  Green  Economy  Initiative  defines 
green  economy  as:  the  reshaping  and  refocusing  of  policies,  investments  and 
spending  towards  a  range  of  sectors,  such  as  clean  technologies,  renewable 
energies,  water  services,  green  transportation,  waste  management,  green  buildings 
and sustainable agriculture and forests. 
Elsewhere, UNEP further identifies a green economy as one “whose growth in income 
and  employment  is  driven  by  public  and  private  investments  that  reduce  carbon 
emissions  and  pollution,  enhance  energy  and  resource  efficiency,  and  prevent  the 
loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services”. 
For the current evaluation, resource efficiency is the key element of a green economy 
addressed  under  EQ5.  Low  carbon  development,  energy  efficiency  and  biodiversity 
are dealt with under other EQs. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
i 

Executive Summary 

The evaluation’s purpose, scope and 
background 

The evaluation has three objectives: 

  To  assess  EU  support  to  environment  and 
climate  change  in  third  countries  through 
the  Thematic  Programme  for  Environment 
and  Sustainable  Management  of  Natural 
Resources including Energy (ENRTP)1, and 
through the geographic instruments. 

  To  evaluate  EU  support  to  strengthening 
global  environment  and  climate  govern-
ance,  provided  under  ENRTP  and  chan-
nelled  mainly  through  international  organi-
sations.  

  To  assess  EU  support  for  mainstreaming 
environment and climate change  issues in-
to EU external aid programmes through the 
analysis  of  two  key  sectors:  infrastructure 
(including  energy)  and  agriculture/rural  de-
velopment. 

The  assessment  focuses  on  outcomes  and 
impacts  of  the  EU  actions  in  environment  and 
climate change, identifies key lessons and best 
practices,  and  produces  recommendations  in 
order  to  improve  the  current  and  future  EU 
strategies, policies and actions. The evaluation 
covers  the  period  2007-2013.  The  geograph-
ical scope  includes all  third  regions and coun-
tries under the mandate of the EU Directorate-
General for International Co-operation and De-
velopment  (DG  DEVCO)  that  are  covered  by 
the  thematic  programme  ENRTP  and  by  the 
Development  Co-operation  Instrument  (DCI), 
European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  and  Eu-
ropean Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument 
(ENPI) geographic instruments. Also, interven-
tions co-financed and managed by  the EU Di-
rectorate-Generals for Environment (DG ENV), 
Energy  (DG  ENER)  or  Climate  Action  (DG 
CLIMA)  are  included  if  the  funds  are  provided 
by DG DEVCO. 

As  such,  this  assessment  replies  to  the  Court 

1 Refer to Box 2 

of Auditor’s recommendation of carrying out an 
overall  evaluation  of  the  Commission’s  devel-
opment  cooperation  environmental  assistance 
(interventions and mainstreaming).  

Methodology 

The evaluation is based on the methodological 
guidelines developed by the DG DEVCO Eval-
uation  Unit.  It  was  conducted  in  four  main 
phases:  inception,  desk,  field,  and  synthesis. 
The  evaluation  was  managed  by  the  Evalua-
tion Unit, incorporating all relevant EU services 
in  a  Reference  Group  (RG)  responsible  for 
overseeing the process. The design chosen for 
the  evaluation  was  a  multiple  case  study  de-
sign,  based  on  the  use  of  a  mixed-methods 
approach.  Ten  Evaluation  Questions  (EQs) 
were formulated following a structured process 
based  on  an  analysis  of  the  EU  policy  frame-
work  and  reconstruction  of  the  EU’s  intended 
intervention  logic  related  to  environment  and 
climate  change  support.  An  inventory  of  EU 
financial  support  for  environment  and  climate 
change  was  prepared.  Evaluation  Questions, 
Judgement  Criteria  (JCs)  and  Indicators  were 
defined  to  guide  data  collection  and  analysis. 
To achieve a reasonable balance between ac-
cumulating  a  rich  evidence  base  and  keeping 
the study to feasible proportions, it was decid-
ed  (in  consultation  with  the  RG)  to focus  on  a 
sample  of  15  cases  (11  countries  and  four 
global)  during  the desk phase. Eight countries 
were  selected  for  field  visits.  The  evaluation 
used a combination of tools and techniques for 
primary and secondary data collection, such as 
online surveys to 35  EU Delegations,  analysis 
of all Regional and Country Strategy Papers to 
identify focal areas of support and an in-depth 
analysis for a selection of 35 Country Strategy 
literature  review,  meta-analysis  of 
Papers, 
evaluations/audits,  and  interviews  with  stake-
holders  (around  260  persons  were 
inter-
viewed). 

The  evaluation  was  implemented  between  
December 2013 and May 2015. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
                                                      
Overall assessment of EU support to envi-
ronment and climate change 

The support has been relevant at country, re-
gional and global levels. The scale of the sup-
port  to  environment  and  climate  change  has 
been  a  rather  modest  percentage  of  the  total 
EU development co-operation  budget,  but  has 
nonetheless  contributed  significantly  towards 
the  achievement  of  EU  and  partner  policy 
goals and targets. 

The  combination  of  thematic  and  geographic 
instruments  has  been  reasonably  effective  in 
contributing  towards  the  overarching  policy 
goals.  Significant  results  have  been  achieved 
in  all  the  focus  areas  of  support.  Environment 
and climate change have been more effective-
ly  mainstreamed  than  in  earlier  periods,  alt-
hough there is still much improvement that can 
be  made.  For  the  sectors  considered  (infra-
structure  and  agriculture  and  rural  develop-
ment),  there  was  clearly  an  improvement  in 
mainstreaming  during  the  period  from  2007  to 
2013, as measured by the priority given by the 
EU Delegation (EUD) in policy dialogue on en-
vironment and climate change and the incorpo-
ration  of  environmental  and  climate  change 
indicators in other sectors. Most of the support 
for  global  governance  has  been  effective  in 
strengthening country policy commitments and 
international  mechanisms 
implementing 
global  conventions  and  agreements  on  envi-
ronment  and  climate  change.  The  EU  support 
has  significantly  increased  the  capacity  of  the 
United  Nations  Environment  Programme 
(UNEP) and the UN Framework Convention on 
Climate  Change  (UNFCCC)  in  particular,  to 
operationalise  their  unique  global  mandates, 
although  there  is  a  still  a  long  way  to  go  in 
terms  of  implementation  of  international  con-
ventions  and  global  commitments.  Environ-
ment and climate change figure far more prom-
inently  in  the  new  Sustainable  Development 
Goals  (SDGs)  than  in  the  previous  MDGs,  so 
future  EU  support  for  environment  at  national, 
regional and  global  levels  will  be  an  important 
contribution  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  the 
globally agreed goals for human and economic 
development. 

for 

There  were  significant  efficiency  improve-
ments between the first and second phases of 
the  thematic  programme.  The  recommenda-
tions from the first phase review to simplify the 

ii 

structure  of  the  ENRTP,  to  reduce  the  scat-
tered nature of calls for proposals and to work 
more  systematically  through  global  govern-
ance  bodies  such  as  UNEP  and  UNFCCC 
have been implemented. They have resulted in 
consistent  and  predicable  support  to  UNEP 
and UNFCCC, which has enabled them to car-
ry  out  their  tasks  more  efficiently  than  before, 
as it enables better planning of work and more 
long-term  actions.  Working  through  the  global 
agencies  has  led  to  a  greater  economy  of 
scale  than  would  have  been  possible  under 
EU-launched  projects.  However,  EU  visibility 
and  the  engagement  of  civil  society  have  suf-
fered, and regional organisations only received 
a  very  small  proportion  of  the  EU  support  for 
environment. 

The EU support has  been  partner-led  and de-
mand-driven,  and these longer-term and more 
difficult  approaches  adopted  by  both  geo-
graphic  instruments  and  the  thematic  pro-
gramme are likely to enhance the sustainabil-
ity of results.  

Although  there  have  been  significant  results, 
the  scale  and  timescale  of  support  has  not 
been  enough  to  lead  to  impacts  in  terms  of 
reversing  negative  environmental  and  climate 
change trends. The decline is undoubtedly less 
than  would  have  been  the  case  without  EU 
support,  but  more  support  is  needed,  as  well 
as  working  closely  with  others  and  stimulating 
a  higher  prioritisation  within  developing  coun-
tries  themselves,  before  a  long-lasting  and 
tangible impact can be seen.  

Although  there  is  room  for  improvement,  the 
EU support has been coherent, co-ordinated 
and  complementary  to  assistance  provided 
by  Member  States  and  other  donors,  as  well 
as  between  the  thematic  and  geographic  in-
struments.  There  is  particularly  room  for  im-
provement in linking the support of the themat-
ic  and  geographic  instruments  for  implement-
ing  international  conventions.  The  added  val-
ue  of  the  EU  support  has  been  in  its  scale, 
consistency  and  coherence  with  other  support 
efforts. Opportunities to make better use of EU 
expertise  and  know-how,  and  to  engage  with 
EU  business  interests  and  promote  an  ex-
change of civil society, have not been fully ex-
ploited. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
iii 

Analysis and main findings for each eval-
uation question 

EU support to environment and climate change 
across  different  instruments  (geographic  and 
thematic)  has  contributed  significantly  to  the 
EU’s  overall  environment  and  climate  change 
policy aims. 

EU  policies  had  ambitious  targets  for  environ-
ment and climate change, and the funding pro-
vided was significant, although only comprising 
6%  of  the  total  development  co-operation 
budget.  EU  support  provided  through  geo-
graphic  instruments  was  well  aligned  with  na-
tional  priorities  and  needs,  whereas  ENRTP 
support was, to a large extent, guided by inter-
national  Multilateral  Environmental  Agree-
ments (MEAs) and EU policy priorities. The EU 
effectively  engaged  in  policy  dialogue  to  pro-
mote increased prioritisation of, and action on, 
environmental  and  climate  change  concerns. 
EU  support  also  focused  on  strengthening 
global  MEA  processes  that  have  influenced 
national policies, usually in a way that is in line 
with EU policy objectives. In this sense, a ma-
jor  policy  aim  has  been  achieved,  and  the  EU 
support  contributed  to  ensuring  an  increased 
prominence  of  environment  and  climate 
change  in  national  development  processes 
and  to  increasing  the  commitment  of  third 
countries  to  global  environmental  and  climate 
change  governance.  The  combination  of 
ENRTP  and  geographic  instruments  enabled 
the EU to engage in a relevant and substantial 
manner  at  global,  regional  and  country  levels. 
However,  the  broader  policy  dialogue  on  de-
velopment priorities has not always addressed 
environment  and  climate  change  issues  to  its 
full  potential.  EU  environment  and  climate 
change  policies  are  internally  coherent,  but 
they are also numerous, and there is not a sin-
gle  comprehensive  policy  that  captures  the 
EU’s  position  and  targets.  This makes  it more 
difficult  for  EUDs  to  understand  and  apply  the 
policy guidance. 

EU  support  (via  the  ENRTP  and  geographic 
instruments)  has  initiated  processes  that  are 
likely to lead to developing countries being bet-
ter prepared for low emissions development.  

The  EU  has  supported  a  number  of  leading 
global  programmes  aimed  at  preparing 
low  emission 
developing 

countries 

for 

aimed 

follows 

support, 

at 
development. 
The 
and 
developing  Measuring,  Reporting 
Verification 
(MRV),  Nationally-Appropriate 
Mitigating  Action  (NAMAs),  Low  Emission 
Development  Strategies  (LEDS)  and  market 
practice.  The 
readiness, 
approaches  used take account of the fact that 
low  emission  development  is  a  long-term  aim 
where  results  are  crucially  dependent  on 
ensuring  early  country-level  commitment. 
Through  a  combination  of  the  global  support 
programmes,  the  EU  has  reached  more  than 
35 countries. Notable results include: 

best 

  significant advancement of MRV systems in 
many  of  the  selected  countries  (although  it 
is  too  early  to  conclude  that  fully  robust 
MRV systems have been developed);  

  a considerable pipeline of NAMAs in a vari-
ety of different sectors (some are being de-
veloped in lesser developed countries such 
as  Uganda,  where  six  NAMAs  are  being 
supported);  

  a number of LEDS that are well embedded 
in national plans and programmes, and are 
likely to be implemented (examples include 
LEDS in Moldova, Colombia and the Philip-
pines,  where  authorities  have  credible 
plans to implement the strategies); 

  the  provision  of  a  number  of  platforms  and 
events 
for  experience  exchange  and 
knowledge  sharing  between  developing 
countries. 

EU  support  (via  the  ENRTP  and  geographic 
instruments)  has  contributed  to  improving  the 
enabling  environment  for  investments  in  sus-
tainable energy development. 

Support  was  provided  to  the  well-established 
EU  Energy  Initiative  and  ACP-EU  Energy  Fa-
cility, and to the Sustainable Energy for All ini-
tiative (SEA4ALL). The focus of this evaluation 
was  on  the  Global  Energy  Efficiency  and  Re-
newable  Energy  Fund  (GEEREF),  the  innova-
tive risk capital-based fund of which the  EU  is 
the  founder  and  lead  donor.  Notable  results 
include:  

  1.6 million people accessing clear and sus-
tainable energy, with the prospects of up to 
9 million if current plans succeed;  

  a  high  leverage  with  private  and  donor  fi-
nanced  risk  capital  for  renewable  energy  − 
although  not  for  energy  efficiency,  which 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
iv 

was  not  found  relevant  for  the  risk  capital 
approach; 

  lower  financial  barriers  and  risk  perception 
−  through  establishing  a  track  record  of  in-
vestment  returns  in  small-scale  renewable 
energy in developing countries;  

  significant  environment,  employment  and 
capacity  development  benefits  −  although 
the opportunity to proactively target and in-
volve Small and Medium-Sized  Enterprises 
(SMEs) has not been fully exploited. 

EU  support  (via  the  ENRTP  and  geographic 
instruments)  has  helped  in  improving  the  ca-
pacity  of  partner  countries  to  prevent/reduce 
the  loss  of  biodiversity,  but  not  to  an  extent 
that can reverse the declining trend. 

support  − 

through  a 

EU 
variety  of 
interventions,  ranging  from  policy  dialogue  to 
awareness-raising and concrete demonstration 
projects  −  has  ensured  that  partner  countries 
maintain  a  focus  on  biodiversity  conservation, 
and thus is likely to have contributed to slowing 
down the loss of biodiversity. However, overall 
loss  of  biodiversity  continues.  Mainstreaming 
of biodiversity into non-sector interventions has 
gradually  improved  −  for  example,  in  the 
integrated  water  resources  management,  and 
in  agriculture-rural  development  and  forestry 
sectors. The EU has supported a large number 
of 
to 
achieving  the  biodiversity-related  Aichi  goals 
and  targets  in  most  partner  countries  –  in 
particular, attempting to address the underlying 
causes  of  biodiversity  loss.  EU  support  to 
protected  area  management  has  been 
instrumental 
testing  and 
in  developing, 
applying  innovative  approaches  to  biodiversity 
conservation 
areas 
and 
management. 
communities  are  now  more  aware  of  benefits 
of  protected  areas,  and  there  is  evidence  of 
the 
greater  responsibility  being 
protected area management and its wildlife. 

Sub-governments 

that  contribute 

interventions 

protected 

taken 

field 

and 

for 

The  EU  has  supported  processes  that  lead  to 
sustainable  and  resource-efficient  production 
and  consumption  policies  and  practices.  How-
ever,  it  is  too  early  to  conclude  that  the  sup-
ported countries have made the transition to a 
green economy development path.  

The  EU  has  a  number  of  programmes  that 
work  directly  to  develop  policy,  strengthen  ca-
pacity and spread good practice in sustainable 

consumption and production (SCP) and Green 
Economy  (GE).  Many  of  these  began  towards 
the  end  of  the  evaluation  period.  Most  pro-
gress  has  been  achieved  where  countries  al-
ready have committed to SCP/GE. While most 
projects  have  engaged  in  policy  development, 
the majority of grant money from EU-supported 
programmes  has  been  used  at  the  enterprise 
level.  Many  successful  pilot  projects,  with  a 
range  of  partners,  have  been  established,  but 
lack  of  access  to  affordable  financing  for  eco-
innovation  remains  a  major  challenge  to  scal-
ing  up.  Overall,  there  is  some  good  progress 
on implementation of interventions and transfer 
of  good  practice,  both  top-down  and  bottom-
up,  but  it  is  too  early  to  see  signs  that  econo-
mies are becoming greener at the macro level. 

The  ENRTP  has  contributed  to  strengthening 
international environmental governance in rela-
tion to MEAs and UNEP-related processes, but 
there is still much work to be done in support-
ing concrete implementation. 

The  EU, 
through  Strategic  Co-operation 
Agreements,  has  strengthened  UNEP  and  the 
MEA  Secretariats.  These  agreements  have 
strengthened UNEP and the Secretariats by:  

  enhancing  their  ability  to  prepare  strategic 

long-term planning of activities;  

  developing  synergies  and  co-ordination 
within  and  among  UNEP  sub-programmes 
and MEA Secretariats;  

  supporting  the  developing  countries’  im-
plementation of their MEA obligations;  

  further  developing  UNEP  and  MEA  Secre-
tariats’ roles as “venture catalysts” conceiv-
ing  and  mobilising  resources  for  develop-
ment of innovative solutions;  

  improving  their  ability  to  provide  updated 
and  reliable  data  and  information  for  deci-
sion making.  

UNEP’s  mandate  and  role  in  providing  global 
leadership  on  environment  and  biodiversity 
issues  has  been  strengthened  and,  in  this 
sense,  the  support  has  promoted  and  contrib-
uted  to  achieving  EU  goals  and  objectives 
concerning global environmental issues. 

The ENRTP contributed to strengthening inter-
national climate governance through support to 
UNFCCC. 

A core aim of the EU is to promote multilateral-
ism  as  a  critical  tool  to  tackle  global  challeng-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
es,  such  as  climate  change.  The  EU  support 
has  created  an  environment  conducive  to 
reaching  global  agreements,  and  for  ensuring 
that  developing  countries  can  engage  effec-
tively  in  global  negotiations  and  implement 
their  commitments  under  UNFCCC.  The  ca-
pacity  of  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  to  support 
UNFCCC  processes  has  been  strengthened. 
The EU has provided consistent  and predicta-
ble support that has enabled developing coun-
tries  to  participate  proactively  in  the  UNFCCC 
negotiations.  Through  these  actions,  EU  sup-
port  has  built  a  stronger  knowledge  base  and 
development  capacity 
to  address  climate 
change.  Developing  countries  actively  use  the 
skills obtained to address climate change, and 
good  progress has been made in the formula-
tion  of  climate  change  policies,  strategies  and 
plans at country level. 

The  EU  has  developed  an  appropriate  frame-
work  and  an  approach  for  environmental  and 
climate change mainstreaming in its support to 
partner countries. 

DG  DEVCO  has  developed  mainstreaming 
guidelines and tools, and has provided capaci-
ty  building  for  EUDs.  The  EU  mainstreaming 
guidelines  are  of  good  quality  and  promote 
important  mainstreaming  tools.  However,  the 
tools promoted do not fully take into considera-
tion  the  economic  opportunities  and  national 
systems.  Nevertheless,  the  tools  are  highly 
appreciated,  and  the  mainstreaming  capacity 
in Delegations has increased significantly, with 
most  Delegations  having  become  significantly 
more  active  in  mainstreaming.  Although  the 
tools  are  very useful, some Delegations noted 
that the QSG process and the procedures and 
demands  of 
the  programming  documents, 
identification  and  action  fiches  were  also  cru-
cial in ensuring attention to mainstreaming dur-
ing design. 

Environment  and  climate  change  have  been 
mainstreamed  considerably  more  than  in  pre-
vious  periods  throughout  the  programme  and 
project  cycle  of  EU  support  to;  a)  agriculture 
and rural development; and b) infrastructure. 

The  core  mainstreaming  tools  have  mostly 
been  rigorously  applied  and  followed  up  on. 
The  EU  requirements  for  the  development  of 
Country  Environmental  Profiles  (CEPs)  have 
been followed in most countries, with variation 
in  quality  and  extent.  Strategic  Environmental 

v 

Assessments  (SEA)  have  been  applied,  but 
not to their full potential. Environmental Impact 
Assessments (EIA) have been carried out and 
monitored  during  project 
implementation. 
However, the degree of mainstreaming of envi-
ronment and climate change is highly depend-
ent on the level of awareness and commitment 
of  national  partners  and  decision  makers. 
Where  projects  and  programmes  have,  from 
the onset,  incorporated specific outcomes and 
indicators  clearly  directed  towards  improve-
ment  of  the  environment  and  climate  change 
situation, the evidence is that actual implemen-
tation corresponds with the intentions. 

The EU has used its available instruments in a 
way that enhances complementarity in support 
of  the  overall  EU  goals  of  a  healthy  environ-
ment,  sound  natural  resource  management, 
and  strong  environmental  and  climate  govern-
ance in developing countries.  

ENRTP  was  established  as  a  tool  to  provide 
support  to  global  environmental  governance 
processes  and  environmental  innovations  in 
line  with  EU’s  policy  objectives  −  unlike  geo-
graphic  instruments,  which  have  a  geograph-
ically  delineated  scope  and  are  based  on  the 
priorities  of  partner  governments.  Notable  re-
sults include:  

  ENRTP  has  enabled  the  EU  to  support 
global  processes  and  innovations  in  order 
to  address  global  environmental  and  cli-
mate  change  challenges  in  a  coherent  and 
strategic manner; 

  synergies  and  benefits  were  obtained 
through  a  number  of  ENRTP  and  geo-
graphic  actions,  and  through  ENRTP  and 
the actions of other donors  – even if not to 
their full potential;  

  synergies were mainly obtained when there 
was  a  shared  thematic/topical  focus  of 
country programmes and ENRTP.  

The  ENRTP  also  enabled  the  EU  to  address 
environmental  issues  in  countries,  where  the 
country  strategies  did  not  allow  geographical 
instruments  to  do  so.  This  also  relates  to  a 
challenge  identified  in  the  2009  Mid-Term  Re-
view  of  ENRTP,  which  found  a  common  mis-
conception  in  EUDs  that  ENRTP  is  an  instru-
ment  for  compensating  for  the  absence  of  an 
environment focus in the country programmes, 
rather  than  as  an  instrument  for  supporting 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
innovation. This perception is notably less evi-
dent now than it was in 2009. 

tries to promote and build up a readiness to 
respond to change.  

vi 

Main conclusions 

Cluster 1 − Policy and strategic focus  

Conclusion  1:  EU  policies  and  strategies 
for  environment  and  climate  change  are 
appropriate, but fragmented and difficult to 
access.  

EU policies and strategies for environment and 
climate  change  are  appropriate,  but  fragment-
ed and difficult for EUD staff and others to ac-
cess. The EU has developed a series of policy 
statements and strategies that have been con-
tinuously adjusted and updated. They are high-
ly  appropriate  and,  in  many  respects,  at  the 
leading edge, but they are numerous and scat-
tered across many different documents. There 
is  no  one  document  that  summarises  or  pro-
vides an overview of the complex arena of en-
vironment and climate change. EUD staff, and 
especially  others  outside  the  EU  staff,  find  it 
difficult to access, refer to and make use of the 
guidance provided. 

Conclusion 2: The EU policy-level influence 
on  environment  and  climate  change  has 
been considerable, but has not yet reached 
its full potential.  

Through a combination of direct policy support 
actions,  the  use  of  indicators  related  to  envi-
ronment  and  climate  change  in  budget  and 
project  support,  and  policy  dialogue,  the  EU 
focus on sustainable development substantial-
ly  increased in  the  period  2007  to 2013.  How-
ever,  the  full  potential  has  not  been  reached, 
and  there  is  still  considerable  scope  for  in-
creasing  policy  influence.  Close  to  half  of  the 
Delegations  surveyed  report  that  environment 
and  climate  change  still  does  not  feature 
strongly  in  their  interaction  with  national  part-
ners.  Moreover,  opportunities  have  not  been 
fully  exploited  to  make  greater  use  of  indica-
tors  in  budget  support  and  to  strengthen  the 
linkages between country-level and global dia-
logue. 

Conclusion  3:  By  supporting  environment 
and  climate  change,  even  where  the  initial 
response  of  national  partners  is  weak,  the 
EU  support  has  been  able  in  some  coun-

Even  where  the  initial  response  of  national 
partners has been weak and the context unfa-
vourable,  the  EU  support  to  environment  and 
climate  change  policy  has  often  had  a  con-
structive  effect.  By  sending  consistent  mes-
sages  on  the  importance  of  environment  and 
climate change, supporting more informed de-
cision-making through studies, promoting insti-
tutional  reforms  and  building  up  a  technical 
level  of  readiness  and  a  capacity  to  respond, 
the EU  has ensured that national partners are 
more likely to promote changes in the political 
and  institutional  context  that  are  favourable  to 
environment  and  climate  change.  Such  sup-
port  has  also  put  the  relevant  institutions  in  a 
better  position  to  respond  when  change  does 
occur.  

Cluster 2 − Results and impacts 

Conclusion 4: EU support has led to results 
across the environment and climate change 
sector,  but  there  is  still  a  long  way  to  go 
before  this  will 
lead  to  transformative 
change and to reversing declining trends.  

The  EU  support  has  led  to  important  results 
within  biodiversity  conservation,  use  of  sus-
tainable energy, mitigation of greenhouse gas-
es, improved adaptation, management of natu-
ral  resources,  control  of  pollution,  and  the 
promotion  of  sustainable  consumption  and 
production.  However,  the  scale  of  the  support 
−  even  though  the  thematic  EU  support  has 
been  largely  harmonised  with  global  effort  − 
has  not  been  sufficient  to  reverse  declining 
trends  and  to  combat  the  strength  of  forces 
working against sustainable development.  

Conclusion  5:  Where the EU has promoted 
market-based  approaches  on  a  pilot  basis 
there  have  been  encouraging  results,  but 
access to finance has proved a major chal-
lenge for scaling-up. 

Access  to  sustainable  energy  and  the  promo-
tion of the green economy through sustainable 
consumption and production has been promis-
ing  at  the  pilot  level,  and  has,  in  some  cases, 
also  resulted  in  encouraging  levels  of  replica-
tion. However, securing access to finance has 
proved  a major challenge.  The EU  initiative to 
set up a risk capital facility for sustainable en-
ergy  has  led  to  significant  results,  which  indi-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
vii 

cates the benefit of promoting dedicated, mar-
ket-based and innovative approaches.  

Conclusion 6: The thematic and geographic 
instruments have been complementary and 
have created results, but advantage has not 
always been taken of opportunities for syn-
ergy.  

The  combination  of  ENRTP  and  geographic 
instruments  enabled  the  EU  to  engage  in  a 
relevant  and  substantial  manner  at  global,  re-
gional  and  country  levels.  This  has  led  to 
promising  results,  and  there  are  good  exam-
ples  of  synergies  between  ENRTP  and  geo-
graphic instruments, but opportunities have not 
always  been  taken  full  advantage  of  due  to  a 
limited involvement of EUDs in the design and 
implementation of many ENRTP actions. 

Cluster  3  –  Environment  and  climate 
change governance 

Conclusion 7: The scale and consistency of 
EU  support  to  global  governance  of  envi-
ronment  and  climate  change  has  strongly 
contributed  to  progress  towards  reaching 
global  agreements,  and  strengthening  the 
implementation of such agreements.  

The  consistent  EU  support  for  global  environ-
ment  and  climate  change  governance  has 
been  an  important  contribution  to  strengthen-
ing the capacity of developing countries to par-
ticipate  effectively  in  the  negotiations,  and  to 
implement their outcomes. The scale and con-
sistency  has  meant  that  the  international  or-
ganisations  assisting  developing  countries  to 
take  an  active  role  in  global  governance  have 
been able to plan on the basis of a longer-term 
and  more  consistent  framework,  which  has 
contributed  to  creating  cumulative  capacity 
development.  

Conclusion  8:  EU  support  to  UNEP  and 
MEA  Secretariats  has  led  to  greater  effec-
tiveness and coherence in the international 
efforts to support MEA implementation, but 
the  results  in  terms  of  implementation  of 
conventions at country level is still lagging, 
particularly for biodiversity.  

The  gradual  increase  in  EU  support  to  UNEP 
and MEA Secretariats has contributed to more 
effective implementation of their mandates and 
functions  in  order  to  achieve  agreed  interna-
tional  environmental  goals  and  priorities.  Fur-

thermore, EU support has significantly contrib-
uted  to  achieving  synergies  and  co-ordinated 
work between MEAs within the clusters of bio-
diversity  and  chemicals  &  wastes.  However, 
the  potential  for  synergies  between  global  en-
vironmental  governance  support  and  country 
programmes  has  not  been  fully  capitalised  on 
in terms of ensuring that the enabling environ-
ment is in place at national level for the imple-
mentation of MEA provisions. 

Conclusion  9:  By  working  through  interna-
tional  organisations,  the  EU  has  contribut-
ed  to  greater  effectiveness  and  coherence 
in  addressing  global  public  goods  and 
challenges  in  the  field  of  environment  and 
climate  change  –  where  the  international 
organisations have a global mandate that is 
credible and a high level of performance.  

The strategy of working through already estab-
lished  international  programmes  −  such  as 
those  of  UNEP,  UNDP,  the  World  Bank, 
OECD,  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organi-
sation (ICAO) and Local Governments for Sus-
tainability  (ICLEI)  −  has  led  to  greater  coher-
ence and has reduced the danger of proliferat-
ing  different  approaches  than  would  probably 
have been the case with the alternative of set-
ting up new EU-led projects. For example, de-
veloping  countries  are  approached  from  all 
angles by support efforts for MRV, NAMA and 
LEDS, and there is an acute danger of confus-
ing methodologies and incompatible databases 
and processes being set up. If not harmonised 
and -co-ordinated well, this could lead to dupli-
cation,  waste  of  resources,  and  a  lowering  of 
capacity in the countries. Attempts to establish 
a  global  co-ordination  have  not  yet  met  with 
success.  However,  the  EU  approach  of  work-
ing through global organisations has consider-
ably  helped  in  reducing  the  overlap,  and  in 
strengthening  national-level  co-ordination.  A 
global  approach  to  a  global  problem  has 
shown itself to be more credible and more like-
ly  to  lead  to  voluntary  adoption  of  climate 
change  mitigation  and  environmental  targets. 
However,  it  is  crucial  that  the  global  mandate 
of  the  relevant  organisation  is  credible  and  its 
performance  high.  The  findings  indicate  that 
monitoring  of  fulfilment  of  visibility  require-
ments  and  performance  levels  are  essential 
factors  in  working  effectively  through  interna-
tional organisations. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
viii 

Cluster 4 - Mainstreaming 

Conclusion  10:  There  has  been  significant 
progress 
in  mainstreaming  environment 
and  climate  change  in  EU  support  to  sec-
tors  such  as  infrastructure  and  agricul-
ture/rural  development,  especially  where 
there is national ownership.  

EU  support  has  contributed  to  an  increased 
focus  on  mainstreaming  environment  and  cli-
mate  change  at  national  policy  level  in  “envi-
ronmentally sensitive sectors” in partner coun-
tries. However, there is still a gap between pol-
icy/ strategies and actual implementation. 

Conclusion  11:  The EU guidance  and tools 
for  mainstreaming  are  appropriate,  but 
need updating.  

EU  mainstreaming  guidelines  and  tools  are 
appropriate  and  have  significantly  contributed 
to  enhancing  mainstreaming  in  EU  actions  in 
other  sectors.  But  they  do  not  fully  take  into 
consideration  the  economic  opportunities  and 
national  systems,  and  ENRTP-supported  spe-
cialist mainstreaming projects and approaches 
(PEI,  TEEB/biodiversity  mainstreaming)  are 
not  fully  taken  advantage  of  in  the  efforts  to 
ensure  mainstreaming  in  the  EU’s  bilateral 
support. 

Main recommendations 

Cluster 1 − EU policy framework and  
actions 

Recommendation  1:  Develop  a  one-stop 
policy brief.  

Prepare  a  one-stop  policy  brief  of  the  current 
EU policy positions, in the form of a living doc-
ument that is kept up-to-date. 

Recommendation  2:  Strengthen  coherence 
between  global  and  national  policy  dia-
logue.  

Strengthen  linkages  between  global,  regional 
and  national  policy  dialogue;  mobilise  EU 
member  state  embassies  to  help  in  establish-
ing  a  link  to  Government  in  countries  where 
EUDs  do  not  have  a  substantial  engagement 
in  the  environment/climate  change  sectors; 
provide  extra  resources  for  EUDs  that  do  not 
have  a  substantial  engagement  in  environ-
ment/climate  change  for  mobilising  short-term 

inputs  for  specific  demarches;  ensure  de-
marches  are  timely,  so  that  partner  govern-
ments  can  consider  EU  positions  before  de-
veloping their own MEA positions. 

Recommendation  3:  Optimise  indicators  in 
budget and project support.  

Increase  the  use  of  indicators  related  to  envi-
ronment  and  climate  change  in  budget  and 
project  support  operations  in  order  to  improve 
mainstreaming  and  strengthen  the  coherence 
with the new SDGs. 

Cluster 2 − Implementation approach 

Recommendation 4: Enhance co-ordination 
between geographic and thematic actions. 

Enhance the involvement of EUDs in thematic 
programmes by ensuring that they are involved 
in the early decision-making on thematic priori-
ties  related  to  their  country  and  are  kept  well 
informed, particularly on targeted actions. 

Recommendation  5:  Promote 
finance.  

innovative 

Increase EU support for access to finance, es-
pecially  by  SMEs,  so  that  they  can  participate 
in market-based approaches aimed at increas-
ing  the  adoption  of  sustainable  energy  and 
transition  to  the  green  economy,  thereby  re-
sponding to SDG 12. 

Recommendation  6:  Work  with  multilateral 
institutions.  

Continue  to  work  through  established  multilat-
eral  institutions  for  global  public  environment 
and  climate  change  goods.  Place  a  greater 
emphasis  on  the  engagement  of  EU  and 
Member  State  actors,  and  on  the  transfer  of 
technology  and  institutional  and  regulatory 
know-how. 

Recommendation  7:  Enhance  synergies 
and  strengthen  mainstreaming  in  EU  sup-
port  across  sectors  by  linking  future  the-
matic  supported  mainstreaming  projects 
and  non-environment/climate  change  inter-
ventions in country programmes.  

Further  integrate  the  approaches  and  capaci-
ties  of  global  mainstreaming  projects  provided 
through  thematic  instruments  with  the  imple-
mentation  of  non-environment/climate  change 
interventions  in  country  programmes  −  for  ex-
ample,  by  developing  joint  actions  between 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
ix 

EUDs  and  the  national  interventions  of  the 
global thematic mainstreaming projects. Better 
mainstreaming is central for achieving the new 
SDGs, as they  emphasise the interconnected-
ness  of  environmental  sustainability,  poverty 
reduction  and  sustained  economic  develop-
ment. 

Recommendation  8:  Prioritise  environment 
and  climate  change  in  development  co-
operation.  

Promote and prioritise greater co-operation on 
environment and climate change through close 
co-ordination  of  the  ongoing  thematic  pro-
gramme  on  Global  Public  Goods  and  Chal-
lenges  and  through  support  provided  via  geo-
graphic  instruments  to  contribute  to  the  new 
SDGs    –  responding  to  the  in-creasing  im-
portance  of  securing  sustainable  development 
in  medium-income  and  lower-income  coun-
tries,  and  in  fragile  and  conflict  affected  situa-
tions.

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
1 

Introduction 

1 

1.1  Mandate and scope of the evaluation 

A broad evaluation scope covering a seven-year period of EU sup-
port in third countries, regions and through relevant instruments. 

The mandate and scope of the evaluation are given in the Terms of Reference (ToR). 
The evaluation has three main specific research objectives: 

  To assess the EU’s support to environment and climate  change in third countries 
through  the  Thematic  Programme  for  Environment  and  Management  of  Natural 
Resources including Energy (ENRTP), and through the geographic instruments. 

  To evaluate the support of the EU to strengthening global environment and climate 
governance,  provided  under  ENRTP  and  channelled  mainly  through  international 
organisations;  

  To  assess  the  EU  support  for  mainstreaming  environment  and  climate  change 
issues into  EU external  aid programmes through the  analysis  of two key sectors: 
infrastructure (including energy) and agriculture/rural development. 

The assessment should focus specifically on outcome and impacts of the EU actions in 
environment and climate change. Furthermore, the evaluation should identify key les-
sons  and  best  practices,  and  produce  recommendations  in  order  to  improve  the  cur-
rent and future EU strategies, policies and actions 

The evaluation covers aid  implementation over the period 2007-2013. The geograph-
ical  scope  includes  all  third  regions  and  countries  under  the  mandate  of  DG  DEVCO 
that are covered by the thematic programme ENRTP and by the DCI, EDF and ENPI 
geographic instruments. Also, interventions co-financed and managed by DG ENV, DG 
ENER or DG CLIMA are included if the funds are provided by DG DEVCO. 

As such this assessment replies to the Court of auditor’s recommendation of carrying 
out  an  overall  evaluation  of  Commission’s  development  cooperation  environmental 
assistance (interventions and mainstreaming).  

1.2  Structure of the report 

The report, which aims to present a comprehensive analysis and understanding of EU 
support to issues related to environment and climate change in third countries and re-
gions, is structured in four volumes: 

Volume 1 

Chapter 1 – Introduction: gives an overall introduction to this report. 

Chapter 2 – Key methodological steps: introduces the main methodological elements. 
Annex 2 in Vol 3 details the approach adopted for the data collection and analysis. 

Chapter 3 – Overall policy framework of the EU strategy in relation to environment and 
climate change. It provides a brief abstract of the international framework and rele-
vant multilateral agreements. 

Chapter 4 – Reconstruction of the intended intervention logic of the EU support to en-
vironment  and  climate  change  in  third  countries,  based  on  an  analysis  of  major 
normative documents. 

Chapter 5 – Analysis of EU worldwide financial resources allocated to sectors related 
to environment and climate change in third countries in the period 2007-2013. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
Volume 2 

Volume 3 

2 

Chapter 6 – Findings related to each evaluation question.  

Chapters 7, 8 and 9 – Overall Assessment, Conclusions based on the answers to the 

Evaluation Questions, and Recommendations based on the Conclusions. 

Evaluation Question sheets, with a detailed overview on the information gathered dur-
ing the exercise. 

1.  Terms of Reference. 

2.  Key methodological steps. 

3.  Overall policy framework on EU strategy in environment and climate change. 

4.  Analysis of EU strategy in environment and climate change in third regions. 

5.  Methodology  for  the  elaboration  of  the  worldwide  Inventory  of  EU  interventions 

relate to environment and climate change. 

6. 

Inventory analysis. 

7.  Final evaluation matrix. 

8. 

Inventory of EU financial interventions in issues related to environment and climate 
change in third countries in the period 2007-2013. 

9.  List of interventions considered by EQ. 

10.  Survey to EU Delegations. 

11.  List of People interviewed. 

12.  List of documents and sources of information. 

13.  RG meeting presentation synthesis phase. 

Volume 4 

Country Notes. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
3 

2  Key methodological steps 

2.1  Overall methodological approach 

An approach in four phases. 

The methodology applied for this evaluation is based on the methodological guidelines 
developed by  the DG DEVCO Evaluation Unit. The guidelines give precise  indication 
on the design of the study, structure of the evaluation process in several phases, and 
provide an array of tools that can be used for evaluations.  

The  evaluation  was  conducted  in  four  main  phases  (as  summarised  in  Figure  1)  be-
tween December 2013 and August 2015. The organisation of a dissemination seminar 
in Brussels is also envisaged and expected to be held during the month of November. 

It  was  managed  and  supervised  by  the  DG  DEVCO  Evaluation  Unit.  Evaluation  pro-
gress  was  closely  followed  by  a  Reference  Group  (RG),  chaired  by  the  Evaluation 
Unit, and consisting of members of various EU institutions: DG Climate, DG Environ-
ment,  DG  International  Co-operation  and  Development,  and  the  European  External 
Action  Service  (EEAS).  The  figure  also  lists  the  main  tasks  in  each  phase,  the  RG 
meetings held, and the deliverables for each phase. In line with the ToR, each phase 
started after formal approval of the deliverables of the previous phase by the Evalua-
tion Unit.  

Figure 1 

Key steps of the evaluation process 

The  evaluation  process  adopted  a  systematic  approach  that  used  various  building 
blocks to gradually construct an answer to the EQs, and to formulate conclusions and 
recommendations. 

Given  the  purpose  and  conditions  of  the  evaluation,  the  most  appropriate  design  for 
the  evaluation  was  considered  to  be  a  multiple  case  study,  based  on  the  use  of  a 
mixed-methods approach. 

Annex 2 in Volume 3 presents the methodology in detail. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Inception stageDesk stageField phaseSynthesis phaseDeliverablesMeetingsMain TasksOverview of EU policies and strategies in environment and climate changeInventoryDrafting intervention logicsDeveloping EQs & JCs & IndicatorsDetailing methodologyDrafting InceptionReportInterviews (EEAS, EC HQ & other stakeholders)Analysis of project and general documentation (e.g. CSPs, ROM, CLEs) EUD surveyDrafting desk report (preliminary answers to the EQs with hypothesis and gaps to be filled during field visits)Field visits (observations, Interviews, group discussions, questionnaires)Debriefing with the EU Delegations in the field visit countriesDrafting  final report (validation/ completion of answers to the evaluation questions)Drafting conclusions & recommendationsDrafting final reportDissemination seminar in BrusselsSlide PresentationsInception ReportDesk ReportField reporting and synthesis note (presentations to the RG)Final reportDissemination presentationMinutes of the seminarRGRGRGRGDSRG: Reference Group meeting; DS: Dissemination SeminarRGDesk phase12//2013 –4/201411/2014–3/20155//2014 –11/20144//2015 –11/2015 
 
4 

2.2  Challenges and limitations 

There were challenges in obtaining the data and inconsistency 
in recording of, for example, DAC criteria − but, for the most 
part, these were overcome. 

Overall,  the  various  steps,  techniques  and  tools  utilised  throughout  the  evaluation 
exercise  were  successfully  followed  and  applied.  The most  important  challenges  and 
limitations were: 

  With  regard  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  worldwide  inventory  of  EU  ENV/CC 

interventions: 
o  While the situation has improved for more recent entries,  there are still many 
cases in which no Development Assistance Committee (DAC) sector code has 
been attributed to the interventions in the Current RELEX Information System 
(CRIS) database. This required the team to carry out a tedious, line-by-line re-
view all entries in the database. Interventions have been distributed by sector, 
and  then  categorised  on  the  basis  of  the  (limited)  information  found  in  the 
CRIS  database  −  supplemented,  where  relevant,  through  further  Internet  re-
search on the interventions. This indicates that the team has made a number 
of choices in allocating the various interventions to the specific sectors.  

o  Additional  challenges  emerged  through  the  sometimes-inconsistent  way  in 
which  data  is  entered  in  the  system,  leading  to  problems  in  the  computer-
based search for relevant contracts. 

o  An inventory of interventions at the level of contracts was feasible only for the 
ENRTP. For other budget lines, it was technically impossible to establish a list 
of  all  contracts  covering  each  contract  within  each  financing  decision  (i.e.  all 
contracts  financed  by  DG  DEVCO  between  2007  and  2013),  because  there 
are simply too many entries in CRIS. It was agreed with the Reference Group 
that,  for  the  purpose  of  this  evaluation,  the  level  of  financing  decisions  was 
sufficient for the inventory of non-ENRTP interventions. 

  The  quantity,  quality  and  relevance  of  the  information  available  −  from  various 
sources, and in different ways − for collection and analysis of the indicators on the 
results  and  effects  of  EU  support  to  areas  related  to  Environment  and  Climate 
Change  related  areas  appeared  in  some  occasions  limited.  This  is  despite  the 
sustained and diverse efforts made by the evaluation team, the Commission HQs, 
and/or other institutions’ officials. 

  Overall, the surveys and data collection provided a reasonable and representative 

overview of EU co-operation strategy, but encountered some limitations: 
o  Not all EUDs provided comments or explanations on some issues. 

o  With some few exceptions (only 13% replied), there was a lack of response on 

the part of National Counterparts. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
3  Overall  policy  framework  of  the  EU  strategy  in  relation  to  envi-

5 

ronment and climate change2 

The period considered by this evaluation covers major changes 
in the EC external development policy agenda.  

To better understand these changes, it is necessary to recall the importance of previ-
ous international commitments, and of EU internal policies that set the basis for con-
sideration of environment and climate change in external EC actions. Since the early 
1990s,  and  especially  during  the  last  decade,  relationships  with  the  United  Nations 
system have been strengthened as a result of the increased commitment to multilater-
alism.  The  1992  UN  Conference  on  Environment  and  Development  (UNCED  −  also 
known as the Rio Summit) represents a major milestone in this framework. Sustaina-
ble  development  was  identified  as  the  main  guiding  concept  for  global  development 
and poverty alleviation. Among the stated principles were the rights and obligations of 
states  with  regard  to  exploitation  of  natural  resources  and  environmental  protection, 
integration of environmental protection and development, giving priority to the needs of 
poor and vulnerable countries, international co-operation, and liability for environmen-
tal damage. The Rio Summit principles have been followed up since then by two main 
summits: the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD − also known 
as Rio+10) and the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD − also 
known  as  Rio+20).  Furthermore,  the  Rio  Summit  agreed  on  establishing  three  main, 
legally-binding Conventions: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-
FCCC), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the UN Conven-
tion  on  Biological  Diversity  (UNCBD).  Most  EU  support  to  issues  related  to  environ-
ment and climate change focuses on these three Conventions. 

Box 1  

The 1992 Rio Summit conventions 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) became effective in 1994. Its objec-
tive is to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would pre-
vent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. It does not itself contain 
any binding agreements and commitments, but provides the framework for negotiating interna-
tional protocols with binding agreements on curbing GHG emissions. There are annual high-
level meetings – Conferences of Parties (COPs) − at which commitments on curbing emissions, 
and on technical and financial assistance to developing countries, are negotiated. 

UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) became effective in 1996 and is signed by 
195 countries. It is the only binding MEA linking environment and development to sustainable 
land management. The Convention addresses specifically the arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid 
areas, known as the dry lands, and has a special focus on Africa. Its 10-Year Strategy for 2008-
2018 further specifies the goal “to forge a global partnership to reverse and prevent desertifica-
tion/land degradation and to mitigate the effects of drought in affected areas in order to support 
poverty reduction and environmental sustainability”. 

UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) became effective in 1993 and is signed by 193 
countries. Its objectives are “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its 
components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of 
genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate 
transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to tech-
nologies, and by appropriate funding”. 

2  Refer  to  Vol  3,  Annex  3  for  a  detailed  analysis.  Furthermore,  Vol  3,  Annex  4  presents  a  broad  picture  of  the 
overall strategic co-operation frameworks with third regions and countries, and how the environment and climate 
change were integrated in such frameworks.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
6 

EU internal policies and their external dimension – incorporated in the EU’s overall de-
velopment policy − have been aligned to respond to multilateral commitments agreed 
on in international forums. EU development policy has thus been made coherent with 
MEAs, the MDGs, and with EU internal policies.  

The  inclusion  of  environmental  concerns  in  all  Community  activities  and  policies  has 
been  stated  since  the  Single  European  Act  of  1986,  and  has  been  acknowledged  in 
successive consolidated versions of the EC Treaty. Since 1997, it has been a require-
ment of the EC Treaty. 

The Luxembourg European Council of December 1997 stressed its conviction that en-
vironmental  protection  requirements  were  to  be  integrated  into  the  Community's  poli-
cies  and  activities  −  in  particular,  with  a  view  to  promoting  sustainable  development. 
Since then, various means have  been proposed and integrated into EU development 
policy,  such  as  capacity  strengthening  to  implement  MEAs,  and  inclusion  of  environ-
mental  concerns  into  policy  dialogue  with  developing  countries  and  into  EC  co-
operation programming and project cycle.  In  2003, the EU established the Green Di-
plomacy Network (GDN), with the aim of integrating environment in external relations 
by  promoting  a  European  diplomacy  on  environment  and  sustainable  development. 
Since  the  establishment  of  the  EEAS,  and  in  co-ordination  with  the  EC,  EU  Climate 
Diplomacy has been strengthened, as shown by recent European Councils on Climate 
Diplomacy. 

With the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC in 1997, and particularly since 
the  Brussels  European  Council  of  1999,  climate  change  started  to  be  integrated  into 
EU  development  co-operation.  The  focus  was  put  on  traditional  Official  Development 
Assistance (ODA), but also on policy dialogue with developing countries, with the aim 
of scaling-up climate change on the political agenda of the countries. A comprehensive 
approach  to  climate  change  is  recognised  and  developed  in  various  documents,  the 
goal being to strengthen attention to climate change by addressing the interlinked envi-
ronmental  concerns  −  such  as  loss  of  biodiversity,  degradation  of  ecosystems,  and 
desertification, as well as their social and human impact. Synergies between climate, 
energy and development policies were also prioritised. Greater coherence was sought 
between the internal (EU) and external dimension of the EU climate change policies  

The CBD led to the adoption of the EU Biodiversity Strategy in 1998. 

The  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy,  elaborated  as  a  preparatory  input  to  the 
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, enriches the 
Lisbon Strategy in that it adds a third dimension (the environmental one) to the existing 
economic  and  social  ones.  The  global  and  external  dimension  of  this  new  approach 
was rapidly introduced into EU development policy, and further enriched over the peri-
od evaluated. Of particular importance since 2002 are the EU Water Initiative (EUWI), 
the  EU  Energy  Initiative  (EUEI),  and  the  Forest  Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and 
Trade (FLEGT). Of special importance for this evaluation is the establishment in 2006 
of the ENRTP. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
Box 2  

The ENRTP 

7 

Due to lessons learned from past assistance, the EU decided to make all EU voluntary contribu-
tions through development cooperation instruments. In January 2006, the Communication on 
the Thematic Programme for Environment and sustainable management of Natural Resources, 
including Energy3 proposed a new approach to the environmental dimension of development 
and other external policies and proposed promoting the EU’s environmental, climate and energy 
policies abroad. The Communication stresses the importance of seeing environmental issues in 
a global context requiring concern for and active engagement in the sustainable development of 
the rest of the planet. 

The programme priorities are: 

  working to achieve Millennium Development Goal 7 (Ensure Environmental Sustainability), 

principally by building capacity to integrate the environment in developing countries, support 
civil society actors, monitoring and evaluation and the preparation of innovative solutions; 

 

 

 

 

promoting implementation of EU initiatives and commitments at international level, including 
in the areas of sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity, desertification, 
forests and their governance, marine resources, waste and chemical products, etc.; 

improving the integration by the EU of environmental questions, particularly as regards 
combating poverty, by expanding the EU's responsibilities and through cooperation and 
specialist aid; 

improving international governance as regards the environment and the EU's driving role, 
particularly by assisting regional and international environmental monitoring and 
assessment, aid for implementing multilateral agreements on the environment, and support 
for international organisations and processes concerned with the environment and energy; 

promoting options for renewable energy, particularly through institutional support and 
technical assistance, the creation of a legislative and administrative framework propitious 
for investment and business and encouragement for regional cooperation. 

Consequently, a specific thematic programme on Environment and Natural Resources (including 
Energy) ENRTP, was included in the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)4. The ENRTP 
strategy (p.18) states that “the overall objective of the ENRTP as set out in Article 13 of the DCI 
Regulation is ‘to integrate environmental protection requirements and climate change action into 
the Community’s development and other external policies as well as to help promote the Com-
munity’s environmental, climate and energy policies abroad in the common interest of the Com-
munity and partner countries and regions’”.  
The two ENRTP Strategic papers (2007-2010 and 2011-2013) operationalize the Communica-
tion and respectively allocate 537.8 and 517 € million. The first one adopts the COM’s five priori-
ties while the second one, following a mid-term evaluation conducted in 20095, further rationalis-
es it and identifies three main clusters:  
  Climate change and sustainable energy.  
The overall objective is to assist developing countries in preparing for climate-resilient low- 
emissions development and to contribute to more fruitful policy dialogue and negotiations; as 
well as to promote increased access to sustainable and affordable energy services. 

  Environment for development. 
The overall objective is to assist developing countries in preventing environmental degradation, 
biodiversity loss and unsustainable use of natural resources while improving the resource effi-
ciency of economic growth and reducing pollution. 

3 COM(2006)20final: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - External 
Action -Thematic programme for environment and sustainable management of natural resources including energy  
4 The Development Cooperation Instrument adopted on 18 December 2006 replaces, inter alia, the ALA regula-
tion. The overall goal of the instrument is eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in the context of 
sustainable development, including pursuit of the MDGs, as well as promotion of democracy, good governance 
and respect for human rights and the rule of law. In this framework, the cooperation aims at achieving the objec-
tives already stated in the EC Treaty. 
5 Soges S.p.A (2009): Review of the ENRTP. Final Report. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
                                                      
8 

  Strengthening environment and climate governance. 
The overall objective is better international environment and climate governance shaped by the 
external dimensions of the EU’s environment and climate change policies and the provision of 
methodological and governance tools appropriate to developing countries, and to improve main-
streaming of environment as well as promote governance and transparency of natural resources 
management. 

Achieving coherence between non-aid policies and development policy − particularly in 
relation to the MDGs − has been a central goal. Emphasis was given in this regard to 
the potential impact that EU environmental and energy policies − but also trade, agri-
culture, fisheries and transport policies − could have on the progress towards MDG 7 
on environmental sustainability. Key objectives that have become part of EU develop-
ment policy include: leading global efforts to curb unsustainable consumption and pro-
duction  patterns;  assisting  developing  countries  to  implement  the  MEAs;  helping  de-
veloping countries to incorporate environmental concerns in development and promot-
ing pro-poor environment-related initiatives. The 2013 EU Communication, “A Decent 
Life for All” goes further by including the sustainable management of natural resources 
as  one  of  the  five  priority  elements  for  the  overarching  framework  of  the  post-2015 
Sustainable Development Goals. 

More recently, support towards economic growth that produces fewer GHG emissions 
and adaptation to climate change (green growth) has been introduced in EU develop-
ment  co-operation,  and  also  in  the  framework  of  the  external  dimension  of  Europe 
2020  targets  and  the  Agenda  for  Change.  It  is  also  important  to  highlight  the  EU  cli-
mate  and  energy  package,  with  its  “20-20-20”  legally-binding  targets  on  GHG  emis-
sions,  renewable  sources  and  energy  efficiency,  and  the  new  EC  Communication  A 
2030 framework for climate and energy policies, which goes further on the targets. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
Figure 2 

Chronology of International commitments and EU/EC normative documents 

9 

Source: Own elaboration 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

•CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species19731986•Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes1989•Rio Declaration•Establishment of UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD1992•Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions1997•Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent19981999•Millennium Declaration2000•Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants2001•World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10)2002•Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity2003200420052006•Bali Action Plan on emissions20072008•Copenhagen Accord2009•CancúnAdaptation Framework•Nagoya Protocol on Genetic Resources2010•Durban Platform2011•Rio+2020122013International Fora & CommitmentsEuropean Councils & EU/EC normative documents1973•Single European Act198619891992•Environmental concerns introduced as requirement in EC Treaty•Luxembourg European Council: environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the Community's policies and activities1997•European Community biodiversity strategy      Cardiff European Council: A strategy for integrating the environment into EU policies•Vienna European Council: integrate environment into other policies, including that of development1998•Brussels European Council: need for climate change to be part of the EU development cooperation1999•Integrating env. and sustainable development into economic and development cooperation policy -elements of a comprehensive strategy•Council Regulation on measures to promote the full integration of the env. dimension in the development process of developing countries2000•Brussels European Council: Strategy for the integration of env. considerations into development policy to promote sustainable development •Gothenburg European Council: Sustainable Development Strategy2001•Barcelona European Council: ways to pursue environmental objectives in the conduct of external relations•Towards a global partnership for sustainable development (EUWI, EUEI, FLEGT)2002•Climate change in the context of development cooperation•Thessaloniki European Council: establishment of Green Diplomacy Network 2003•Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas -a stocktaking of the Cardiff process2004•Review of the Sustainable Development Strategy. A platform for action      Policy Coherence for Development      European Consensus•European Union’s contribution to speeding up progress towards the MDGs      Winning the Battle Against Global Climate Change2005•Halting the loss of biodiversity by2010 -and beyond      ENRTP2006•Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius      GCCA2007•Speeding up progress towards the MDGs      EU climate and energy package2008•Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen      MDGs -Impact of the Financial Crisis on Developing countries•Policy coherence for Development  -Establishing the policy framework for a whole-of-the-Union approach2009•Europe 2020 Strategy      A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the MDGs•EU development policy in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development2010•Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020      European Council on EU Climate diplomacy•Agenda for Change      Joint EEAS-EC Reflection Paper “Towards a renewed and strengthened EU climate diplomacy”2011•European Council conclusions on the outcome of Rio+20 2012•A decent Life for All      European Council on EU Climate diplomacy•Green paper "A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies"EEAS-EC "An EU climate diplomacy for 2015 and beyond"2013 
4  The  intended  Intervention  logic  of  EU  support  to  environment 

10 

and climate change in third countries 

The Intervention logic provides the basis for defining the evaluation 
questions. 

The Evaluation Team reconstructed the intervention logic of the overall EU support to 
environment  and  climate  change  in  third  countries  with  a  focus  on  the  ENRTP.  The 
objectives of producing the reconstructed Intervention Logic were: 

  To  help  in  clarifying  the  objectives  of  the  EU  support  and  translating  them  into  a 

hierarchy of expected effects so that they can be evaluated.  

  To propose evaluation questions to assess these effects. 

  To help in assessing the internal coherence of the EC support. 

4.1  The Intervention logic diagrams 

The simplified diagram below outlines the  “reconstructed intervention logic” of the EU 
development  co-operation  strategy  in  the  areas  of  environment  and  climate  change, 
with a focus on ENRTP but also considering all geographic instruments. The sources 
of the diagrams are the normative documents summarised in Chapter 3 and analysed 
in Volume 3, Annex 3.  

4.2  The different levels of the reconstructed intervention logic 

Three major strands or priority areas of EU policy: Climate change 
and sustainable energy, Environment for development and 
strengthening environment and climate governance. 

Based  on  the  policy  documents,  including  the  ENRTP  Phase  2  strategy,  three  major 
strands or “priority areas” of EU policy were identified: 

  Climate  change  and  sustainable  energy  –  comprised  of  three  sub-priority  areas: 

a) adaptation; b) mitigation; c) sustainable energy. 

Environment 
a) biodiversity, 
c) green economy. 

for  development  –  comprised  of 

three  sub-priority  areas: 
forest  conservation  and  desertification;  b) forest  governance; 

  Strengthening  environment  and  climate  governance  –  comprised  of  three  sub-
priority  areas:  a) external  environment  policy/international  environment 
governance;  b) external  climate  policy/international  climate  governance; 
c) mainstreaming of environment and climate change. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 Figure 3 

Reconstructed intervention logic 

11 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Climate change and sustainable energyStrengthening environment and climate governanceBetter international environment governanceINTERVENTIONLOGIC–EC ENVIRONMENTANDCLIMATECHANGESUPPORTATGLOBALPOLICYLEVEL2007-2013 (RECONSTRUCTEDVERSION)Type of actions (support to)Intermediate impactsLong-term impactsSpecific impacts (main outcomes)Enhanced resilience to the impacts of climate changeStrong environmental governance/management at the national level –across sectors•Policies•Plans•Budgets•Implementation•Incentives•Regulation•Enforcement•Monitoring•Transparency•InclusionStrong climate governance/management at the national level –across sectors:•Policies•Plans•Budgets•Implementation•Incentives•Regulation•Enforcement•Monitoring•Transparency•InclusionIncreased access to sustainable, efficient, reliable and affordable energy servicesPrevented/reduced environmental degradation;•Prevented/reduced biodiversity loss•Prevented/reduced unsustainable use of natural resources•Reduced pollution/sustain-able management of chemicals and wasteImproved resource use efficiencyOutcome areas Adaptation-GCCAMitigation-REDD-LEDS/NAMA/MRVSustainable EnergyEnvironment for Development•Biological diversity•Forest conservation•DesertificationForest governance/ FLEGTGreen economyExternal Environment PolicyExternal climate policySupport mainstreamingEQ6EQ7Enhanced preparedness of developing countries for climate-resilient low-emissions development Improved quality of policy dialogue and negotiationsImproved governance of natural resources (biodiversity, forest, drylands)Improved policy/institutional framework, promoting a green economy, resource efficiency, and pollution controlImproved mainstreaming of environment (and improved governance and transparency of natural resources management)EQ2EQ3Reduced emissions of greenhouse gasesHealthy environment and sound management of natural resources at national level:•Sustainable management and use of natural resources•Green growth (sustainable consumption and production patterns)•Increased food security•Human health•Improved livelihoodsEQ Part 1EQ Part 2EQ Part 3Policy outcomeImpactIntroduced by evaluation teamItalic =EQ9EQ5Instruments, Aid procedures & type of inputsThird countries/regions relevant policies & strategiesInternational commitments (e.g.MDGs, UN Conventions)EC bilateral and regional agreementsEU/EC general and thematic normative documents (e.g.COM)Other donor policies & interventionsOther EU policiesEQ4ENRTPGeo-graphic instru-mentsType of inputs:Type of procedures:EQ1Call for proposalsCall for tenders (incl. Targeted public procurement)Partnership agreementsCapacity building  (e.g. EU experience, twinning, south-south co-operation)Policy dialogueProject supportSector support programmesBudget supportPolicy frameworkCLIMATECHANGEANDSUSTAINABLEENERGY•Implementation of EU 2004 and guidelines and EC-ACP joint paper on Drought and Desertification •Innovative approaches (incl. public and/or private sustainable energy partnerships and mechanisms)•Fast-start action to establish/strengthen country capacity for REDD•Forest governance•Regional co-op between Govts, NGOs & PS•Technology transferENVIRONMENTFORDEVELOPMENT•Envintegration in policy-making•Non-state actors (on analysis, awareness raising, innovative approaches)•Innovative approaches (such as payment for envservices, envfiscal reform, PPP, innovative market-based policy instruments, science-supported policy approaches and the promotion of envbeneficial technologies and mechanisms for transfer of know-how to developing countries)•Community-based mgmntof natural resources •Envmonitoring and assessmentSTRENGTHENINGENVIRONMENT& CLIMATEGOVERNANCE•Establishment of env Helpdesk & Expertise development•Secretariats of MEAs and other relevant MEA subsidiary bodies•Mainstreamingof MEA  objectives •International envand energy organisations and processes (e.g. UNEP, UNFCCC, UNCSP, UN Forum on Forests,, OECD,  IEA)•Monitoring and advocacy •International co-operation on env-economic modelling•Space-based monitoring and in-situ information technologies systems•Envmonitoring and assessment •International envorganisations and processes and international and regional CS advocacy groups and envthinktanks•post-Copenhagenclimatepartnerships•Bilateral climatepolicyand co-operationdialoguesEQ10EQ8Better international climate governance 
4.2.1  Long-term impacts 

12 

The ultimate impact: EU’s partner countries to achieve a healthy 
environment and sound management of their natural resources. 

The “European Consensus” on Development (ECD), specifies that EU intends to “lead 
global efforts to curb unsustainable consumption and production  patterns. We will as-
sist  developing  countries  in  implementing  the  Multilateral  Environmental  Agreements 
and  promote  pro-poor  environment-related  initiatives.  The  EU  reconfirms  its  determi-
nation to combat climate change.”  

This  would  entail  renewable  natural  resources  being  managed  sustainably,  so  that 
their integrity is maintained, or even enhanced, in order to support economic activities 
and  provide  environmental  services  for  future  generations.  It  would  also  entail  future 
economic growth being “green” – that is, resources (including energy, mineral and wa-
ter resources) being used in an efficient manner that maximises their benefits and min-
imises  the  generation  of  waste  and  pollution,  as  well  as  significantly  reducing  the 
emission  of  GHGs  from  the  combustion  of  fossil  fuels.  Sustainable  management  of 
natural resources and the green economy both necessitate the related economic activ-
ities  being  adapted,  and  hence  resilient,  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change  −  thereby 
minimising  the  economic  and  human  risks  and  losses  associated  with  the  increased 
extreme events and changed climate patterns of the future. As the Agenda for Change 
states,  green  economy  “that  can  generate  growth,  create  jobs  and  help  reduce  pov-
erty” should be promoted by EU development policy. 

The primary socio-economic benefits that this would lead to would be increased food 
security (e.g. due to better use of natural resources in agricultural activities), improved 
human  health  (e.g.  due  to  reduced  pollution),  and  improved  livelihoods  (e.g.  due  to 
new  employment  opportunities  in  the  green  economy  and  improved  productivity  of 
natural resources). Hence, EU support in the areas of environment and climate change 
contribute  not  only  to  MDG  7  (ensure  environmental  sustainability),  but  also  to  other 
MDGs, such as MDG  1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger), and MDGs 4  and  5 
(reduce  child  mortality,  improve  maternal  health).  This  is  intended  in  the  ECD:  “The 
primary and overarching objective of  EU development  co-operation is the eradication 
of poverty in the context of sustainable development, including pursuit of the Millenni-
um Development Goals (MDGs)”. The 2009 Commission Staff working paper,  Millen-
nium  Development  Goals  −  Impact  of  the  Financial  Crisis  on  Developing  Countries” 
emphasises  that  “eradication  of  poverty  in  developing  countries  and  tackling  climate 
change are inextricably linked. The MDGs will not be achieved if climate change and 
environmental degradation are not tackled.” 

4.2.2 

Intermediate impacts 

Enhanced climate change resilience, reduced emission of green-
house gases, increased access to affordable and sustainable ener-
gy services, prevented/reduced environmental degradation, and im-
proved resource use efficiency. 

The intermediate impacts identified emanate from the dual nature of the support pro-
vided  –  that  is,  for  environment  and  for  climate  change  −  and  in  particular  from  the 
identified priority areas and the related sub-priority areas of EU support. Two levels of 
intermediate impacts are identified: 

  EU  support  is  anticipated  to  contribute  to  tangible  impacts  on  the  ground.  At  a 
limited/local/modest  scale,  these  impacts  will  directly  arise  from  pilot  actions  and 
specifically-supported projects. The lessons/evidence gained from innovative pilot 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
13 

actions are used to improve the policy and institutional framework at national level, 
in  order  to  create  the  enabling  environment  for  a  broader  uptake  of  the  tested 
innovations. Hence, evidence of local-level impact primarily serves the purpose of 
informing  the  policy  level  in  order  to  achieve  a  national  level  outcome,  which  in 
turn is anticipated to lead indirectly to wider/national-scale impacts;  

  At  a  more  general/national  scale,  EU  support  will  contribute  indirectly  to  the 
achievement  of  these  tangible  impacts  through  anticipated  improvements  in  the 
environmental and climate governance at national level, which in turn is expected 
to translate into the anticipated impacts on the ground. Hence, the second level of 
intermediate  impacts  identified  relates  to  improved  governance,  which  are  thus 
policy  outcomes rather  than  actual  impacts  on  the  ground.  It  is  generally  beyond 
the  scope  of  development  interventions  to  directly  achieve  impacts  on  a  national 
scale. 

The primarily indirect intermediate impacts anticipated on a national scale are: 

Enhanced  resilience  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change.  The  unprecedented  emis-
sions of GHGs during the industrial era will inevitably lead to global and local climate 
change,  even  if  emissions  are  effectively  curbed  in  the  future.  Changes  are  already 
being seen, and the magnitude will increase in the coming decades. The impacts are 
numerous and will differ greatly in different parts of the world. At local level, the actual 
impacts are still uncertain. The main types of changes anticipated include: more erratic 
and  unpredictable  seasonal  weather  patterns;  increased  frequency  and  intensity  of 
extreme weather related events (storms, floods, drought); more long-term shifts in the 
climate  zones/belts.  Hence,  there  is  an  increasing  need  to  ensure  that  investments, 
economic  activity  and  production  systems  are  adapted  to  these  new  conditions  and 
are able to respond to increased uncertainty. This would avoid the excessive damage 
to infrastructure and loss of productive assets and crops that  would have detrimental 
effects  on  livelihoods,  incomes,  and  food  security.  This  cuts  across  all  sectors,  but 
some sectors are particularly vulnerable, such as agriculture and infrastructure.  

Reduced emission of greenhouse gases. Research and the climate projections pre-
pared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that unless 
the future GHG emission levels are significantly reduced, the magnitude of the climate 
change  described  above  is  likely  to  become  so  great  that  it  becomes  impossible  to 
adapt to. The associated negative socio-economic impacts and risk may consequently 
be  of  such  a  magnitude  that  overall  economic  development  −  as  well  as  the  liveli-
hoods, food security, and even lives of millions of people − will be threatened. Hence, 
there  is  a  need  to  develop  low-emission  pathways  to  economic  development  across 
sectors.  This  entails  reaching  international  agreements  on  emission  reductions,  and 
also ensuring the availability of, and access to, low-emission technologies/practices. 

Increased access to affordable and sustainable energy services. This is related to 
the reduction of GHG emissions, but also to ensuring that basic energy needs are met 
to improve livelihoods and enable economic development, as well as reducing the cur-
rent  dependency  on  fossil  fuel  energy  sources,  which  are  diminishing  and  becoming 
increasingly  difficult  and  expensive  to  extract.  The  2005  Communication  “Policy  Co-
herence  for  Development  −  Accelerating  progress  towards  attaining  the  Millennium 
Development  Goals”,  specifies  that  the  EU  shall  “contribute  to  the  special  needs  of 
developing  countries  by  promoting  access  to  sustainable  energy  sources”  because 
“sustainable, high-quality, reliable and affordable  access to adequate energy sources 
is essential, both for those currently without access to energy services, and for the fu-
ture  productivity  increases  and  economic  development  needed  to  accommodate  the 
forecast population growth and urbanisation in developing countries”. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
14 

Prevented/reduced  environmental  degradation.  The  environment  and  natural  re-
sources provide the basis for all economic activity and livelihoods, whether directly or 
indirectly. Millions of people depend on natural resources for their livelihoods, such as: 
soil  and  water  for  agricultural  production;  marine  resources,  forest  and  biodiversity 
(plants  and  animals)  for  food,  materials,  energy  and  income  generation  (e.g.  fish, 
wood,  medicinal  plants);  and  clean  water  and  air  to  maintain  human  health.  Hence, 
environmental degradation − in the form of land degradation, overexploitation of natu-
ral  resources,  loss  of  biodiversity,  and  pollution  −  are  threatening  economic  develop-
ment and human wellbeing. There is, therefore, a need for access to sustainable op-
tions  for  natural  resource  management  to  maintain  land  productivity  and  ecosystem 
integrity, and to curb pollution. 

Improved resource use efficiency. Seen in the light of population growth, economic 
development  and  increasing  demands  for  products  and  services,  there  is  a  need  to 
promote more resource-efficient  technologies to maximise the benefits obtained from 
the resources used – for example, in  industrial production −  as well as to reduce the 
generation of waste. This would help  in avoiding the depletion of important extractive 
resources  (e.g.  minerals),  as  well  as  the  negative  environmental  impacts  associated 
with their extraction and waste. Resource efficiency entails reducing the use of materi-
als in industrial production, and enhancing the recycling of materials. The 2005 Com-
munication  “Policy  Coherence  for  Development  −  Accelerating  progress  towards  at-
taining the Millennium Development Goals”, specifies that EU shall “lead global efforts 
to curb unsustainable consumption and production patterns”. 

Policy  outcomes  supporting  the  achievement  of  the  tangible  intermediate  im-
pacts:  a)  strong  climate  governance  at  the  national  level  –  across  sectors;  b) 
strong  environmental  governance  at  national  level  –  across  sectors.  A  key  ele-
ment of EU support relates to building the capacity of partner countries to engage ef-
fectively in sustainable environmental and climate governance. It is particularly at na-
tional level that governance frameworks enable the achievement of sustainable devel-
opment and climate resilience. International governance and agreements are support-
ive of this by creating awareness, facilitating binding  commitments, addressing trans-
boundary issues, and facilitating the creation of sufficient capacity. However, the envi-
ronmental governance, which translates into tangible impacts, ultimately takes place at 
country level. Effective environmental governance relates to the establishment of con-
ducive policies and tangible plans, allocation of the necessary budgetary resources for 
the implementation of policies and plans, establishing effective and operational frame-
works  for  regulation  (including  effective  enforcement  and  incentive  mechanisms),  as 
well  as  transparent  and  inclusive  decision  processes.  A  critical  element  of  effective 
environmental governance is to ensure that environment and climate change  – which 
cut across all sectors  −  are not dealt  with in isolation,  but are mainstreamed into the 
governance of all sectors. There is a critical conflict to consider in this regard: on one 
hand, the environment is the foundation upon which economic activity and human de-
velopment across sectors is based; on the other hand, all human and economic activi-
ty affects the environment upon which it depends. This conflict also applies to climate 
change: human and  economic activity  across sectors is the driver of climate change, 
yet climate change impacts negatively on economic activities in several sectors. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

4.2.3  Outcomes 

15 

The specific impacts identified correlate with the three priority areas, and also largely 
with the sub-priority areas. The impacts identified are: 

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy: Enhanced preparedness 
of developing countries for climate-resilience, and improved quality 
of policy dialogue and negotiations. 

Enhanced  preparedness  of  developing  countries  for  low  emissions  develop-
ment.  This  relates  to  enhancing  the  capacity  of  partner  countries  to  address  climate 
change in relation to: 

  Enhancing  the  resilience  and  reducing  the  vulnerability  to  the  impacts  of  climate 
change  (climate  change  adaptation),  in  particular  in  Least  Developed  Countries 
(LDCs),  Small  Island  Developing  States  (SIDS)  and  Africa,  as  stated  in  the 
Copenhagen Accord. The ECD specifies that “adaptation to the negative effects of 
climate  change  will  be  central  in  the  Community’s  support  to  LDCs  and  small 
island development states”. 

  Reducing  the  emission  of  greenhouse  gases  from  land  use,  deforestation  and 
degradation, as well as from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, by increasing 
energy efficiency and enhancing the role of sustainable renewable energy sources 
in  the  energy  mix.  The  2008  Communication,  “The  EU  −  a  global  partner  for 
development, Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals”6, 
is  aimed  at  supporting  a  “move  towards  economic  growth  that  produces  fewer 
greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change”. 

Improved  quality  of  policy  dialogue  and  negotiations.  This  especially  relates  to 
improving the policy dialogue at the national and local levels. 

Environment for Development: Improved governance of natural re-
sources, improved policy/institutional framework for green economy, 
resource efficiency and pollution control. 

Improved governance of natural resources (biodiversity, forest, dry  lands).  This 
focuses  on  enabling  partner  countries  to  better  assume  their  responsibilities  with  re-
gard  to  MEAs,  and  building  their  capacity  to  prevent  environmental  degradation  and 
loss of biodiversity (including desertification, forests and marine resources). According 
to  the  ECD,  particular  attention  is  to  be  given  to  “initiatives  ensuring  the  sustainable 
management and preservation of natural resources, including as a source of income, 
and  as  a  means  to  safeguard  and  develop  jobs,  rural  livelihoods  and  environmental 
goods and services”. COM(2010) 159 − A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the 
Millennium Development Goals − is aimed at “enhancing efforts to protect biodiversity 
in other countries”. 

Improved  policy/institutional  framework  that  promotes  a  green  economy,  re-
source  efficiency,  and  pollution  control.  This  aims  to  ensure  that  resources  are 
used  efficiently  –  for  example,  in  industrial  production  −  while  reducing  the  related 
waste generation and pollution. 

6 COM(2008) 177 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
16 

Strengthening environment and climate governance: better envi-
ronmental and climate change governance, improved environmental 
mainstreaming. 

Better  international  environment  governance.  This  relates  to  reinforcing  interna-
tional  systems  for  governance,  such  as  strengthening  international  negotiations  (in-
creased  and  enhanced  participation  of  developing  countries,  facilitating  agreements 
that take into account developing countries’ perspectives and priorities) and strength-
ening the international institutions and instruments. It also relates to ensuring EU lead-
ership and effective implementation of  the EU’s external policies. Hence, this contrib-
utes directly to achieving MDG 8 (global partnership for development). 

Improved  mainstreaming  of  environment  (and  improved  governance  and  trans-
parency  of  natural  resources  management).  This  relates  to  ensuring  that  EU  sup-
port  provided  to  sectors  other  than  environment  adequately  integrates  environmental 
and climate change concerns, and  so are supportive  of EU external policies on  envi-
ronment and climate change, rather than  working against them. This includes:  a) en-
suring  that  partner  countries  and  governments  are  enabled  to  integrate  environment 
and  climate  change  in  sector  policies,  planning  and  implementation;  b)  ensuring  that 
EU supported interventions do not have unintended negative effects, and achieve the 
potential positive effects. 

The two specific impacts under this priority area relate to the objective to “assist devel-
oping  countries  in  implementing  the  Multilateral  Environmental  Agreements  (MEAs), 
and  (…)  to  ensure  that  the  capacities  of  developing  countries  are  taken  into  account 
during  MEA  negotiations”.  This  is  specified  in  the  2005  Communication,  “Policy  Co-
herence  for  Development  −  Accelerating  progress  towards  attaining  the  Millennium 
Development Goals”. The third specific impact relates to objectives in the communica-
tion with regard to addressing environmental concerns in other sectors,  such as agri-
culture:  “CAP  [Common  Agricultural  Policy]  objectives  include  helping  agriculture  to 
fulfil its multifunctional role in society: producing safe and healthy food, contributing to 
sustainable development of rural areas, and protecting and enhancing the status of the 
farmed environment and its biodiversity”. In relation to transport, the EU will “work and 
assert  its  influence  in  international  organisations  (such  as  the  International  Maritime 
Organisations  and  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation)  for  effective  and  effi-
cient air and maritime transport services, in a safe, secure and clean environment that 
supports sustainable development and regional trade”. 

Box 3  

Outcome areas 

EU support to environment and climate change is provided via numerous actions, through ENRTP and geograph-
ical instruments, as well as through policy dialogue. Hence, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of 
the numerous and diverse outcomes/results directly emanating from the EU’s engagement. However, some typi-
cal effects have been identified as follows: 

Climate change and sustainable energy: 

a.  Adaptation: 

  Countries better able to adapt to consequences of climate change. 
  Capacity of countries to benefit from CDM increased. 
  Countries better prepared for climate-related natural disasters. 
  Climate change integrated into development co-operation.  
  Regional policy profile of climate change raised. 
  Consensus for future climate negotiations built up. 
  Common vision between developed/developing countries on climate vision. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
b.  Mitigation: 

17 

Forest carbon management integrated into forest management as a result of field-based innovative action. 

  Countries benefit from enabling legal frameworks, policies, strategies for REDD. 
  Capacity developed for government, civil society, private sector to deliver REDD results. 
 
  Countries adopt and implement LEDS/NAMAS. 
  MRV standards improved and countries implement MRV. 
 
 
  Knowledge-sharing mechanisms developed.  
Technologies adapted to local circumstances. 
 
c.  Sustainable energy: 

Low-carbon investments financed.  
Technology and capacity for low carbon transferred. 

Technology transfer for promotion of sustainable energy.  

  Policies and appropriate framework conditions improved. 
  Capacity for implementing sustainable energy in place. 
 
  Business attracted to sustainable energy market. 
  Regional co-operation improved between governments, non-state actors. 
  Regional energy infrastructure better inter-connected. 
  Access to finance for energy efficiency and renewable energy improved. 

Environment for development: 

d.  Biodiversity, forest conservation and desertification: 

  Countries enabled to implement MEAs, initiatives, strategic plans. 
  Post-2010 Global Biodiversity Strategy commitments include targets for dry lands, forests, marine resources. 
  Efforts to avert the loss of global biodiversity increased. 
  Representative networks of marine protected areas. 
  Sustainable and resilient dry land farming and increased incomes. 
  Policies in the framework of international, regional and national strategies and action plans (e.g. UNCCD). 
  Regional partnerships for scaling-up sustainable land and water management. 
  Policies and best practices to tackle desertification, land degradation and drought communicated. 
 
  Adoption of ecosystem approach to fisheries. 
e.  Forest governance (FLEGT):  

Improved knowledge/data collection and sharing. 

  Strengthened forest governance. 
  Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs).  
 
  Civil society and the private sector engaged in developing, implementing and monitoring VPAs.  
 

Forest governance reforms enabled. 

Innovative  forest  governance  approaches  on  improved  transparency  and  accountability,  impact  monitoring, 
and social safeguards. 

  Enhanced demand for/EU import of certified wood products. 
f.  Green economy:  

  Countries enabled to formulate resource-efficient policies. 
  EU used as a source of standards and expertise. 
  Dissemination of green economy policy. 
  New green industries, jobs and technologies applied/created. 
  Structural transition to green economy. 
  Adoption of environmental policy and fiscal reforms. 
  Safer handling of hazardous substances.  

Strengthening environment and climate governance: 

  External environment policy/international environment governance:  

  Strengthened international environmental governance.  
  Enhanced synergies between UNEP and MEAs on chemicals/waste and biodiversity 
  Rio +20 followed up on at policy and institutional levels. 
  Enhanced developing country engagement in negotiations. 
  Negotiation processes for new instruments strengthened. 
  Enhanced country capacities to implement MEAs. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

18 

  Strengthened debates on MEA compliance and financing. 
  Strengthened global and regional environment monitoring and use of results in policy-making. 
 
g.  External climate policy/international climate governance:  

International and regional environmental organisations, processes, civil society, think tanks strengthened 

  Enhanced developing country engagement in negotiations. 
  Strengthened capacity of international policy organisations. 
  Post-Copenhagen climate partnerships strengthened. 
  Enhanced climate policy and co-operation dialogue. 
  Enhanced country capacity with regard to policy formulation and implementation − e.g. on emissions trading 

and MRV. 

h.  Mainstreaming of environment and climate change:  

  Evidence presented of poverty and environment linkages. 
  Budget support takes environmental considerations into account. 
  New  approaches  developed  (e.g.  environmental  fiscal  reform  and  innovative  market-based  policy 

instruments). 

  Capacity of national institutions and civil society enhanced. 
  Environment integrated into sector policies. 
  Capacity for environmental integration in geographic co-operation enhanced. 
  Water management for CC better linked to other sectors and their policies. 
  Strengthened transboundary water management. 

4.2.4 

Instruments, aid procedures and types of support 

A diversified set of instruments (thematic-ENRTP & geographic), 
providing policy dialogue, capacity development and financial support. 

A variety of instruments, aid procedures and types of support are employed in the dif-
ferent outcome areas to lead to the intended impacts. 

 The main instruments are: 

  ENRTP – a thematic instrument and a main focus of the evaluation. 
  Geographic instruments – where the main instruments are the EDF, DCI, ENPI7. 
Under both the ENRTP and geographic instruments, the key support falls into one of 
three categories: 

  Policy  dialogue  –  engaging  with  government  and  other  stakeholders  to  develop 
robust  policies  to  better  address  environment  and  climate  change  opportunities 
and  challenges.  As  outlined  in  chapter  2,  this  corresponds  to  one  of  the  key 
objectives of EU support to environment and climate change, which is to promote 
EU  policies  in  this  area  for  mutual  benefit.  Mainstreaming  of  environment  and 
climate change is one of the key points on the policy agenda; 

  Capacity  development  –  focusing  on  building  up  the  capacity  of  government  and 
other  stakeholders  so  that  they  are  in  a  position  to  implement  their  policies  and 
strategies  related  to  environment  and  climate  change.  This  implies  not  just  the 
capacity  of  environment  and  climate  change  authorities,  but  also  the  capacity  to 
integrate environment and climate change into all relevant sectors. 

  Funding – provision of financial support through a variety of modalities and using a 

variety of procedures. 

Whereas the geographic instruments, in principle, use both budget support and project 

7 There is also the Instrument for Stability (IfS), which is a shorter-term instrument for use in fragile and conflict-
affected situations. While it is not formally included under geographic instruments, it is considered important that 
the evaluation does look at environment and climate change in fragile states (at least for one example).  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
                                                      
19 

modalities,  the  ENRTP  uses  only  project  modalities  –  although  in  many  cases  the 
support is in the form of core support to an organisation, with relatively little earmark-
ing. 

Within the ENRTP project support, the following procedures are used: 

  Targeted  public  procurement  –  used  for  implementing  actions  that  can  only,  or 

best, be done by public entities. 

  Call for tender – used for implementing a specific project defined by the EC or its 

partners. 

  Call  for  proposals  –  used  to  enable  the  EU  support  to  respond  to  bottom-up 
demand. Sometimes the call is managed by the  EC  itself (either at  delegation  or 
headquarters)  and  sometimes  it  is managed  via  a  contracted  services  procedure 
such as. the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). 

  Partner agreements – also called targeted initiatives, these can be used under the 
FAFA arrangement (usually UN or World Bank) or where the initiative is within the 
EU (e.g. GEEREF).  

The  geographic  instruments,  in  particular,  open  up  the  possibility  of  mainstreaming 
environment and climate change in different sectors as they serve a variety of sectors. 
For this evaluation, two broad sectors have been chosen: a) agriculture and rural de-
velopment, b) infrastructure. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
20 

5  The realised Intervention logic: Analysis of EU worldwide finan-
cial  resources  allocated  to  sectors  related  to  environment  and 
climate change in third countries in the period 2007-2013 

This chapter presents the inventory and analysis of the resources allocated by the EU 
to environment and climate change in the period 2007-2013 in the countries covered 
by this evaluation8. The fact that the ENRTP represents an important part of the overall 
funding invites a more thorough analysis of this programme. Therefore, in addition to 
the global inventory of all funding on decision level, a second inventory has been 
created,  taking  into  account  all  ENRTP  interventions  at  contract  level.  This  allows 
the analysis of some factors that cannot be addressed on a global level, and also facili-
tates  the  comparison  between  the  global  analysis  (ENRTP  and  geographic  budget 
lines) and the ENRTP analysis. The titles of all graphs and tables state explicitly if they 
refer to the global analysis or only to ENRTP interventions. 

5.1  Methodological limits and challenges 

A worldwide inventory reconstructed using a sound methodology, 
albeit with limitations. 

The specific and systematic approach used for the identification, extraction and analy-
sis  of  financial  contributions  is  presented  in  Annex  5.  Here,  special  attention  is  given 
solely to the limits and choices that needed to be made. 

Box 4  

Limits and key challenges 

The main challenge for conducting the inventory is that, while the situation has improved for 
more recent entries, still in many cases no Development Assistance Committee (DAC) sector 
code has been attributed to the interventions. Mostly for this reason, the Commission, evaluators 
and others have recognised for years that strict logic alone is not enough when dealing with 
CRIS. A more subjective and innovative approach, such as that outlined below, is required, in-
cluding tedious, line-by-line review of interventions.  
As a response to this challenge, a distribution by sector and categorisation of interventions has 
been made according to the information found in the CRIS-Database and through the Internet 
about the programmes and projects in question. This implies that a number of choices were 
made by the team to allocate the various interventions to the specific sectors.  
Additional challenges emerge through the partially inconsistent way in which data is entered in 
the system, leading to problems in the computer-based search for relevant contracts. 
The inventory of interventions could be done at the level of contracts only for ENRTP interven-
tions. The generation of the full contracts list within each financing decision for all budget lines 
(i.e. all contracts financed by DEVCO between 2007- 2013) was indeed technically not possible 
on CRIS as there are too many. It was agreed with the Reference Group that, for the purpose of 
this evaluation, the level of financing decisions was sufficient for the inventory of non-ENRTP 
interventions.  
The global inventory is based on financing decisions over the period 2007-2013. However, there 
is occasionally a time difference between the financing decision and the actual contracting of 
funds. The inventory has thus been cross-checked and completed with additional interventions 
indicated by the RG members. This should enable all relevant interventions actually implement-
ed during the evaluation period to be fully encompassed. 

8 ECHO and European Investment Bank’s funds are not part of the inventory. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
21 

The first three limitations above explain the discrepancy between the ENV/CC relevant 
funding presented in this report and the funding reported in the Court of Auditor’s spe-
cial report 17/2013 on EU climate finance in the context of external aid9. 

5.2  Main findings 

The main findings are set out in the box below.  

Box 5 

Key findings of the inventory 

 

The EU’s support to environment and climate change amounted to around EUR 2.83 billion 
during the period 2007-201310. 

  Out of this, EUR 1.1 billion was disbursed under the ENRTP. 
 

The  main  beneficiary  regions  of  the  EU  support  to  environment  were  the  ACP  countries, 
receiving  45%  of  all  funds.  Ten  ACP  countries  receive  53.4  %  of  all  ACP  countries’ 
contracted amounts. 
The  ACP  countries  are  followed  by  ENP  countries  (9%  for  ENP  East  and  6%  for  ENP 
South), Asia (11%), Latin America (7%) and Central Asia (1%). The remaining funds (21%) 
were directed at all countries11. 

 

  Of the three main clusters of the EU intended intervention logic, Cluster 1 (Climate change 
and sustainable energy) receives almost half of all funds (47%). Cluster 2 (Environment for 
development)  receives  37%,  and  Cluster  3  (Strengthening  environment  and  climate 
governance) receives 15%. 

  Most  of  the  EU’s support to  environment and climate  change  during  the  period 2007-2013 
was focused on the Energy sector, in which 30% of all funds were contracted. It is followed 
by  the  sectors  Climate  Change  (18%)  and  Forest  (11%),  International  Environmental 
Governance (7%), Water Resource Management (7%), and Biodiversity (6%); 

  Aggregated  sectorial  allocations  (several  topics  are  presented  both  as  sector  and  as  sub-
sectors − for example, Biodiversity appears as a sector, but also as a sub-sector under the 
sector  “International  environmental  governance”)  provide  interesting  insights.  Climate 
Change,  representing  19%  of  all  funding,  remains  the  second-most  funded  sector.  The 
Forest sector, now with 16%, remains the third-most funded. Biodiversity’s share increases − 
with 8%, it is now the fourth-most funded sector; 
For interventions under the ENRTP, international organisations were the most-used channel 
(56%), followed by CSOs (16%). 
The Rio marker for Climate Change Adaptation rose between 2008 and 2012, but there was 
an important decrease in 2013.The remaining Rio markers show less clear patterns. 

 

 

9 See next footnote. 
10  As  detailed  in  Chapter  5.3,  this  report  estimates  total  environment  and  climate  change  funding  at  EUR  2.71 
billion (5.7%) out of a total DEVCO-managed budget of EUR 49.67 billion. This figure is lower than the EUR 4.58 
billion (8.1%) out of EUR 56.31 billion that is used in the Court of Auditor’s special report. The Court  of Auditor’s 
audit report ‘examines the provision of climate finance for developing countries by the EU. The report focuses on 
the following two questions: (a) Has the Commission managed climate-related support funded from the EU budg-
et and the EDF well? (b) Has the Commission taken appropriate steps to promote coordination with EU Member 
States in respect of climate finance for developing countries; and has such coordination been adequate?’. 
11 All third countries, without a specific geographical target.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
22 

5.3  Global  overview  of  total  environment  and  climate  change  versus  all  DG 

DEVCO allocations12 

Environment and climate change funding in 2007-2013 made up 
5.7% of all the EU’s development co-operation contracted amounts. 

Figure 4 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Total  contracted 
amount vs. total EU overall contracted funding 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

5.4  Global overview of total allocations 

5.4.1  Allocations by instrument 

Of the total of EUR 2.83 billion that has been contracted during the 
evaluation period, more than one-third (38%) has been financed by 
the ENRTP. 

The  EU’s  support  to  environment  and  climate  change  was  funded  by  a  variety  of  fi-
nancing  instruments, other than the  ENRTP.  A third (34%) of the support came from 
the  EDF.  The  European  Neighbourhood  and  Partnership  Instrument  (ENPI)  covered 
15%  of  the  overall  funding,  while  the  DCI  for  Asia  (DCI-ASIE)  provided  8%,  and  the 
DCI for Latin America (DCI-ALA) 4% of the funding.  

Figure 5 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Total  contracted 
amount by financing instrument in % (global analysis) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

12 Only funds that are managed by DG DEVCO. Funds managed by DG CLIMA and DG ENV (of a total value of 
EUR 119.4 million) are not included here. They are, however, included in the global analysis that follows. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

All EU spending 2007-2013 (managed by DG DEVCO)49.670.642.725 €Environment & Climate change spending 2007-2013 (managed by DG DEVCO);  2.711.308.054 €FED34%DCI-ENV38%ENPI15%DCI-ASIE8%DCI-ALA4%Other1% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
5.4.2  Allocations over time 

No clear paths over time. 

23 

The amounts contracted under the ENRTP programme do not fluctuate to a great ex-
tent, mainly moving between  EUR  100 million and  EUR 200 million per  year. Only  in 
2009 can a small peak be observed, with almost EUR 250 million contracted13. In con-
trast, bigger fluctuations can be perceived for non-ENRTP interventions14. 

Table 1 

EU support to environment and climate change: Contracted amounts 
by decision year (global analysis) 

Decision year 

ENRTP 

non-ENRTP 

Total 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

 120,679,777 €  

 160,005,834 €  

 280,685,611 €  

 99,733,547 €  

 301,289,933 €  

 401,023,481 €  

 242,401,431 €  

 227,729,083 €  

 470,130,514 €  

 134,053,645 €  

 234,261,165 €  

 368,314,810 €  

 194,642,393 €  

 191,585,977 €  

 386,228,370 €  

 127,908,333 €  

 556,573,488 €  

 684,481,821 €  

 173,020,467 €  

 66,811,454 €  

 239,831,921 €  

 1,092,439,593 €  

 1,738,256,934 €  

 2,830,696,527 €  

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

5.4.3  Allocations by region 

ACP countries receive almost half of all funding. 

The  graph  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  EU’s 
support to environment and climate change within the evaluation period.  

Figure 6 

EU support to environment and climate change: Geographical distri-
bution of funds (global analysis) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

13 Out of which EUR 30 million relates to the 2009 allocation for the GEEREF. 
14 The reason for the apparent sharp decline for the year 2013 can be attributed to the fact that, for decisions from 
2013, many contracts had not yet been concluded at the time of data collection for this inventory. As the inventory 
does not show amounts allocated to a specific decision, but only the amounts that are already contracted, parts of 
the funds that were allocated to decisions from 2013 are consequently not shown in the inventory. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

ACP1.287.258.060 €All countries603.684.212 €ENP425.849.441 €Asia307.372.120 €Latin America189.582.332 €Central Asia16.950.362 €-€200.000.000 €400.000.000 €600.000.000 €800.000.000 €1.000.000.000 €1.200.000.000 €1.400.000.000 € 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
24 

If only the ENRTP is considered, almost half of its funds are allocated 
to “All countries”, confirming one of the ENRTP’s added value aspects 
− the decision to address issues common to groups of countries that 
do not belong to a single region. 

The graph below shows the geographical distribution of funds, taking into account only 
ENRTP  funding.  Here,  almost  half  of  the  funding  is  directed  to  all  countries  (EUR 
438.3 million − 42%). With EUR 374.4 million (36%), ACP is also clearly the region that 
receives  most  ENRTP  funding.  Latin  America,  Asia,  ENP  and  Central  Asia  together 
receive only a mere fifth of all funds. 

Figure 7 

EU support to environment and climate change: Geographical  distri-
bution of funds (ENRTP) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

ENRTP funding is mostly allocated at global and regional level, except 
for the ACP region, which receives half of its funds from country pro-
grammes. 

Figure 8 

EU support to environment and climate change: Geographical  distri-
bution of funds by level of coverage (ENRTP) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

A  further  breakdown  of  the  ENRTP  interventions  in  global,  regional  and  bilateral 
funds is shown in the following  graph. While supra-regional  ENRTP funding  is,  as 
expected, mostly financed by global programmes (84%), a big part of the funding in 
ACP countries relies on country programmes (47%).  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

All countries438.255.411 €ACP374.466.023 €Latin America88.889.227 €Asia79.788.724 €ENP46.730.223 €Central Asia4.314.985 €-€200.000.000 €400.000.000 €600.000.000 €800.000.000 €1.000.000.000 €1.200.000.000 €1.400.000.000 €All countries71.694.560 €ACP99.280.358 €Latin America55.626.554 €Asia24.380.924 €ENP24.333.710 €Central Asia1.356.006 €-€200.000.000 €400.000.000 €600.000.000 €800.000.000 €1.000.000.000 €1.200.000.000 €1.400.000.000 €Global programmesRegional programmesCountry programme 
 
 
 
 
 
25 

This  is  partly  explained  by  Global  Climate  Change  Alliance  (GCCA)  funding  at 
country  level  (23%  of  all  ACP  country-level  funding).  Interventions  in  the  ENP  re-
gion are mostly funded by regional programmes (52%). The same is true for Latin 
America (63%), whereas in Central Asia and Asia the majority of interventions are 
country-based (69% and 67% respectively). 

5.4.4  Allocations by sector15 

If the three sectoral clusters of the intended EU intervention logic 
are considered, Cluster 1 (Climate change and sustainable energy) 
ranks first, with almost half of all funds. 

Before  presenting  the  breakdown  into  different  sectors  and  sub-sectors  of  EU  funding 
related to environment and climate change, the following figure presents the distribution 
of all funds towards the three clusters of the intended EU intervention  logic (presented 
in Chapter 4). The figure shows that almost half of all funds (47%) are allocated to Clus-
ter 1 (Climate change and sustainable energy). Another major part of all funding (37%) 
went into Cluster 2 (Environment for development), and 15% of funding was distributed 
within Cluster 3 (Strengthening environment and climate governance)16. In spite of this 
relatively low share, it should be noted that the interventions funded under Cluster 3 ac-
tually contribute, to a large extent, to reinforcing the other clusters. 

Figure 9 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Distribution  of  funds 
by intended Intervention Logic clusters (global analysis) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

15 Refer to Vol 3 Annex 5, section 5.4 for details on the sectoral classification of the worldwide inventory. 
16  The  remaining 1%  of interventions  refers  to  those  that  have  a  relevant  DAC  sector  code,  but  that cannot  be 
allocated to any of the above-mentioned sectors, and also to dummy contracts, audits, evaluations and adminis-
trative provisions. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Cluster 1:Climate change and sustainable energy1.322.263.323 €47%Cluster 2:Environment for development1.052.304.031 €37%Cluster 3:Strengthening environment and climate governance431.691.120 €15%Not classified24.438.052 €1% 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Energy, Climate change and Forest are the top three sectors of inter-
vention, and International environmental governance is fourth. 

26 

The figure below shows a breakdown of the funding into the different sectors that were 
targeted. With EUR 885.5 million and 30.2% of all funding, the Energy sector is clearly 
the most targeted. It is followed by Climate Change (18.0%) and Forest (11.0%). These, 
together  with  International  Environmental  Governance  (6.7%),  Water  Resource  Man-
agement (6.7%) and Biodiversity (6.0%), receive more than three-quarters (78.6%) of all 
funding. 

Figure 10 

EU support to environment and climate change: Main sectors receiving 
funding (global analysis) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

The following figures show the repartition of the six biggest sectors into their respective 
sub-sectors. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Energy855.539.215 €Climate change466.724.109 €Forest311.651.945 €International environmental governance190.066.260 €Water resource management189.473.240 €Biodiversity170.049.024 €Environmental governance142.258.196 €Sustainable economic development141.404.338 €Sound chemicals and waste management129.070.999 €Fisheries and coastal/marine resources92.676.112 €International climate governance91.394.484 €NRM25.950.552 €Other24.438.052 €0 €100.000.000 €200.000.000 €300.000.000 €400.000.000 €500.000.000 €600.000.000 €700.000.000 €800.000.000 €900.000.000 €1.000.000.000 € 
 
 
Figure 11 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Repartition  of  the  funding  in  sub-
sectors by contracted amount (global analysis) 

Energy sub-sectors: 

Climate Change sub-sectors: 

27 

Forest sub-sectors: 

Water Resource Management sub-sectors: 

Biodiversity sub-sectors: 

International Environmental Gov. sub-sectors: 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

Some  areas  can  be  found  both  at  sector  and  at  sub-sector  level  (i.e.  “Biodiversity”  
exists as a sector, but some interventions under “International Environmental Govern-
ance”  have  “Biodiversity”  as  a  sub-sector).  Taking  this  aggregated  approach  into  
account,  Climate  Change  remains  the  second  most-funded  sector,  with  18.8%  (EUR 
532 million) of all funding.17 The Forest sector, with 16.0% of all funding, remains the 
third  most-funded  sector.  Also,  the  share  of  Biodiversity  increases,  and  it  is  now  the 
fourth most-funded sector (7.8%). 

17 Energy remains the most important sector. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Sustainable energy management49%Renewable energy21%Energy efficiency15%GEEREF15%Adaptation: GCCA36%Adaptation30%Mitigation19%Adaptation & mitigation10%Disaster prevention4%Other1%FLEGT36%Sustainable forest management35%Forest governance26%Other3%EUWI4%Water resource management96%Forest/national parcs ecosystem protection83%Marine/coastal zones protection7%Other10%Biodiversity26%UNEP26%Other21%Environment & Sustainable Economic development11%Waste & chemicals9%Environmental data & information7%Water resources0%UNCCD0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 12 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change:  Sectoral  aggregated  repartition  of 
the funding by contracted amount (global analysis) 

Climate Change aggregated sub-sectors: 

Forest aggregated sub-sectors: 

28 

Biodiversity aggregated sub-sectors: 

Water Resource aggregated sub-sectors: 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Adaptation: GCCA32%Adaptation26%Mitigation17%Int'l CC governance: Climate change12%Adaptation & mitigation9%Disaster prevention3%Other1%Biodiversity: Forest/national parcs ecosystem protection31%FLEGT25%Sustainable forest management24%Forest governance18%Other2%Forest/national parcs ecosystem protection64%Int'l Env. governance: Biodiversity23%Other8%Marine/coastal zones protection5%EUWI4%Water resource management95%Int'l Env. governance: Water resources1% 
 
 
 
 
5.4.5  Allocations by region and sector 

For almost all sectors, ACP countries are the main recipients. 

29 

The  following  table  shows  the  allocation  of  the  EU’s  support  to  environment  and  cli-
mate  change  by  region  and  sector.  The  biggest  amount  per  sector  is  written  in  bold, 
illustrating  that  ACP  countries  are  the  main  recipients  throughout  almost  all  sectors. 
The two exceptions are the Sustainable Economic Development sector, in which Asia 
(71% of all funds) is the main recipient18, and the Sound Chemicals and Waste Man-
agement sector, in which most funds (80%) go to ENP South and East countries. 

Table 2 

EU support to environment and climate change: Allocation of funding  by region and 
sector in EUR19 (global analysis) 

ACP 

ENP 

Asia 

Latin Amer-
ica 

Central 
Asia 

Total 

Energy 

Climate change 

438,996,225  190,090,714 
206,815,082 

42,321,634 

42,826,085 

4,166,868 

5,159,323 

681,239,215 

91,860,616 

42,414,696 

1,836,964 

385,248,992 

Forest 

109,969,424 

48,327,728 

23,399,874 

85,695,188 

Biodiversity 

115,020,602 

9,568,517 

9,923,051 

34,033,513 

152,492,182 

4,220,900 

841,099 

8,227,855 

267,392,214 

168,545,683 

165,782,036 

Water resource 
management 

Environmental 
governance 

Sustainable 
economic  
development 

Fisheries and 
coastal/marine 
resources 

Sound chemi-
cals and waste 
management 

International 
environment 
governance 

Natural  
Resource  
Management 

Other 

International 
climate  
governance 
Total 

59,382,317 

40,000,000 

42,018,694 

857,186 

142,258,196 

38,334,623 

93,069,715 

131,404,338 

78,543,236 

8,694,873 

2,600,574 

89,838,682 

10,102,670 

71,829,083 

1,125,000 

6,406,889 

89,463,643 

54,828,481 

9,370,175 

1,798,875 

8,672,027 

74,669,558 

11,782,251 

1,353,663 

2,199,859 

2,832,731 

1,282,048 

19,450,552 

10,870,969 

72,154 

108,127 

512,256 

11,563,506 

120,000 

35,700 

155,700 

1,287,258,060  425,849,441  307,372,120 

189,582,332 

16,950,362  2,227,012,315 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

18  This  is  explained  by  the  allocations  given  to  the  SWITCH  programme,  aimed  at  promoting  Sustainable  Con-
sumption and Production. 
19 Funds going to “all countries” were not considered. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
30 

5.4.6  Top 20 countries receiving EC support in environment and climate change 

A diversified geographical coverage and a predominant sector in 
each country. 

The following table shows the top 20 countries that received support during the  period 
evaluated, as  well  as the sector that received the  largest proportion  of the funding  in 
these countries. Together, they represent 18,5% of all country-level funding. 

Table 3 

EU support to environment and climate change: Top 20 countries receiving EU sup-
port (global analysis) 

Country 

Region 

Total contracted 
amount 

Main sector receiving  
support (%) 

Ukraine 

China 

Honduras 

D. R. of Congo 

Jordan 

Bangladesh 

Senegal 

Morocco 

Egypt 

Uganda 

Pakistan 

Cameroon 

Mozambique 

Ethiopia 

Bolivia 

Brazil 

Chad 

Republic of Moldova 

Malawi 

Tanzania 

ENP 

Asia 

129,464,892 €   Energy (72%) 

 57,459,326 €   Environmental Governance (64%) 

Latin America 

 53,624,106 €   Forest (100%) 

ACP 

ENP 

Asia 

ACP 

ENP 

ENP 

ACP 

Asia 

ACP 

ACP 

ACP 

 49,137,734 €   Biodiversity (70%) 

 38,641,812 €   Energy (100%) 

 37,959,940 €   Climate Change (75%) 

 33,769,220 €   Environmental Governance (84%) 

 33,009,850 €   Forest (95%) 

 29,000,000 €   Sound Chemicals and Waste  

Management (100%) 

 26,923,282 €   Climate Change (41%) 

 25,368,175 €   Energy (95%) 

 21,368,394 €   Forest (47%) 

 21,202,550 €   Climate Change (84%) 

 18,485,660 €   Forest (53%) 

Latin America 

 17,380,300 €   Biodiversity (100%) 

Latin America 

 16,837,109 €   Forest (54%) 

ACP 

ENP 

ACP 

ACP 

 16,499,993 €   Environmental Governance (47%) 

 15,511,357 €   Energy (100%) 

 14,149,341 €   Climate Change (57%) 
 13,317,532 €   Other20 (70%) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

5.4.7  ENRTP funding: distribution of funds by channel  

For most sectors, funding goes mainly through international  
organisations − UN agencies (27% of all contracted amounts,) 
international financing institutions (15%) and international 
NGOs (11.3%). 

The following figure illustrates the channels used for interventions under the ENRTP.  
International  organisations  are  the  main  channel  (56%  of  all  funds).  Civil  society  or-
ganisations  are  the  second  most  used  channel  (16%),  followed  by  research  institu-
tions (9%) and EU member states (8%). Regional organisations, one the other hand, 
only received limited support. 

20 The 70% (EUR 9.27 million) of environment and climate change-related support to Tanzania that is categorised 
as Other refers to the Environment component of the 10th EDF Support to Non-State Actors Programme. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
                                                      
31 

Figure 13 

EU  support  to  environment  and  climate  change.  Distribution  by 
channel (ENRTP) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

When  looking  at  the  channels  used  in  different  sectors,  the  following  picture  shows 
that, for most sectors, funding goes mainly through international organisations. This is 
particularly  the  case  in  Sustainable  Economic  Development,  (International)  Environ-
mental Governance and Natural Resource Management,  where international  organi-
sations represent almost the only channel used.  

Figure 14 

EU support to environment and climate change: Distribution by sec-
tor/channel (ENRTP) 

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

International organisation56%Civil society organisation16%Research institution9%EU Member states8%Private company4%Government4%Regional organisation3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Research institutionRegional organisationPrivate companyInternationalorganisationGovernmentEU Member statesCivil societyorganisation 
 
 
 
 
32 

Table 4 

EU support to environment and climate change: Distribution by channel/sub-channel 
(ENRTP) 

Channel/sub-channel 

Total contracted 
amount 

% of contract-
ed amount 

N° of 
contracts 

International organisations 

International Financing Institutions (IFIs) 

Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) 

No information on contracting party available 

UN agency 

Civil society organisations 

International NGO 

National NGO 

Research institution 

No information on channel available 

Research institutions 

EU Member States 

Private companies 

Partner governments 

Local government  

National Government 

No information on contracting party available 

Regional organisations 

Total 

518,138,744 € 

155,137,982 € 

37,248,715 € 

45,350,000 € 

280,402,047 € 

150,349,500 € 

116,705,910 € 

33,144,674 € 

498,916 € 

112,920,300 € 

85,247,469 € 

70,818,723 € 

36,024,212 € 

32,019,266 € 

3,998,667 € 

23,020,599 € 

5,000,000 € 

26,950,000 € 

1,032,468,214 € 

50.18 

15.03 

3.61 

4.39 

27.16 

14.56 

11.30 

3.21 

0.05 

10.94 

8.26 

6.86 

3.49 

3.10 

0.39 

2.23 

0.48 

2.61 

100 

175 

21 

38 

3 

113 

135 

94 

38 

3 

42 

44 

17 

155 

21 

4 

16 

1 

3 

592 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

33 

6  Answers to the Evaluation Questions 

6.1  EQ1: Policy & instruments 

To what extent has EU support to environment and climate 
change across different instruments (geographic and  
thematic) contributed to the EU’s overall environment  
and climate change policy aims? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

This question evaluates, at an overall level, the 
extent of EU policy and actual support to envi-
ronment and climate change, and seeks to un-
derstand if this support has been i) sufficient to 
achieve the EU policy aims, and ii) implemented 
using modalities and approaches that have in-
creased the likelihood that EU policy objectives 
have been achieved.  

This question is articulated through three judge-
ment criteria and a number of indicators, as 
shown in the figure on the right, and with detailed 
reporting in Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

EU policies had ambitious targets for environment and climate change, and the funding provided was 
significant, although comprising only 6% of the total development co-operation budget. EU support 
provided through geographic instruments was well aligned with national priorities and needs, but 38% 
of the support for the sector was provided through ENRTP, which was guided, to a large extent, by 
international MEAs and EU policy priorities, rather than national priorities, and mainly funded global 
actions. The EU and EUDs have also engaged in policy dialogue at national, regional and global lev-
els to promote increased prioritisation of, and action on, environmental and climate change concerns. 

Key points: 

  The EU has an ambitious policy framework, which clearly emphasises that addressing economic 
development and environment and climate change cannot be done in isolation from each other. 
This emphasis also led to a strong prominence of environment in the EU’s regional policies and 
agreements. However, while the policy framework gives a strong and clear message with regard 
to the importance of integrating environment and climate change, there is no single 
comprehensive policy that encompasses the EU’s position and targets.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
34 

On the contrary, the evaluation identified more than 40 policies issued in 2001-2013, each dealing 
with various aspects of environment and climate change. 

  The EU implemented these policies and promoted EU positions through a combination of: a) 

policy dialogue at global and national levels; b) bilateral programme support to countries, based 
on the national priorities of partner countries; c) thematic funding for environment under ENRTP, 
based on MEAs and EU policy aspirations. This combination approach enabled the EU to 
influence national priorities towards a gradually increased emphasis on environment and climate 
change (even if it is still somewhat low in many countries). The evidence of this is: a) environment, 
and especially climate change, features more prominently in the NIPs for 2014-2017 than it did in 
the CSPs for 2007-2013; b) environmental spending under the geographic instruments increased 
during the 2007-2013 period. 

  The EU influenced the global agenda through: a) presenting its views and positions in international 

negotiations (in particular in relation to climate change); b) through financial support from ENRTP 
to strengthen the global process itself (in relation to the latter, the EU did not impose its views 
upon other parties, but aimed to create global ownership and a conducive environment for 
reaching global agreements). This helped to ensure an active participation of developing 
countries, which in turn also influenced their national policies. This often supported EU policies, as 
many developing countries developed positions and views that were in line with those of EU. The 
EU also aimed at linking the global policy dialogue with country-level dialogue, but with mixed 
success due to co-ordination challenges between EU HQ and EUDs. 

  Policy dialogue and programming at national level was mutually reinforcing, as the programmatic 

presence and funding facilitated situations where the partner governments would lend an ear to 
EU positions. However, the flipside was that sector dialogue in a number of countries focused on 
programme implementation rather than strategic issues. Moreover, the broader policy dialogue on 
development priorities did not always address environment and climate change issues to its full 
potential. 

  Overall, the combination of policy dialogue, ENRTP and geographic instruments enabled the EU 
to engage in a relevant and substantial manner at global, regional and country levels, which 
enhanced the achievement of the EU’s environmental and climate change policy. 

  EU support has focused on strengthening MEA processes and the participation of developing 
countries, rather than directly promoting EU positions. Global MEA processes have influenced 
national policies, often in a way that is in line with EU policy objectives. 

  Overall, the combination of ENRTP and geographic instruments enabled the EU to engage in a 

relevant and substantial manner at the global, regional and country levels. 

6.1.1  EU Environmental and Climate change policy and strategy have contributed to a gradu-
ally increasing national partner prioritisation of environment and climate change, even 
if this prioritisation is still low (JC11) 

The EU provided  
significant funding for  
environment and  
climate change, but its 
proportion of total EU 
development funding 
remained low. 

EU  policies  are  ambitious  in  their  targets  for  promoting  environmental  sus-
tainability, significant GHG reductions, and resilience to climate change im-
pacts. A major tool for putting weight behind these aspirations and translat-
ing  them  into  action  is  the  provision  of  financial  resources  to  developing 
countries for tangible  action. In 2007-2013, EU funding for the environment 
and climate change sectors amounted to EUR 2.8 billion, constituting 6% of 
the total EU funding for development assistance21. (I-111) 

21  Out  of  the  EUR  3.3  billion,  EUR  1.3  million  relates  to  Energy-related  funding.  Under  this  heading,  there  are 
several sub-sectors for which it is not possible to state that they are 100% relevant for the current exercise and, 
as such, over-inflate the figures. If these are disregarded, the total amount would be EUR 2.8 billion − or 5.7% of 
the total EU funding for development assistance. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

                                                      
35 

A significant proportion 
of EU funding alloca-
tion was based on the 
EU’s own prioritisation, 
rather than those of 
developing countries. 

38%  of  the  environment  and  climate  change  funding  was  provided  through 
the ENRTP thematic programme earmarked by the EU for that purpose. On-
ly  5.6% of total  EU spending  on  development assistance under  geographic 
instruments  was  provided  for  environment  and  climate  change,  indicating 
that environment and climate change remain a relatively low priority for part-
ner countries. (I-111) 

EU contributed to an 
increased prominence 
of environment and 
climate in national 
processes, but imple-
mentation lags behind. 

Dialogue and  
programming were 
mutually reinforcing – 
but with a tendency to 
discuss programmatic 
issues, rather than 
strategic issues. 

While the priority given to environment and climate change appears to have 
been modest, the funding provided by EU under its geographic instruments 
increased  significantly  from  2011  to  2012.  The  choice  of  sectors  for  co-
operation during the 2007-2013 programming cycle also shows an interest in 
addressing  environment  and  climate  change  issues.  While  only  22%  of  all 
partner  countries  had  selected  environment  and  climate  change  as  a  focal 
sector in their CSPs, 71% of all CSPs were at least to some extent address-
ing environment and climate change issues. This was done either by having 
programmes on environment or climate change outside their focal sectors, or 
by the issues within other focal sectors − for example, in Rwanda and Ken-
ya, where environment and climate change adaptation figured prominently in 
the  agriculture/rural  development  focal  sector.  The  latter  is  an  indication  of 
an  understanding  that  environment  and  climate  change  are  cross-cutting 
issues  that  cannot  fully  be  addressed  in  isolation.  In  the  new  NIPs  (2014-
2017)  for  the  case  study  countries  visited,  environment  and  especially  cli-
mate change figure more prominently than in the previous CSP, even if not a 
focal sector (e.g. Rwanda, Kenya, Egypt).  

National  development  strategies  in  partner  countries  are  increasingly  ad-
dressing  ENV/CC  issues,  but  while  environmental  policies  are  improving, 
their implementation is often weak, indicating that the level of prioritisation is 
still modest. (e.g. Kenya, Ghana, Ukraine). (I-111, I-112) 

The EU has, through a combination of funding and dialogue, contributed to a 
gradually  increasing  prominence  of  environment  and  climate  change  in  the 
national development processes of partner countries, and this resonates well 
with the EU’s policy goals. But the priority generally appears to remain mod-
est, as illustrated by the comparatively low share of EU funding going to the 
environment and climate change sector, and the continuing severe environ-
mental degradation taking place. 

Policy dialogue and programming are generally linked, and programmes and 
projects  are  reinforcing  and  informing  policy  dialogue.  They  generate  les-
sons and evidence of available options, and the EU “brings something to the 
table”. Several programmes and projects are specifically aimed at informing 
and supporting policy dialogue, especially in China, where EU programmes 
and approaches have informed a number of policies. It appears that the abil-
ity to achieve policy results is highly dependent on the local context. Howev-
er, when policy dialogue is closely linked to a programme, there is a danger 
that the dialogue focuses on the programme, rather than the broader issues. 
This is seen in the dialogue in the Natural Resources and Environment Sec-
tor Working Group dialogue in Ghana, as well as dialogue in China and Bra-
zil, which have focused on sharing know-how. (I-113) 

The above indicates that the policy dialogue in the environment sector tends 
not  to  focus  as  much  on  whether  governments  should  increase  the  priority 
given to environment and  climate change (the  “why”  question).  Instead, the 
policy  dialogues  focus  on  specific  areas  of  collaboration,  and  environment 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Environment and  
climate change was 
not always brought 
into the broader  
dialogue on develop-
ment priorities to its 
full potential. 

The EU actively 
sought to link national 
and global level  
dialogues, but the  
co-ordination was  
insufficient to ensure 
an effective link. 

36 

sector dialogue appears to have focused on programme progress (the “how” 
question) rather than larger national priorities. The focus on the “how” rather 
than the “why” is not surprising, given that the environment sector by nature 
is prioritising itself. (I-113) 

Environment and climate change rarely appear to figure prominently in policy 
dialogue  in  relation  to  overall  national  development  priorities.  Ghana  and 
Rwanda are examples of this, and it seems in these cases to be linked to the 
absence of environmental indicators for general budget support. On the oth-
er  hand,  there  are  some  examples  of  dialogue  on  prioritising  environment, 
such  as  in  Egypt,  where  an  early  discussion  with  the  Ministry  of  Planning 
indicated that “the Government of Egypt considers poverty eradication, deep 
democracy and environment as priority broad policy areas to be addressed”.  

At  sector  level,  environment  and  climate  change  figure  quite  often  in  policy 
dialogue  in  the  agriculture/rural  development  (land  degradation,  climate 
change  adaptation)  and  energy  (renewable  energy,  energy  efficiency)  sec-
tors, but to a much lesser extent in the transport sector. Overall, the promi-
nence in sector dialogue has increased significantly from 2007/8 to 2013. (I-
113) 

Policy dialogue to enhance national prioritisation of environment and climate 
change  does  not  take  place  only  at  country  level.  International  governance 
forums are important policy dialogue events that provide opportunities to en-
gage  high-level  policy-makers  in  discussion  on  environment  and  climate 
change from a broader development perspective. In this context, démarches 
taken  by  the  headquarters  and  the  EU’s  Green  Diplomacy  Network  (GDN) 
play a role in linking national and global dialogue carried out by the EU and 
Delegations. However, the effectiveness is sometimes constrained by EUDs 
not always having a working relation with the relevant ministries (e.g. Rwan-
da), EU HQ outreach missions coming too late in the year to influence Gov-
ernment positions (e.g. Kenya), or outreach missions being insufficiently  co-
ordinated  with  EUDs.  This  indicates  that  the  HQ-initiated  dialogue  is  most 
effective in countries where environment and climate change is also a focal 
sector in the country programme. Awareness of the GDN was generally low 
among  the  EUDs  visited.  Moreover,  a  number  of  global  thematic  interven-
tions  under  ENRTP  engage  in  policy  dialogue  in  order  to  bring  global  per-
spectives to the national level. (I-113) 

An early finding of the FLEGT evaluation (ongoing at the time of this report) 
is:  “Over  the  years,  FLEGT  objectives  have  been  included  in  bilateral  dia-
logues,  as  part  of  a  broader  political  agenda  including  trade  and  environ-
ment, with both consumer countries (Japan, USA) and BRICS (Brazil, Rus-
sia, India, China and South Africa). While these dialogues are reported to be 
constructive, tangible results and impact are yet to materialise.” 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

6.1.2  ENRTP and geographic instruments enabled the EU to engage in environment and cli-
mate change in a relevant manner at country, regional and global levels, and enhanced 
the achievement of the EU’s environmental and climate change policy (JC12) 

37 

Actions under geo-
graphic instruments 
were aligned with, and 
supportive of, national 
priorities and needs. 

ENRTP actions were 
often aligned with 
global MEAs, rather 
than national priorities. 

In line with the Paris Declaration, the EU is committed to align with, and sup-
port the implementation of, national policy priorities in developing countries. 
In terms of the geographic instruments, alignment with national priorities is a 
key principle, and the programming is based on national development plans 
and a close dialogue with the recipient government. A uniform finding in the 
that  Government  priorities,  national  develop-
countries  visited  was 
ment/poverty reduction strategies and/or donor  co-ordination were the main 
factors  determining  the  choice  of  focal  sectors  programmes.  This  was  also 
the case for specific actions in relation to environment and climate change in 
the  case  countries.  At  the  same  time,  EU  programming  was  sometimes 
ahead  of  current  priorities  and  stimulated  change  –  e.g.  in  relation  to  re-
source efficiency in Egypt and sustainable service delivery in Bolivia. (I-122) 

ENRTP as a thematic programme was intended to be complementary to the 
geographic instruments and focus on global challenges and  the EU’s priori-
ties and goals. Hence,  ENRTP mainly  worked on global  environmental and 
climate change concerns and had international organisations as the primary 
implementing  partners,  rather  than  national  governments.  The  majority  of 
actions were global actions, and hence the alignment of these with national 
priorities  appears  to  have  been  less  important  than  alignment  with  interna-
tional  agreements,  with  which  ENRTP  actions  were  well  aligned.  Nonethe-
less, a number of ENRTP actions were implemented at regional or national 
levels, and even a number of global programmes had country-level activities. 
The  alignment  of  these  with  national  priorities  was  mixed.  Some  actions 
were closely aligned with national priorities and needs − for example, actions 
related  to  GCCA,  Partnership  for  Action  on  Green  Economy  (PAGE),  Low 
Emission Capacity Development (LECB) and FLEGT − and ENRTP actions 
in  China  reinforced  national  climate  change  mitigation  plans.  But  ENRTP 
projects  were  often  of  an  innovative  nature  and  tackled  topics  that  had  not 
yet made it to the national policies and priorities. Moreover, since there can 
be a lack of awareness of the impact of environmental degradation on eco-
nomic development and the economic value of environmental services, envi-
ronment was not always a priority on the national agenda. Hence, ENRTP as 
a thematic programme played a role in creating awareness and enabling na-
tional  governments  to  address  emerging  issues.  So  while  ENRTP  may  not 
always have been fully in line with the Paris Declaration, the preference giv-
en  to  MEAs  and  innovation,  rather  than  national  strategies,  was  justified. 
Nonetheless, this sometimes meant that ENRTP was perceived as top-down 
and  with  insufficient  stakeholder  consultation  and  consideration  of  national 
priorities, and the involvement of EUDs was usually limited. (I-122) 

Global MEA processes 
have influenced  
national policies –  
often, but not always, 
in a way that  
supported EU policy 
positions. 

MEAs  are  an  important  influence  on  national  policy  debates,  since  they 
commit countries to  implementing environment and  climate change policies 
and actions. The UNFCCC to a greater extent than the MEAs influences na-
tional debates, given the high level of political attention that climate change 
receives in the public discourse, whereas biodiversity and other environmen-
tal issues generally  are far less visible in the public debates (e.g. in Ghana 
and  Kenya).  As  described  under  EQ6  and  EQ7,  the  EU  has,  through 
ENRTP, provided significant support for strengthening global MEA process-
es. Stakeholders consider EU support instrumental in strengthening the de-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

38 

livery capacity of MEA secretariats, and thereby the entire MEA processes. 

As described in more detail under EQ6 and EQ7, EU support has contribut-
ed  to  strengthening  the  capacity  of  developing  countries  to:  a)  engage  in 
MEA  negotiations;  b)  translate  international  commitments  into  national  poli-
cies and plans.  

Countries  such  as  Ghana  and  Kenya  engage  proactively  in  the  UNFCCC 
process, and they often share the views of EU (e.g. on the need for binding 
agreements). The participation in UNFCCC has also influenced their domes-
tic policies and priority-setting, with new policies and institutional mandates. 
However, other countries have pursued policy goals that are not in line with 
EU policy, such as Ukraine’s advocacy for retaining its rights to sell Assigned 
Amount Units (AAUs) to other Annex 1 countries. (I-121) 

EU support focused on 
strengthening MEA 
processes and 
 participation rather 
than forcing EU  
positions on partner 
countries. 

The EU has deliberately kept a low profile in its support for MEA processes, 
so  as  not  to  be  seen  as  forcing  EU  positions  on  other  countries  through 
funding. Therefore, support has mainly been channelled through the UN sys-
tem, as it represents all countries and plays a role as a “neutral broker” and 
facilitator of the MEA processes. Considering the aspiration to enhance the 
participation and voice of developing countries, this approach appears to be 
results-oriented and prudent. (I-121) 

ENRTP and geograph-
ic instruments enabled 
EU to engage in a 
substantial manner but 
the influence on poli-
cies varied. 

Several EU-funded actions, under both geographic instruments and ENRTP, 
were aimed at influencing and strengthening national policies and plans, and 
a number of projects included a policy dialogue element (see I-113). Howev-
er, while many actions did indeed aim specifically at influencing national pol-
icies,  the  results  appear  mixed.  Some  projects  were  successful  in  their  en-
deavours  to  influence  policies,  but  others  were  not  fully  so.  It  appears  that 
the  ability  to  achieve  policy  results  was  highly  dependent  on  the  local  con-
text,  in  terms  of  government  buy-in,  institutional  set-up  and  capacity,  and 
understanding  of  the  project.  A  review  in  2013  of  grants  provided  under 
ENRTP’s grant scheme found that most projects tended to have an influence 
on policy, and that, in some cases, policies  were changed or  adapted as  a 
result of ENRTP support. The most significant areas of influence were biodi-
versity, FLEGT and climate change.  

Geographic  instruments  also  influenced  policy.  For  example,  in  Ghana,  the 
EU co-funded NREG sector budget support programme enabled the formu-
lation of national policies on climate change and environment and the estab-
lishment of the Akoben compliance system; and the PADP (Protected Areas 
Development  Programme)  enabled  the  development  and  roll-out  of  the 
CREMA  (Community  Resources  Management  Area)  community-based  ap-
proach  to  biodiversity  conservation  outside  protected  areas.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Europe-China  Energy  Clean  Centre  (EC2)  had  not  achieved  its 
objectives  of  enhancing  the  policy-making  and  implementing/enforcement 
capacity  in  China.  Indeed,  the  capacity  to  actually  implement  and  enforce 
otherwise good policies remains a major issue in many countries. (I-123) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

6.1.3  Environment and climate change figured prominently in EU policies and strategies with 
third countries and regions, but in regional agreements, there was a stronger focus on 
emerging economies than LDCs (JC13) 

39 

EU policies are 
 ambitious and  
emphasise the need to 
address environmental 
issues within the  
context of economic  
development. 

EU polices are  
coherent, but there is 
no single policy that 
encompasses the 
EU’s position and  
targets. 

The EU was an early 
mover in relation to 
embracing sustainable 
consumption and  
production. 

The focus on climate 
change increased  
significantly over time 
and is now a particu-
larly high priority in EU 
policies. 

Overall,  EU  policies related to environment and climate change  in  develop-
ment  assistance  and  international  governance  are  ambitious.  The  policies 
are supportive of MEAs and cover a comprehensive range of environmental 
issues, which are always framed in the context of sustainable economic de-
velopment  and  poverty  alleviation.  EU  policies  have  consistently  promoted 
the  integration/mainstreaming  of  environment  and,  later  on,  also  climate 
change into other sectors, as well as broader poverty reduction and econom-
ic development strategies and EU-partner policy dialogue (see also I-811). 

EU  policies  in  relation  to  the  MDGs  have  emphasised  the  need  to  address 
environmental  issues,  within  the  context  of  economic  development  and  the 
role that environmental services play in this regard. (I-131) 

Although there are several policies on environment and climate change, they 
appear  coherent.  However,  there  is  no  single  coherent  and  comprehensive 
policy for environment and climate change in development assistance. Rele-
vant  policy  positions  are  currently  scattered  over  several  communications, 
and  lack  detail  on  how  the  EU  will  implement  the  policies.  This  situation 
makes it difficult for EUDs to get a clear overview of EU policy positions and 
priorities  on  environment  and  climate  change.  The  coherence  with  policies 
for the agriculture, energy  and  water sectors is generally seen by  EUDs as 
being good, but not for the fisheries, trade and transport sectors. (I-131) 

EU  policies  have  demonstrated  an  early  focus  on  sustainable  consumption 
and production. The EU thus appears to have been an early mover by em-
bracing  the  green  economy  concept  before  it  became  a  prominent  concept 
in international discourse. (I-131) 

In  the  beginning,  the  emphasis  of  EU  policies  was  mainly  on  environment, 
but the focus on climate change increased significantly over time, UNFCCC 
is given high priority and significant attention in EU policies, with a focus on 
the linkage between climate change and economic development, and there-
fore mainstreaming of climate change.  Policies have  evolved from focusing 
primarily on curbing emissions to increasingly addressing adaptation in vul-
nerable  countries.  Climate  financing  has  been  prominent  on  the  agenda 
since 2009, reflecting  the  priorities of developing countries. From 2011, the 
focus has also been on facilitating the reach of a globally-binding agreement 
in 2015, by stepping up the EU’s climate diplomacy efforts. (I-131) 

Other MEA conven-
tions received less  
attention than UN-
FCCC in EU  
policies. 

The  significantly  increased  focus  on  climate  change  has  perhaps,  to  some 
extent, been at the expense of attention given to other major environmental 
issues (e.g. land degradation/desertification and invasive species), although 
EU policies emphasise the linkage between climate change and other envi-
ronmental issues.  

Biodiversity  and  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  were  given 
priority throughout the period evaluated. However, UNCBD is receiving less 
attention  than  the  UNFCCC,  although  the  EU  has  developed  and  updated 
biodiversity  strategies,  and  biodiversity  is  also  mentioned  in  several  other 
policy documents.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Environment became 
increasingly important 
in EU regional and 
 bilateral agreements 
with developing  
countries. 

EU regional and  
strategic bilateral 
agreements focused 
on emerging  
economies, rather  
than LDCs. 

40 

UNCCD is the Rio Convention  aspect  receiving the least attention. The EU 
has not adopted any specific policies  in relation to UNCCD, but desertifica-
tion and land degradation are mentioned in a number of policies. The situa-
tion is similar for other non-Rio Convention MEAs. (I-131) 

While  environment  has  been  on  the  agenda  of  regional  agreements  since 
before the 1990s, the prominence of environment and the level of detail has 
grown  over  the  years,  especially  since  around  2005.  The  range  of  environ-
mental themes covered is very broad, but climate change and energy have 
become increasingly prominent themes. (I-132) 

Although the ACP region is receiving more development assistance from the 
EU  than  Asia  and  Latin  America,  the  number  of  regional  agreements,  dia-
logues and policies for Asia, Latin America and ENPI South is larger than for 
ACP. ENPI East has only few regional agreements, but the EU has bilateral 
agreements with all the countries in the region − unlike for ACP. There is a 
similar  tendency  for  bilateral  agreements  and  partnerships,  with  bilateral 
agreements on economic/strategic partnerships, trade and dialogues tending 
to focus on bigger countries/economies and mid-income countries − i.e. the 
BRIC  (Brazil,  Russia,  India,  China)  and  BASIC  (Brazil,  South  Africa,  India, 
China)  countries,  especially  China,  and  the  wealthier  countries  in  Latin 
America.  The  exception  is  South  Asia,  where  bilateral  agreements  are 
signed with five SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation) 
countries  in  the  absence  of  a  regional/sub-regional  agreement.  Hence,  the 
regional  and  bilateral  agreements  and  policy  dialogues  have  focused  more 
on regions and countries where: a) there are significant economic and trade 
relations;  b)  where  environmental  issues  are  linked  to  economic  growth;  c) 
countries  that  have  a  significant  influence  on  international  negotiations.  (I-
132) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.2  EQ2: Low emission 

41 

To what extent has EU support (via the ENRTP and  
geographic instruments) contributed towards developing 
countries being better prepared for low emissions  
development? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

The evaluation question assesses progress towards 
climate change mitigation, which is one of the key pri-
orities of the wider EU policy on environment and cli-
mate change towards third regions and countries.  
Mitigation of GHGs and the adoption of low-emission  
development is a core thrust of the ENRTP, and it also 
links well to the envisaged successor programme on 
global public goods.  

Within the priority area of climate change and sustain-
able energy, the climate adaptation sub-priority is al-
ready being evaluated by another evaluation (of 
GCCA,) and the energy sub-priority is the subject of 
another evaluation question. 

The five main projects supported by the EU during the 
period evaluated that contribute to low-emission de-
velopment are: EU-UNDP LECB22; the World Bank-led 
Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR)23; the Urban-
LEDS through UNHabitat24; the EU MRVCB imple-
mented by GIZ; and support to international aviation 
through the ICAO. 

This question is articulated through three judgement 
criteria and a number of indicators, as shown in the 
figure on the right, with detailed reporting in Volume 2. 

22 The LECB is a project implemented by the UNDP aiming to build capacity for MRV/NAMA and LEDS. The EU 
contribution is Euro 18 million and the total project cost is Euro 32 million. The project focuses on 8 countries in 
Africa, 8 in Asia, 12 in Latin America and Caribbean and 7 in the Middle East and North Africa.  
23 The PMR is a project implemented by the WB and aiming to foster a market readiness for adopting low carbon 
technology and mitigation. The EU contribution is Euro 5 million in a first tranche and the total project cost is USD 
110  million.  The  project  focuses  on  South  Africa,  China,  India,  Indonesia,  Thailand,  Vietnam,  Brazil,  Chile,  Co-
lumbia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey and Ukraine. 
24 The Urban –LEDS project is implemented by UNHABITAT and aims to develop NAMAS and LEDS at the city 
level.  The  EU  finances  the  entire  project cost  of  Euro  6.7 million.  The  project  focuses  on  cities  in  South  Africa, 
India, Indonesia and Brazil. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
42 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

EU development co-operation has channelled support through a number of leading international part-
nerships and processes engaged in preparing developing countries for low-emissions development. 
The support, aimed at developing MRV, NAMAs, LEDS and market readiness, follows best practice, 
and the approaches followed take account of the fact that low-emission development is a long-term 
aim where results are crucially dependent on ensuring early country-level commitment. The EU, 
through these global programmes, is supporting some 35 countries.  

The strategy of working through already established leading international programmes, such as those 
of the UNDP, WB, ICAO and ICLEI, has led to greater efficiency and reduced the danger of proliferat-
ing different approaches than would probably have been the case with the alternative of setting up 
new EU-led projects. The EU takes a global approach to a global problem, which is credible and more 
likely to lead to voluntary adoption of mitigation targets. However, the visibility of the EU has potential-
ly suffered, and the opportunity to make use of the experience of EU member states has probably 
been less than would have been the case with new EU-led projects. 

Key points: 

  EU support has led to significant advancement of MRV systems in many of the selected countries, 
although it is too early to conclude that fully robust MRV systems have been developed, as this is 
a long-term effort. 

  EU-supported projects ensure that MRV is embedded in national priorities and is demand-led. 

  The EU approach has increased the coherence of capacity and technical support to MRV. 

  Although no NAMAs have yet been fully completed, EU-supported interventions are developing a 
considerable pipeline of NAMAs in different sectors and countries that will considerably add to the 
global registry and credibility of the NAMA concept. In contrast to other efforts, the EU support has 
led to NAMAs being established in lesser-developed countries such as Uganda, where six NAMAs 
are being supported. 

  The LEDS that are being developed through the EU-supported projects and programmes take 
their departure in national development plans and processes, and, although taking longer, it 
makes them more likely to be implemented. The crucial success factor for LEDS has been the 
level of in-country demand and the presence of a favourable institutional and political environment. 

  The methodologies and approaches to knowledge-sharing are state of the art, and use a variety of 
mediums and means of reaching out to stakeholders. Particularly important has been the peer–to-
peer knowledge exchange. 

  EU-supported interventions in increasing knowledge and developing capacity appear to be 

genuinely partner-owned and demand-led, and they are thus likely to lead to capacities that are 
made use of in practice. 

  Although documentation of knowledge-sharing events is generally very good, there is not a 

systematic measurement or presentation of capacity-related results or a monitoring and reporting 
of their influence on low emission strategies. This makes it difficult for the programmes to learn 
and to adjust their approach to allow constant improvement. 

6.2.1  The capacity to monitor, verify and report on GHGs has increased, thus creating an im-
portant prerequisite for global reporting and systematic mitigation action (JC21)  

The EU support to 
MRV systems is a 
highly-strategic 
 action for advancing 
mitigation. 

Increasing the capacity to establish, operate and maintain credible MRV sys-
tems  is  a  crucial  and  highly-strategic  task  for  implementing  EU  policies  on 
mitigating climate change.  MRV systems are well-embedded  in the interna-
tional  framework  created  under  the  UNFCCC,  and  are  a  critical  part  of  the 
global  efforts  to  establish  collective  and  long-term  action  to  combat  climate 
change.  The  EU  support  to  projects  and  programmes  that  aim  to  increase 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

The approach of  
working through  
well-established  
international partners 
that have a global 
reach and credibility 
 is well conceived. 

Progress looks  
promising, but it is still 
too early to measure 
the success in devel-
oping MRV systems. 

The demand- led  
approach is slow,  
but is starting to  
show results. 

43 

the  awareness  of,  commitment  to  and  capacity  of  MRV  systems  are  thus 
well  conceived  because  they  assist  in  internalising  accountability  mecha-
nisms for implementing policy. (I-221, I212) 

The EU has selected − and, in some cases, helped establish − a number of 
international  projects  and  programmes  aimed  at  increasing  the  capacity  of 
MRV systems. The alternative of setting up EU projects would have added to 
the  danger  of  proliferation  of  support  efforts  that  are  not  co-ordinated,  and 
which would have had to build internal delivery capacity from scratch, rather 
than relying on already-established capacity of partners such as UNDP, WB, 
ICAO  and  ICLEI.  The  EU’s  global  approach  to  a  global  problem  is  more 
credible and likely to have greater success than attempting an EU-led effort 
– especially where the programme is led by an agency that is under interna-
tional  governance,  and  where  the  countries  being  advised  are  also  part  of 
the governance structure of the agency.  

Working  both  with  the  UNFCCC  on  mitigation  issues  from  a  governance 
stance (examined under EQ7) and with selected international partners from 
an implementation stance has proved fruitful. By choosing to work with inter-
national  partners,  the  EU  support  has  been  able  to  address  awareness, 
commitment and capacity gaps outside the highly politically-charged negotia-
tion environment of the UNFCCC. A conscious de-linking of the support from 
the negotiation politics has been one of the features that have enabled both 
technical  and  political  progress  to  be  made.  The  downside  of  working 
through international partners is the potential loss of direct visibility. Howev-
er,  for most  of  the  projects  and  programmes,  the  EU  visibility  is  respected, 
and in some cases (e.g. the UNDP LECB project) is actively  promoted and 
seen as bringing additional credibility to the project. (I-211, I-212) 

Although there have been some notable successes, it is generally too early 
to measure the success of the EU capacity development through the estab-
lishment  of  improved  MRV  systems.  Most  countries  are  still  at  a  very  early 
stage in MRV development, and there is not a strong baseline against which 
to  measure  progress.  It  is  a  slow  process  and,  for  the  most  part,  progress 
has been in terms of identifying the relevant stakeholders, introducing what 
the  different  projects  can  offer,  holding  workshops  for  peer  exchange,  and 
encouraging the countries to make plans for support. (I-211) 

The demand-led approach is being rigorously adopted and, although slow at 
first, is starting to show concrete capacity development results that are likely 
to be sustained. MRV is voluntary for the non-annex I countries, and thus it 
is  important  that  advances  are  fully  embedded  in  national  processes,  and 
that  the  support  process,  while  pointing  forward,  does  not  at  any  stage  get 
too  far  ahead  of  national  commitment  levels.  An  example  of  adopting  the 
demand-led approach is that both the LECB and Urban-LEDS projects have 
changed  the  selection  of  countries  whenever  it  became  obvious  that  the 
country commitment was not in place and was unlikely to change in the near 
future.  

There has been significant progress in initiating and strengthening MRV pro-
cesses. In some cases, such as Lebanon, concrete progress has been made 
in officialising MRV. There are also concrete examples in Chile, where MRV 
systems led by the private sector are being adopted. The support to building 
capacity  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  is  evident  in  the  LECB  and  PMR 
initiatives.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

44 

The evidence is that the EU-financed support efforts:  

  Are following a demand-led approach;  

  Have  set  ambitious,  but  realistic,  objectives  that  are  tested  at  country 

level;  

  Have customised interventions to the country-level situation− and, in the 

case of the Urban-LEDS project, to the city-level situation;  

  Have  selected  countries  that  represent  a  mix  of  those  that  are  highly 
committed  and  can  showcase  progress  (e.g.  Mexico)  and  those  that 
have huge potential to contribute internationally but are still lagging (e.g. 
Indonesia); 

  Are  targeting  partners  that  have  the  mandate  and  influence  to  make  a 

difference.  

The  results  already  reached  suggest  that  following  this  approach  will  ulti-
mately yield the expected results. (I-212) 

Developing  countries  are  approached  from  all  angles  by  support  efforts  for 
MRV, NAMA and LEDS, and there is an acute danger of confusing method-
ologies and incompatible databases and processes being set up. If not har-
monised and effectively co-ordinated, this could lead to duplication, waste of 
resources, and a lowering of capacity in the countries. Attempts to establish 
global co-ordination have not yet met with success.  

The  successful  in-country  co-ordination  in  the  Philippines  −  noted  in  ROM 
reports − and the co-ordination of MRV efforts noted in the Kenya, Egypt and 
other field missions point to the benefit of placing more attention on building 
systems and capacity for local co-ordination. (I-212) 

Co-ordination of  
capacity and technical 
support to MRV is still 
a crucial issue. 

6.2.2  Strategies  and  actions  such  as  NAMAs  and  LEDs  strategies  are  available  to  support 

low-emissions development (JC22) 

The EU has supported 
a range of strategies 
and actions, with an 
emphasis on NAMAs 
and LEDS. 

The approach of focusing on NAMAs and LEDS to support low-emission de-
velopment  is  in  line  with  international  guidance  and  best  practice.  The  Ur-
ban-LEDS  project  has  experimented  with  vertical  NAMAs,  which  is  an  ap-
proach applicable at sub-national or city level. The PMR programme focuses 
more  on  establishing  market  readiness  and  developing  advanced  market-
based  tools  such  as  Emission  Trading  Systems,  as  well  as  NAMAs.  The 
support  to  aviation  focuses  on  a  particular  sector  that  has  a  global  rather 
than  country  scope.  Overall,  the  range  of  approaches  adopted  by  the  EU-
supported interventions is appropriate and is guided by best practice, as well 
as being innovative and experimental. (I-221, I-222) 

Although no NAMAs 
have yet been 
 finalised and funded, 
there are many under 
preparation through 
EU supported 
 interventions. 

NAMAs are a relatively new concept, and a universal definition is not  yet in 
place. The UNFCCC NAMA registry prototype records 51 NAMAs worldwide. 
The LECB project alone is working on over 70. Even if only half of these be-
come registered, it will make a significant contribution. The scale of the NA-
MA support being provided by  the EU is thus considerable. A critical factor 
for NAMAs is to make them bankable and ensure that they can be financed. 
This crucial aspect has not yet been tested by the EU-supported projects. (I-
221) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

NAMAs are being 
supported in many 
sectors and also within 
least developed coun-
tries. 

A bottom up strategy 
for developing LEDS 
has been adopted 
meaning the LEDS are 
behind NAMAs in 
terms of progress. 

45 

In contrast to the NAMAs recorded in the UNFCCC NAMA registry prototype, 
which  focus  on  medium-income  countries,  the  NAMAs  being  supported  by 
the EU through a variety of programmes and projects also provide support to 
least developed countries, such as DR Congo and Uganda. In Uganda, it is 
notable  that  six  NAMAs  are  being  supported  at  concept  stage.  With  addi-
tional  EU  support,  the  LECB  project  has  recently  established  a  NAMAnet, 
which  is  a  constellation  of  consortiums  that  act  as  centres  of  excellence  to 
provide dedicated support to countries (including  least developed countries) 
in developing NAMAs. This “outsourced” approach is likely to speed up pro-
gress, but could also, if not well managed, lead to capacity being developed 
within the consortiums, rather than within the country structures. (I-221) 

The  EU  projects  and  programmes  support  around  35  countries,  in  most  of 
which there is preference for developing LEDS through a bottom-up process 
that  pilots  MRV  systems  and  NAMAs  as  the  basis  for  developing  an  initial 
LEDS − which can then provide an overall strategy for prioritising MRV and 
NAMAs. A consequence of this is that progress in LEDS is lagging.  Never-
theless, there are a number of promising developments. At the city level, for 
example,  the  Urban-LEDS  project  has  catalysed  a  municipal-level  LEDS 
process  in  Recife,  Brazil.  At  the  country  level,  examples  include:  Chile, 
where a LEDS proposal has been submitted to the Ministry of Finance; Co-
lombia,  where  active  support  is  being  provided  to  a  Low  Carbon  Develop-
ment Strategy; and the Philippines, where two sectorial mitigation road maps 
are being prepared with EU support. (I-222) 

The LEDS that are 
being developed are 
well-embedded in  
national development 
plans, making them 
more likely to be  
implemented. 

The ROM reports and testimonials from reporting on PMR and Urban-LEDs 
show  that  the  efforts  to  develop  and  support  LEDS  have  not  been  isolated 
within project structures. The LEDS under preparation all show signs of be-
ing well-embedded in national plans and processes. This is illustrated by ex-
amples such as the approach of:  

  Support to ongoing processes, rather than trying to start new ones − e.g. 
supporting the elaboration of an already-approved LEDS in Colombia.  

For MRV, the level of 
in-country demand 
and the institutional 
and political environ-
ment determines the 
pace of progress. 

  Working  through  well-established  institutional  sets  up  −  e.g.  in  the 
Philippines,  through  the  Climate  Change  Commission,  and  in  Uganda, 
through the Climate Change Unit.  

  Working  with  respected  international  bodies,  such  as  the  International 
Civil Aviation Organisation, that are global bodies that have a direct link 
to the central implementation processes at country level. (I-221) 

The  approach  of  the  EU-supported  projects  and  programmes  is  to  respond 
to demand. To a large extent, the support focuses on actions and strategies 
that are “no or low regret”, which makes it easier to generate demand. With 
an initial grant to help formulate plans, the larger multi-country projects and 
programmes,  such  as  the  LECB  and  PMR,  rely  on  countries  to  self-
determine  the  most  relevant  actions  and,  in  general,  only  co-finance  and 
support rather than substitute national action. The importance of a favoura-
ble  political  environment  is  evident  in  Egypt,  where  national  commitment  to 
climate mitigation and development of LEDS has risen remarkably since the 
Arab Spring democratic uprisings in 2011. 

In some cases, there is evidence of highly catalytic action − such as in Reci-
fe, Brazil, and in Lebanon, where a relatively small but strategic intervention 
leads on to significant internal action.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

46 

It is not always clear from desk studies and  interviews to what extent there 
are  project  actions  that  deliberately  generate  demand  for  LEDS.  The  multi-
country  workshops  and  peer-to-peer  exchanges  certainly  raise  awareness. 
The convening power of the partners chosen by the EU has also meant that 
high-level officials (e.g. in the Ministry of Finance, City Mayors) that are out-
side  the  more  narrow  climate  change  fraternity  are  involved.  Some  of  the 
countries  selected,  such  as  Indonesia,  are  also  examples  of  where  one  of 
the  main  challenges  is  to  stimulate  demand  and  broaden  political  support. 
The  EU  green  diplomacy  network  did  not  appear  to  have  been  engaged  in 
support of the projects. (I-221, I-222) 

6.2.3  Knowledge on implementing low-emissions development has increased (JC23) 

The EU supported 
programmes have  
introduced innovative 
knowledge sharing 
practices. 

The knowledge-
sharing has engaged 
both technical and  
political levels. 

The EU-supported 
 interventions are 
partner-owned and 
demand-led. 

Knowledge  sharing  is  at  the  heart  of  the  large  multi-country  projects  and 
programmes, such as the LECB, the PMR and the Urban-LEDS. Both south-
south and north-south knowledge sharing is encouraged. The EU-supported 
projects  strongly  promote  peer  exchange  events,  and  these  are  judged  as 
being one of the most effective mechanism of capacity development as they 
encourage the formation of formal and informal networks that can potentially 
continue even after external support is withdrawn.  

The  peer  exchange  is  also  highly  practical,  as  the  demonstration  effect  of 
what can be achieved by other countries that experience the same types of 
constraints and are at the same level of economic and social development is 
compelling. (I-231) 

The  knowledge  and  capacity  development  interventions  address  a  number 
of actions across the knowledge management cycle, from knowledge gener-
ation  to  awareness-raising,  and  from  training  through  to  dissemination  and 
piloting. The EU-supported projects use a variety of mediums and means of 
reaching out to stakeholders. There are actions aimed at building individual 
capacity  as  well  as  organisation  capacity,  and  the  aspects  of  the  enabling 
environment are also addressed.  

It is impressive that the EU-supported projects and programmes have delib-
erately and successfully engaged with both the technical and political levels 
(e.g. in Lebanon, the NAMA and LEDS concept was explained to the coun-
try’s highest inter-ministerial decision-making body, the Council of Ministers). 
There has been less conspicuous success in engaging with civil society and 
the private sector, and it is not easy to determine their level of engagement.  

As the PMR programme advances from preparation of plans towards imple-
menting market readiness measures, it is likely that a significant acceleration 
in engagement of the private sector will take place through the emphasis on 
market mechanisms that will attract profit-seeking private enterprises. (I-231) 

In the case of MRV and NAMAs, the projects and programmes are based on 
plans that are developed by the countries themselves and largely under the 
institutional  supervision  and  control  of  permanent  national  bodies,  rather 
than project-specific implementation units – although, for practical implemen-
tation, such units are in some cases set up in a supportive role. There are, 
however,  cases  of  project-specific  implementation  units,  such  as  in  Egypt, 
where − for institutional and other reasons − there is no better alternative.  

There  is  also  evidence  of  significant  partner  contribution  and  co-financing, 
which  tends  to  indicate  that  continued  involvement  is  genuine  and  not  just 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Although knowledge-
sharing events are 
well-documented,  
capacity development 
is not monitored. 

47 

being attended because the training and knowledge-sharing is free. It is not 
clear from the evidence available to which extent knowledge (apart from be-
ing  available  on  the  internet)  is  deliberately  disseminated  in-country  −  for 
example,  via  environment  and  climate  desks  in  different  ministries.  Main-
streaming  of  low-emission  strategies  into  sector  and  national  development 
plans is crucial, but opportunities for doing so are limited and there does not 
seem to be a deliberate or systematic strategy yet set out for how to achieve 
this. (I-231, I-232) 

Summaries and detailed information, for most if not all events, are easily ac-
cessible on the Internet and of high quality. There are a number of informa-
tive information sheets, particularly from the LECB and Urban-LEDs projects. 
There  is  an  abundance  of  evidence  of  knowledge-related  and  capacity-
building  activities  taking  place  (I-231),  and  also  a  considerable  body  of  an-
ecdotal  evidence  of  the  impact  on  development  of  low-emission  strategies. 
(I-232)  For  example,  knowledge  and  capacity  development  are  having  an 
influence on development of low-emission strategies − as seen in the cases 
of  Costa  Rica  and  Philippines,  where  current  emission  strategies  are  being 
supported,  or  Lebanon,  where  the  legal  framework  for  low-emission  devel-
opment  is  being  initiated  and  already  having  significant  results  (e.g.  200 
companies  applying  for  green  certification  status).  However,  there  is  not  a 
systematic  identification  of  a  baseline,  the  results  to  be  achieved  or  meas-
urement of progress towards capacity development results. As a result, the 
programmes  are  not  as  accountable  as  they  might  otherwise  be,  and  les-
sons  on  what  works  and  what  does  not  cannot  be  as  clearly  identified.  (I- 
231, I-232) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.3  EQ3: Sustainable energy 

48 

To what extent has EU support (via the ENRTP and  
geographic instruments) contributed to improving the en-
abling environment for investments in sustainable  
energy development? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

The evaluation question assesses the contribution of 
EU support towards improving the enabling environ-
ment for investments in sustainable energy, with a  
focus on the reduction of the financial barriers for  
renewable and energy efficiency investments in devel-
oping countries. The EU support to the energy sector 
is extensive and covers a variety of areas. Three  
major international initiatives were supported during 
the period: 

  Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Fund (GEEREF) (EUR 125 million) 

  EUEI and ACP-EU Energy Facility (EUR 178 

million)25 

  SEA4All (EUR 400 million)26 
GEEREF was selected for in-depth evaluation as it: i) 
directly addresses access to finance as one of the 
main barriers to scaling up investments in sustainable 
energy development; ii) represents a flagship initiative 
of the ENRTP; iii) is a new and innovative EU-led initi-
ative dedicated to energy efficiency and renewable 
energy. 

This question is articulated through two judgement cri-
teria and a number of indicators, as shown in the fig-
ure on the right, with detailed reporting in Volume 2. 

25 The ACP-EU Energy Facility aims to alleviate poverty by incrementing access to adequate, affordable and sus-
tainable energy services to the poor in economically and socially disadvantaged areas. For more information, re-
fer to: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/publication-acp-eu-energy-facility-ec-2009_en.pdf 
26 A global initiative with three interlinked objectives:  

1.  providing universal access to modern energy services; 
2.  doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and 
3.  doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. 

For more information refer to: http://www.se4all.org/ 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
49 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

The EU, as founder and lead donor of the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund 
(GEEREF), has contributed to improving the enabling environment for investments in sustainable en-
ergy. Through the EU’s innovative action in developing GEEREF as a flagship initiative of the ENRTP, 
significant investment leverage has been achieved for renewable energy, but not for energy efficiency. 
By establishing a solid track record of investment returns on small-scale renewable energy in develop-
ing countries, a contribution has been made to reducing financing barriers, especially in lessening the 
perception of risk. The investments in renewable energy have improved access to energy, and have 
also led to employment, skill enrichment and, in the case of some of the projects, longer-term income 
generation for marginalised communities. 

Key points: 

  The EU, as a founder and lead donor, has played an important role in developing an original and 

highly innovative concept that mobilises the private sector. 

  GEEREF investments in renewable energy are rapidly increasing and have achieved a high 

leverage of private and other donor finance (a total EU contribution of EUR 125 million is likely to 
lead to over EUR 11 billion of investment). 

 

Investment in energy efficiency has been low due to insufficient demand and the complexities of 
using the GEEREF risk capital model for energy efficiency. 

  There is evidence that GEEREF is contributing towards creating a new asset class27 for small-

scale renewable energy in emerging markets, which in turn could unlock significant private sector 
risk capital in the future. 

  With EU support through GEEREF, a contribution has been made to lessening the number of 

persistent financial barriers, especially through reducing the perception of risk (by establishing a 
track record of investment returns in small-scale renewable energy in developing countries). 

  For the few cases that are documented, there are indications of significant non-financial benefits 
to the GEEREF involvement in renewable energy, mainly in relation to environment, employment 
and capacity development. 

  Already within current investments, about 1.6 million people are benefiting from improved energy 

access, and if the investments continue as expected, this will rise to over 9 million. 

  There have not been any special or systematic measures to reduce the barriers for involvement of 
SMEs in renewable energy28, which has potentially led to missed opportunities to broaden the 
non-financial benefits. 

6.3.1  Barriers have been reduced for accessing finance for renewable energy, but not for en-

ergy efficiency (JC31)  

GEEREF has led to  
a significant leverage 
in investment in  
renewable energy. 

To date, EUR 72 million have been committed by GEEREF to seven differ-
ent regional funds (box 1), which, due to a very high leverage and multiplier 
effect (close to 50 by some calculations), is likely to lead to a final investment 
volume of over EUR11 billion, if all goes to plan. This implies a very signifi-
cant leverage After a slow start, due to the need to ensure a solid prospec-

27 According to GEREEF, there are some prospects of a new asset class emerging after GEREEF dissolves and 
the fund is divested. If it is confirmed that a return of between 15& and 25% was made, then this information could 
contribute to setting up a track record for returns in small-scale renewable energy. This in turn could encourage 
the creation of a new investment asset class that targets small-scale renewable energy. Given the relatively at-
tractive returns (partially as a result of poor information on, and ungrounded fear of, small-scale renewable ener-
gy),  external  investors  could  find  small-scale  renewable  energy  sufficiently  attractive  to  warrant  the  creation  of 
investment funds dedicated to this purpose. 
28 This observation refers to the GEEREF, but it must be noted that this is an area where support has been pro-
vided under the EU Technical Assistance Facility for the SE4All Initiative. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

                                                      
50 

tus  and  a  proper  screening  of  regional  funds,  there  is  a  sharply  increasing 
rate of mobilisation of funding. From three regional funds being  operational 
in  2011,  there  were  seven  regional  funds  operational  in  2013.  In  2011,  six 
due diligence checks on potential funds were carried per year, and this has 
now  doubled  to  12.  The  GEEREF  commitment  to  seven  regional  funds  is 
roughly equal and distributed among Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern 
Europe.  About  18  projects  were  started  by  the  two  first  funds  (Evolution  1 
and REAF) in three countries, and in total it is estimated that these will result 
in  close  to  400  megawatts  (MW)  of  additional  renewable  energy  capacity 
being installed. (I-311) 

Box 6 

Regional funds 

Regional Funds (RFs) are GEEREF’s investment targets and, as a result, 
each RF must have a focus on investing in Beneficiary Projects. The geo-
graphical focus of an RF may include a continent, a few countries or a single 
country, or even a part of a single country, provided that a portion of the RFs’ 
investments (as determined by GEEREF Investment Committee) are located 
within the Target Market. The geographical focus of the RF is subject to var-
iables, such as the size of the RF and its investment objectives and policy.  

RFs may be structured in different ways, depending on the specific market 
conditions and opportunities. Examples of structures in which GEEREF 
would consider investing include, but are not limited to: 

1. 

Investment funds for renewable energy projects and/or energy efficien-
cy.  

2.  Private equity funds for SMEs or specialised financial institutions for the 

renewable energy and/or energy efficiency sector.  

3.  Special purpose vehicles specifically created for a number of smaller 

Beneficiary Projects (clustering).  

4.  Entities with a business model geared for replication and scaling-up of 

rural off-grid electrification schemes.  

5.  Financing schemes with financial intermediaries such as banks, micro-
finance institutions and leasing companies for SME finance and end us-
er finance focused on renewable energy and/or energy efficiency.  

6.  Any combination of the above. 

Regional Funds may be structured in different ways depending on the specif-
ic market conditions and opportunities. Examples of structures in which 
GEEREF would consider investing include but are not limited to:  

RFs  shall  be  established,  with  a  view  to  providing  Risk  Capital  financing  to 
Beneficiary Projects. However, in exceptional cases, the RFs might provide 
debt finance for bridging finance purposes or other applicable cases. 

Source: GEEREF Prospectus, February 2011 

The GEEREF risk cap-
ital model has not led 
to significant  
investment in energy 
efficiency. 

Only two of the seven regional funds include energy efficiency in their portfo-
lio, and both are in Latin America29. Unlike renewable energy projects, ener-
gy efficiency projects are not clearly linked to an underlying asset that can be 
valued and sold.  Although energy efficiency investments generate a stream 
of income (energy costs saved), they normally arise from services provided 
they have a finite end. Energy efficiency models usually require robust gov-

29 Same as in previous footnote. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
EU support could  
potentially lead to the 
emergence of a new 
asset class for small-
scale renewable  
energy in developing 
countries. 

A contribution has 
been made to  
reducing a number  
of persistent financial 
barriers. 

The EU role has been 
pivotal in developing 
an original and highly 
innovative concept. 

51 

ernance and a regulatory and measurement framework, which is often miss-
ing  in  developing  countries.  This  also  partially  explains  why  the  initiatives 
that have taken off are in relatively well-developed Latin American countries, 
such as Mexico. (I-312) 

As GEEREF  establishes a solid track record of returns from renewable en-
ergy  in  developing  countries,  it  will  reduce  the  perception  of  risk,  crowd  in 
private  sector  finance  and  lessen  financial  barriers.  It  would  be  fair  to  say 
that GEEREF has come to be regarded as one of the world’s most special-
ised risk capital funds in renewable energy and has, in effect, created a new 
asset class30. Already now, it appears likely that private investors, protected 
by preferential returns, will match the public investment of EUR 112 million. 
There might even be scope for reducing the degree of preferential returns for 
a second phase, once GEEREF is divested and final returns become appar-
ent. Currently, it is estimated by GEEREF that the final returns might be be-
tween  15%  and  25%,  although  it  is  too  early  for  these  figures  to  be  con-
firmed.31 (I-314) 

The financial barriers that have been lessened through GEEREF include: 

  The  perception  of  risk  in  investing  in  small-scale  renewable  energy  in 
emerging  markets,  with  their  high  upfront  costs  and  long  payback 
periods. Because of successful GEEREF practice, the perception of risk 
is  now  less,  as  illustrated  by  private  sector  response  to  the  GEEREF 
prospectus.  The  response  has  been  encouraging,  and  is  based  on  the 
investors’ evaluation of the track record to date.  

  The  over-reliance  on  subsidies,  which  have  encouraged  low-quality 
investment. By practising high-quality investment, GEEREF and the RFs 
have  demonstrated  that  renewable  energy  can,  in  the  right  setting, 
compete on an equal footing with conventional energy. 

  The tendency for funding to be skewed away from developing countries 
−  especially  for  smaller  investments,  where  the  transaction  costs  are 
high.  GEEREF  has  demonstrated  that  returns  can  be  made  in 
developing  countries,  and  has  also  strengthened  the  operational 
management  of  regional  funds  so  that  they  now  attract  considerable 
funds to a new portfolio of projects. (I-314) 

The EU’s role has been to develop the concept and bring together other fun-
ders (Germany and Norway), foreseeing a need for technical assistance for 
emerging regional funds. The EU has also had a role in nurturing the institu-
tional  establishment  of  GEEREF,  which  has  led  to  an  effective  and  highly 
professional management of the fund. Nevertheless, there does seem to be 
a potential governance contradiction in having the funders on the board and 
also on the investment committee. While this has not yet caused major prob-
lems,  there  is  a  need  to  resolve  the  issue  if  a  later  phase  is  envisaged.  (I-
311) 

30 ROM report MR-140822.02 2012. 
31 GEEREF management. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

                                                      
6.3.2  There  have  been  significant  non-financial  benefits  of  GEEREF  involvement  in  renewa-
ble  energy,  including  skill  enrichment,  community  development  and  mitigation  of 
greenhouse gases (JC32) 

52 

For some projects  
significant non-
financial benefits have 
been documented. 

SME involvement  
has not been activity 
promoted. 

The GEEREF set up is 
not well suited for 
reaching out to the 
poorest areas with  
micro-scale solutions. 

One  of  the  funds  (Evolution  One,  based  in  South  Africa)  has  documented 
considerable  benefits  in  terms  of  employment  (permanent  and  temporary), 
skill enrichment, and capacity building. The fund has also documented how 
a  future  stream  of  income  from  trust  fund  arrangements  related  to  the  re-
newable  energy  facilities  will  benefit  local  communities.  The  level  of  effort 
and the documentation on non-financial benefits are related to the legal and 
institutional  emphasis  given  to  empowerment  of  disadvantaged  groups  in 
South  Africa.  The  projects  examined  have  adopted  stringent  environmental 
and  social  provisions,  and  have  demonstrated,  where  relevant,  compliance 
with legal provisions on environment and labour. With existing investments, it 
is  estimated  that  about  1.6  million  people  are  benefiting  from  improved  ac-
cess to energy. If GEEREF investments continue as expected, it is likely that 
over 9 million people will benefit from greater access to energy, and over 4 
million tons of CO2 emissions will be avoided. (-I.22) 

There have not been any  special or systematic measures to involve SMEs, 
such  as  screening  procurement  procedures  to  be  SME-friendly  or  alerting 
national chambers of SMEs at an early stage on the opportunities. While the 
maximum  size  of  the  funding  (EUR  10  million)  allows  project  leadership  by 
medium-sized  companies,  there  is  no  particular  guarantee  that  this  maxi-
mum will encourage greater SME involvement.  

GEEREF  has  not  undertaken,  or  imposed  on  the  RFs,  any  deliberate  SME 
promotion aims − other than the maximum size of investment. GEEREF pro-
vides only a small proportion of the funds, with the major risk being taken by 
the RFs, whose first duty is to safeguard their investors and ensure that they 
stay within all legal regulations. There is some evidence for some affirmative 
action  in  support  of  SMEs  for  one  of  the  projects  of  the  Evolution  One  re-
gional fund: Red Cap Kouga wind farm.  

It should also be noted that simply bringing electricity through a local grid to 
areas that did not have it before, or where existing energy supply is not reli-
able,  can  provide  a  strong  boost  to  SMEs  as  inadequate  power  is  the  top 
priority of SMEs, according to the World Bank’s Doing Business report (WB, 
2013). (I-321) 

The RFSF has been especially useful for exploring opportunities to reach out 
to  the  poorest  areas  with  household  and  micro-scale  solutions,  but  in  gen-
eral  the  conclusion  has  been  that  such  solutions  are  not  well  suited  to  the 
GEEREF set up. Bottom-of-the-pyramid actions (e.g. on solar lamps) are too 
demanding  in  terms  of  timescale  and  transaction  costs  for  larger,  relatively 
high-cost funds such as GEEREF, where the intention is to attract consider-
able private sector investment. The RFSF has, however, assisted with tech-
nical assistance and operational support for a number of funds dedicated to 
small-scale action during critical establishment and growing phases. Without 
the  further  involvement  of  GEEREF,  some  of  these  funds  have  gone  on  to 
provide  significant  benefits.  For  example,  the  Barefoot  fund  has  provided 
solar  lamps  for  300,000  households,  and  has  trained  nearly  2,000  micro-
entrepreneurs especially on the Indian sub-continent. (I-321) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

By introducing better 
procurement and  
feasibility study  
practices, GEEREF is 
potentially having a 
wider impact. 

The EU has contribut-
ed by insisting on re-
porting of non-financial 
benefits. 

53 

By  using  highly-qualified  design  and  construction  services,  the  fund’s  ap-
proach has led to improvements in the quality of investments through intro-
ducing  better  procurement  and  feasibility  study  practices.  In  India,  some  of 
the  renewable  energy  facilities  that  have  been  implemented  to  date  have 
been  driven  by  distortive  subsidies,  meaning  that  high-quality  installations 
were not necessary to make the scheme viable and sufficient effort was not 
put into site selection and design. These schemes tend not to function opti-
mally, even if they provide a short-term return to the investors. GEEREF, as 
it assesses the feasibility using levelised costs, in effect strips out the benefit 
of any subsidy, and this obliges it to invest only in highly-feasible sites and to 
ensure that all infrastructure investment is highly cost-effective. This benefits 
the  investors,  but  it  also  ensures  a  wider  and  more  sustainable  economic 
benefit  to  the  nation.  Ultimately,  if  the  sector  as  a  whole  adopts  improved 
feasibility  assessment  and  implementation  practices,  there  would  be  wide-
spread  replication  of  higher-quality  investment  that  would  yield  social,  eco-
nomic and environmental benefits. Higher-quality investment practices would 
also  tend  to  lessen  dependence  on  subsidies,  which  in many  countries  are 
unstable. (I-322) 

The EU and their other donor partners (Germany and Norway) use their po-
sition on the board of GEEREF to bring attention to the need to ensure that 
the  projects  benefit  more  stakeholders  than  just  the  risk  capital  investors. 
The  board  has,  for  instance,  been  behind  the  insistence  on  developing  a 
system  of  indicators  that  also  measure  non-financial  benefits,  although  the 
values  of  the  indicators  −  as  mentioned  earlier  −  are  still  not  yet  available 
(2013). The other area of contribution has been the RFSF, where funds have 
been used to seek out and support emerging funds and institutions that have 
a high degree of social responsibility. (I-322) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.4  EQ4: Biodiversity 

54 

To what extent has EU support (via the ENRTP and  
geographic instruments) helped improving the capacity  
of partner countries to prevent/reduce the loss of  
biodiversity? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

The evaluation question assesses the contribution 
of EU support towards preventing the loss of  
biodiversity.  

The EU support to biodiversity conservation is  
extensive and covers a variety of areas. The EQ 
focuses on EU assistance provided through the 
ENRTP, as well as geographic instruments at 
country or regional level and aimed at:  

  Promoting implementation of EU initiatives and 

helping developing countries to meet 
internationally-agreed environmental 
commitments.  

  Assisting developing countries in preventing 
environmental degradation, biodiversity loss 
and unsustainable use of natural resources, 
while improving resource efficiency of 
economic growth and reducing pollution. 

This question is articulated through three judge-
ment criteria and a number of indicators, as shown 
in the figure on the right, with detailed reporting in 
Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

Building  on  the  outcome  of  the  2010  UN  Biodiversity  Conference  in Nagoya,  Japan,  the  EU  has  in-
creasingly  focused  on  integrating  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  into  every  sector  of  develop-
ment  co-operation.  This  is  illustrated  by  a  number  of  country  annual  action  plans  aimed  at  main-
streaming biodiversity  into  country policy and institutional frameworks  yet to be fully implemented. In 
particular, the EU has promoted mainstreaming of biodiversity into sectors such as forestry, water re-
sources management, agriculture and rural development. 

EU support to improvement of national biodiversity policies and strategies, as well as capacity-building 
for MEA implementation, have mainly been channelled through UNEP and the MEA Secretariat, which 
is covered in EQ6. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
Key points: 

55 

  The EU has supported a large number of field interventions that contribute to achieving the Aichi 
goals and targets32 in most partner countries. This has enabled the partner countries to advance 
towards achieving their CBD targets related to the coverage of protected areas − in particular, in 
relation to advances in legally-established protected areas at sub-national levels (Aichi target 11). 

 

In almost all study countries, the EU has supported improvement of protected area management, 
which has assisted the countries in preventing environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, 
and which has, in some of the study countries (e.g. DRC, Bolivia), paid for the operational costs of 
the protected areas systems. The support has thus contributed to reducing the speed of national 
biodiversity loss (especially at the individual protected area level), but biodiversity is still being lost 
overall at an alarming rate. This is due to factors related to poverty, economic interests, and often 
limited political priority given to biodiversity conservation. In general, most developing countries 
are faced with other more immediate needs, and biodiversity conservation, in terms of protected 
area management, ranks very low on the priority list in national budgets. 

  National capacity for habitat/ecosystem management in-situ has been improved through support 
from the EU. Innovative approaches and tools have been developed and applied with assistance 
from EU – for example, for community-based ecosystem management and benefit sharing; 
payment for ecosystem services; protected areas as an economically competitive land-use 
category in terms of income generation; and public-private partnership for biodiversity 
conservation. These approaches have gained the support and commitment from sub-national 
governments and communities now taking more responsibility for protected areas and their 
wildlife. 

  So far, another innovative tool − the assessment of the economic value of biodiversity (TEEB), 
which seeks to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss (Aichi goal A) − has not been 
widely distributed and made known to all relevant stakeholders, although applying this tool could 
assist governments mainstreaming biodiversity conservation at policy level. 

  Mainstreaming of biodiversity into environmentally-sensitive EU sector interventions has gradually 

improved − for example, in the integrated water resources management, agriculture/rural 
development, and forestry sectors. 

 

Illegal trade in endangered species has become more challenging as national capacities and legal 
enforcement have been strengthened − through the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) - with EU support. This has been achieved 
through extensive international cross-sectoral co-operation efforts within the EU and globally, as 
well as improved monitoring systems of biodiversity, including wildlife − for example, Monitoring 
Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE), Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Programme 
(BIOPAMA)/ Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA).  

  Access to and availability of reliable data, information and knowledge on the importance of 

ecosystems and biodiversity for human economic development has improved. All EU funded 
projects, programmes and research activities develop and disseminate information, data and 
knowledge gathered through implementation. This has contributed to raise general awareness as 
well as ease the work of producing the required national MEA reports, strategies and plans. 

32 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

                                                      
56 

6.4.1 

Implementation  of  commitments  to  the  MEAs  is  still  far  from  reaching  CBD/post-2010 
targets, despite of the EU’s important support (JC41)  

The EU support  
contributed to reducing 
the speed of  
biodiversity loss,  
even though overall 
progress remains  
inadequate. 

At  national  level,  the  EU  has  supported  the  implementation  of  MEAs  by 
providing  90%  of  the  EU  overall  funding  for  biodiversity  conservation  to 
strengthening national capacity for habitat/ecosystem management of specif-
ic  protected  areas  in-situ,  including  marine/coastal  zone  protection.  This 
support  has  contributed  to  advancing  the  partner  countries’  UNCBD  com-
mitments − in particular, the targets for maintaining and improving protected 
area management. 

In spite of EU support, 
national level frame-
works for biodiversity 
protection remain 
technically and  
financially weak. 

The global coverage of protected areas has increased, in part, as a result of 
EU support, with more areas being legally established. However, designation 
alone,  without  effective  management,  has  not  guaranteed  conservation  of 
biodiversity. (I-411) 

Despite EU efforts and support, overall progress towards  implementation of 
commitments  to  biodiversity  targets  established  by  the  CBD  and  post-2010 
Global Biodiversity Strategy (GBS) remains inadequate, although awareness 
− as well as delivering required COP reports and national strategies  − have 
progressed. (I-411)  

Furthermore,  the  EU  support  has  helped  in  improving  the  management  of 
established  protected  areas,  and  may  thus  have  contributed  to  reduc-
ing/halting the speed of biodiversity loss. (I-411) 

A large part of EU support to biodiversity at national level included elements 
directed  at  policy  level  for  implementation  of  the  MEA  commitments  (e.g. 
support  to  institutional  reforms,  the  finalisation  and  approval  of  law  on  pro-
tected areas, development of other legal instruments, and on the sustainable 
financing  of  biodiversity  conservation).  However,  national-level  capacity  for 
improved planning and management of biodiversity conservation activities is 
still very weak in most countries, due mainly to lack of political priority.  

In addition, lack of sustainable financing for management of protected areas 
systems  is  seen  as  one  of  the  main  obstacles  for  improving  conservation 
management.  Even  though  international  financing  has  increased,  national 
commitments  and  financing  are  still  very  limited,  despite  the  fact  that  all 
partner countries are signatories to the MEAs. More than 80% of CBD Par-
ties  concede  that  limited  biodiversity  mainstreaming,  fragmented  decision-
making and/or limited communication  among government ministries or sec-
tors,  as  well  as  very  limited  national  budgets,  are  a  challenge  in  trying  to 
meet meeting the goals of the Convention. However, resources provided by 
the  international  community  (mainly  WB/GEF,  EU,  and  bilateral  donors)  al-
low  only  the  minimum  means  to  manage  part  of  the  protected  areas  sys-
tems. In part, this is due to financial capacity constraints on the partner coun-
try  side,  but  is  also  due  to  the  lack  of  priority  given  to  the  sector  in  many 
countries. (I-411) 

EU has helped  
maintain national 
 focus on biodiversity 
conservation, despite 
limited priority by the 
national government. 

By  supporting  the  sector,  EU  has  contributed  to  maintaining  the  partner 
countries’  focus  on  the  biodiversity  sector  and  their  MEA  commitments, 
which otherwise would receive very little attention and priority in the national 
plans  and  budgets.  In  some  case  study  countries,  EU  support  maintained 
operational costs of the National Protected Area Services (e.g. in Bolivia). 

Despite limited national priority for CBD MEA implementation in most coun-
tries, the EU support has contributed to a positive trend at sub-national lev-
els  (provincial/municipal/territorial,  local  and  urban  levels),  with  evidence 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

The EU has been  
instrumental in  
bringing the underlying 
causes of biodiversity 
loss to the national 
and international  
co-operation agenda. 

57 

now  of  much  more  involvement  in,  and  demanding  for,  the  establishment 
and  proper  management  of  sub-national  protected  areas.  It  is  a  trend  that 
also has enjoyed broad support by the public.  The EU has thus contributed 
to  the  development  of more  robust  and  more  self-contained  protected  area 
and  biodiversity  conservation  systems  emphasising  decentralised  manage-
ment and the involvement of local communities. (I-411) 

Increasing  support  has  been  provided  by  the  EU  for  the  mainstreaming  of 
biodiversity into all development co-operation sectors, and the EU is commit-
ted to achieving the post-2010 Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, includ-
ing  the  Aichi  targets.  From  2007-2013,  the  EU  increasingly  emphasised 
mainstreaming  of  environment  −  including  biodiversity  −  in  sectors  such  as 
forestry,  water  resources  management;  infrastructure  (energy,  water,  and 
transport), agriculture and rural development, as illustrated by the EUD sur-
vey.  

In order to further support this process, the EU has supported the develop-
ment  of  a  set  of  risk  and  impact  assessment  tools  (2013)  to  “biodiversity-
proof”  every  step  of  the  project  cycle.  Also,  a  tool  to  assess  the  economic 
value  of  biodiversity  (TEEB)  has  been  developed  to  provide  governments 
and  private sectors  with  insight  into the problem of biodiversity  loss in eco-
nomic terms.  

The EU has acted as a driving force for maintaining a focus on biodiversity 
mainstreaming  at  the  COP  meetings.  At  national  level,  the  EU  has,  where 
possible, assisted in steering policies and plans in this direction − most suc-
cessfully so far with the development of the Integrated Plan for Environment 
and Water in Bolivia. (I-412) 

Control of illegal trade 
in endangered species 
has improved. 

Annually, international trade in endangered species is estimated to be worth 
billions  of  dollars  and  to  include  hundreds  of  millions  of  plant  and  animal 
specimens.  Illegal  trade  of  species  is  regarded  as  the  third  largest  illegal 
business, behind only drugs and weapons. 

The EU support to preventing illegal trade of endangered species amounted 
to only EUR 3.6 million in the 2007-2013 period, and has mainly been chan-
nelled through the CITES secretariat for strengthening the partner countries’ 
capacity to implement CITES. This programme has successfully established 
a  well-attended  virtual  college  that  provides  tools,  guides  and  training  on 
prevention of illegal wildlife trade for police, customs and wildlife officers. (I-
413) 

In  addition,  the  EU  support  to  CITES  for  the  establishment  of  the  Interna-
tional  Consortium  on  Combating  Wildlife  Crime  (ICCWC)  in  2010  has 
strengthened  co-ordinated  support  to  the  national  wildlife  law  enforcement 
agencies, and to the sub-regional and regional networks that, on a daily ba-
sis, act in defence of natural resources. So far, the ICCWC has successfully 
carried out global operations focusing on key species that are subject to ille-
gal  trade.  Police,  customs  and  wildlife  officers  from  a  number  of  ”hot  spot” 
countries  have  participated  in  the  operations  after  receiving  training  by  the 
ICCWC. (I-413)  

Equally important is that national law enforcement agencies in the EU − with 
EUROPOL support − have played a crucial role in the efficient enforcement 
of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations combating illegal wildlife trade into the 
EU,  as  well  as  assisting  the  countries  where  trade  begins  through  capacity 
development.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

58 

Assisting  the  above  work  improved  biodiversity  monitoring  systems,  includ-
ing  on  wildlife  (e.g.  MIKE,  BIOPAMA/DOPA),  thus  providing  valuable  infor-
mation for enforcement actions. (JC62) 

6.4.2  The ability to conserve biodiversity has improved in-situ at sub-national levels, as well 

as at the level of communities (JC42) 

EU support to  
decentralised  
protected areas  
management and  
sustainable resource 
use has contributed  
to saving ecosystems. 

EU support has focused on strengthening national capacity for conservation 
and  management  of  habitats/ecosystems  at  territorial  levels.  The  support 
has  concentrated  on  establishing  sound  in-situ  management,  and  has  pro-
moted  a  deconcentration  (or  decentralisation)  of  the  management  frame-
work.  Staff  engaged  at  area  level  has  been  trained,  and  local  communities 
(or dwellers) in and around the protected areas have been involved and in-
corporated in the management of the areas.  

The EU has promoted 
new innovative  
approaches that have 
gained commitment  
of sub-national  
governments and 
communities. 

In particular, in most of the interventions analysed, communities have been 
involved  in  defining  and  implementing  actions  to  protect  their  biological  re-
sources. By also developing income-generating activities that encourage the 
sustainable use of biodiversity, EU support has contributed to demonstrating 
that  biodiversity  conservation  also  can  provide  direct  economic  benefits.  (I-
421) 

EU support has initiated innovative approaches to preserve ecosystems and 
their services, aimed at leveraging development funding and testing new fi-
nancial mechanisms, such as Payment for Ecosystem Services, Markets for 
Green Products, Public Private Partnerships, and Access Benefit Sharing (I-
422):  

  Marketing  ecosystem  services  have  proved  to  be  a  successful  way  of 
attracting  financial  resources,  by  making  protected  areas  a  more 
financially viable land use. 

  The incorporation of protected  areas as  a  land-use category interlinked 
with  marketing  ecosystem  services,  as  part  of  the  decentralised 
departmental  and/or  municipal  development  planning  in  dialogue  with 
communities, has proved successful in securing the long-term protection 
and sustainable use and management of the areas – for example, as the 
experience from Bolivia shows.  

Establishment  of  Public-Private  Partnerships  has  also  proved  successful  in 
achieving  biodiversity  conservation.  Some  governments  have  recognised 
their  limited  ability  to  finance  and  manage  their  parks,  and  have  delegated 
the  management  of  protected  areas  to  private  agencies  or  NGOs.  A  man-
agement  mandate  from  the  Government  enables  the  private  partner  to  es-
tablish  the  necessary  mechanisms  for  managing  the  park  sustainably.  Fur-
thermore,  the  private  partner  may  optimise  the  income-generating  potential 
of the park, and has sometimes been able to mobilise large amounts of pri-
vate funding from a number of institutions and  individuals through fund lev-
eraging,  tourism  activities,  and  charities  (e.g.  Zakhouma  National  Park  in 
Chad, and Virunga National Park in DRC). (I-422) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

6.4.3  There has been a significant improvement in access to, and availability of, reliable data, 

knowledge and information on biodiversity due to the EU support (JC43) 

59 

Reliable data and 
 information have been 
generated, and  
contributed to the  
development of  
national plans  
and strategies. 

EU support has  
contributed  
considerably to  
improving national  
capacity in the field  
of ecosystems 
 assessment and 
management. 

The EU has contributed in various ways to improving the availability and ac-
cess  to  information  on  biodiversity  (habitat/ecosystems).  One  of  the  most 
important  initiatives  is  BIOPAMA,  a  four-year  initiative  (2012-2016)  jointly 
implemented by IUCN and the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) and includ-
ing  the  establishment of DOPA.  Also, an access and benefit sharing (ABS) 
component  has  been  included.  The  Central  Africa  BIOPAMA  observatory 
was launched in 2014, in co-operation with the regional Observatory for Cen-
tral  African  Forests  (OFAC).  In  Bolivia,  the  design  of  DOPA  was  still  being 
discussed in early 2015, at the time of the field visit. (I-431). 

Through  its  co-operation  with  UNEP,  the  EU  has  contributed  to  the  devel-
opment  of  knowledge  and  tools,  and  has  strengthened  the  science-policy 
interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services (EQ6). All of this has eased 
the  development  of  plans  and  strategies,  as  well  as  decision-making,  par-
ticularly at EU-funded project levels.  

In  addition  to  hard  copy  documents,  brochures  and  tools,  all  EU-financed 
projects  or  programmes  have  been  required  to  establish  a  website  for  the 
exchange  and  sharing  of  relevant  information,  studies,  data  and  ”lessons 
learned” gathered during the  implementation of the interventions  and made 
available to all (who have access) through the internet. (I-432) 

Complementing  the  funding  from  ENRTP  and  geographic  instruments,  the 
EU has, under the 7th Framework (2007-2013) for Research, provided fund-
ing  for  several  successful  initiatives  that  provide  new  information  and 
knowledge  on  the  ecosystem  assessment  and  management  in  developing 
countries.  Thus,  scientists  from  developed  and  developing  countries  have 
been brought together to test and further develop the approach, and to cre-
ate the possibility of complementarity between the EU-supported activities in 
developing countries. (I-431) 

National  capacity  for  eco-system  assessment  and  management  has  been 
supported  through  all  the  in-situ  activities  supported  by  EU  (e.g.  PADP  in 
Ghana,  PACSBIO  in  Bolivia,  regional  programmes  such  as  ECOFAC  and 
RAPAC  in  Central  Africa).  Likewise,  BIOPAMA  (through  IUCN)  and  MIKE 
(through  CITES)  essentially  provided  training/capacity  development  for  the 
regional  and  national  institutions  in  charge  of  protected  areas  assessment 
and management. (I-431)  

Progress in the field of ecosystems assessment and management has grad-
ually improved. Furthermore, ecosystems assessment has been made avail-
able at global scale, mainly through the internet − including the reporting on 
some “success stories” at national level.  

However,  national  capacity  to  further  develop,  maintain  and  update  infor-
mation on national databases is still limited, as is the capacity for analysis of 
the data and information. (I-431) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.5  EQ5: Green economy 

60 

To what extent has the EU support enhanced sustainable 
and resource-efficient production and consumption  
policies and practices33, and therefore contributed to  
the greening of the economy of supported countries? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

Greening of economies is a relatively new policy priori-
ty. However, the broad umbrella of green economy 
includes more established priorities for external assis-
tance, including improved resource efficiency and sus-
tainable production and consumption.  

This evaluation question assesses EU support, focus-
ing on policies and interventions contributing to these 
policy priorities. GE is a highly catalytic concept34, 
which lends itself to ENRTP interventions. Considered 
programmes with EU contribution include: 

  Switch Asia (EUR 148 million), Switch Africa (EUR 

22 million) and Switch Med (EUR 23 million) 
programmes focusing on SCP. 

  EaP Green (EUR 12.5 million), providing 
assistance on greening of economies and 
mainstreaming in ENP countries. 

  Green Economy and Social and Environmental 

Entrepreneurship in Africa Programme (EUR 3.8 
million). 

  PAGE (USD 21.3 million) on assistance in green 
economy transitions in committed countries 
worldwide; 

  Resource Efficiency and Eco-innovation in 

Developing and Transition Economies − REEDTE 
(EUR 4.4 million) on assistance on eco-innovation. 

This question is articulated through two judgement cri-
teria and a number of indicators as shown in the figure 
on the right with detailed reporting in volume 2. 

33 SCP interventions are the main scope. Natural resources management interventions are not considered. 
34  There  is  not  a  single  universal  definition  of  green  economy  (see  EQ5  in  vol.  2).  The  United  Nations 
Environment  Programme  (UNEP)  Green  Economy  Initiative  defines  green  economy  as:  the  reshaping  and 
refocusing  of  policies,  investments  and  spending  towards  a  range  of  sectors,  such  as  clean  technologies, 
renewable  energies,  water  services,  green  transportation,  waste  management,  green  buildings  and  sustainable 
agriculture  and  forests.  Elsewhere,  UNEP  further  identifies  a  green  economy  as  one  “whose  growth  in  income 
and employment is driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance 
energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services”. 
For the current evaluation, resource efficiency is the key element of a green economy addressed under EQ5. Low 
carbon development, energy efficiency and biodiversity are dealt with under other EQs. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
                                                      
61 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

The EU has supported a range of programmes aimed at developing policy, strengthening capacity and 
replicating good practice in SCP/GE. Many of these began towards the end of the period evaluated, 
and although there is progress on capacity-building and support of pilot projects, interventions have 
yet to result in adoption of cross-cutting SCP/GE Policy. 

Key points: 

  EU-supported programmes have recognised that development, adoption and implementation of 
cross-cutting SCP/green economy strategies and action plans requires time to build up capacity, 
awareness and consensus among key stakeholders. The EU-supported programmes under 
evaluation have not had time to achieve adoption of such strategies to date. However, a number 
of SCP action plans around the world have been adopted, with indirect EU-assistance via 
UNDP/UNEP. 

  Success of capacity-building programmes depends to a large extent on achieving buy-in at 

ministerial level. Where this has been achieved, the countries themselves have in some cases 
carried momentum forward. In other countries, awareness of SCP/GE and its potential 
environmental and economic benefits remains low, despite capacity-building efforts. 

  Adoption, and in particular implementation, of SCP/GE strategies requires a ministry or other 

governmental body with strong inter-ministerial powers to be in place in the receiving country. In 
countries without such structures, EU-supported efforts on policy development have wisely 
focused on assistance in sectoral SCP-related policy. 

  SCP/GE is less clearly defined than other environment/climate change support themes, and what 
is perceived as lying within the theme differs strongly from country to country. This has allowed 
programmes to be responsive to country needs at the stage of development they are in. However, 
lack of clear definitions has also been a barrier for capacity-building − for example, in eco-
innovation. 

  There is mixed evidence on the degree of mainstreaming of SCP/GE into sector policies, and on 

the adoption of mainstreaming tools such as SEA. Mainstreaming is behind in many countries and 
sectors, but there are also examples of mainstreaming − such as in the Energy sector in Egypt, 
Ukraine and Kenya, and the Transport sector in Bolivia. 

 

In addition to policy development assistance, EU-supported programmes have also engaged to a 
large extent at the practical level via supporting pilot projects within a range of sectors and 
themes, and supporting SMEs. In addition to achieving concrete results, pilot projects have also 
led to increased awareness among the many stakeholders involved in the projects, and a transfer 
of EU practice and standards via EU partners. 

  For pilot projects to make a difference at the macro-economic level, the scaling up and spreading 

of the model to other sectors, municipalities and companies − including SMEs − is required. EU 
support includes activities in this area. However, continuing actual and perceived lack of access to 
affordable finance continues to be a challenge to wider adoption of otherwise successful models. It 
is also inhibiting continuation of pilot projects once EU-support has ceased. However, problems 
with securing affordable finance for eco-innovation investments are a major challenge to scaling 
up. Financing solutions seem to be available, but a number of barriers prevent SMEs from finding 
and accessing these. 

  The Green Economy and Social and Environmental Entrepreneurship in Africa programme has 
stimulated the activities of green businesses via Social and Environmental Entrepreneurship 
Development (SEED) Awards for green and social enterprises. Organising exchange events 
between winning SMEs, and between them and organisations such as banks, has proved 
instrumental in spreading good practice. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
62 

  There is some evidence of use of economic instruments to promote SCP/GE and cleaner 

technologies, though not as a result of EU-supported programmes. In countries where it is difficult 
to collect taxes effectively, voluntary instruments are often preferred. Environmentally harmful 
subsidies often far outweigh beneficial instruments. 

6.5.1  EU  support  has  had  some  impact  on  increasing  the  capacity  of  policy-makers,  busi-
ness  groups  and  civil  society  to  develop  and  implement  actions  in  Green  Economy, 
SCP and resource-efficiency (JC51) 

Developing capacity 
as a precursor for 
SCP/GE policy  
development has been 
a catalyst for some  
of the country-led 
activities. 

What is perceived as 
lying within SCP/GE 
differs strongly from 
country to country. 

Capacity-building  has  been  a  central  element  of  the  Green  Economy  and 
Social  and  Environmental  Entrepreneurship  in  Africa  Programme  and  the 
PAGE programme, which both aim to assist countries in the development of 
green  economy  policy.  Both  programmes  deliberately  take  an  approach 
where those countries that are most advanced in their commitment to green 
economy transformations are engaged first. Positive results have been seen 
in Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Egypt. Subsequent devel-
opments  in  some  of  these  countries  demonstrate  that  the  ball  that  was  set 
rolling  by  the  capacity-building  and  scoping  activities  funded  by  the  pro-
gramme have gathered momentum and resulted in significant activities, led 
in  some  cases  by  the  countries  themselves.  South  Africa,  for  example,  es-
tablished a National Green Fund and  included a green economy chapter in 
its Sustainable Development Strategy following capacity-building activities. 

The EaP Green programme (total budget EUR 12.5 million – EU contribution 
EUR  10  million)  also  began  with  a  series  of  country-level  launch  events 
aimed  at  informing  and  consulting  with  key  stakeholders  on  specific  high-
priority green economy issues. Evidence from Ukraine suggests that capaci-
ty-building  activities  there  had  little  impact  on  the  very  low  awareness  of 
green economy issues, but this may be the result of a silo approach to poli-
cymaking, which is not so problematic in other Eastern Partnership countries 
such as Belarus and Moldova. The lack of success of capacity-building to act 
as a catalyst is also a risk for programmes such as EaP Green, which don’t 
require commitment from the receiving country as criteria for engagement. 

The approach of the SWITCH-Asia Policy Support Component (EUR 15 mil-
lion), being carried out in the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, 
has been to move straight into the development of national baseline studies 
identifying the status of SCP, policy needs and policy gaps. The wide differ-
ence  in  the  resulting  focus  of  national  programmes  in  the  four  countries 
demonstrates that the needs and wishes of national government and stake-
holders have strongly been taken into account. (I-511) 

There are large differences in what was perceived as SCP/GE. In some cas-
es,  this  mostly  comprised  cleaner  production  and  energy  efficiency.  In  oth-
ers,  it  included  more  fundamental  principles  about  living  within  the  Earth’s 
limits. The same differences can be found in the European debate. A case in 
point  is  the  area  of  eco-innovation.  UNEP  officers  working  with  the  EU-
supported REEDTE found that the concept of eco-innovation is still not ma-
ture even at EU level, and is treated as an emerging topic in the UN. There-
fore, it is not just a case of gathering regional stakeholders and helping them 
identify the main challenges for the region, based on tried and tested defini-
tions of eco-innovation. The programme managers found a lack of an exten-
sive  global  body  of  knowledge  and  experts  on  eco-innovation  on  which  to 
draw. This was tackled via engaging consultants at the forefront of develop-
ment in Eco-Innovation definition (I-511, I-521) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

EU supported pilot 
projects have raised 
awareness of  
challenges and  
opportunities  
within SCP. 

Activities under EaP 
Green to strengthen 
SEA in Eastern 
Neighbourhood 
 countries have had 
mixed success. 

A transfer of good 
practice and standards 
from the EU has taken 
place, especially 
where countries have 
neighbourhood 
agreements. 

63 

Pilot projects have been supported by a number of EU support programmes, 
which play a particularly central role in the SWITCH programmes. For exam-
ple, the more than 80 grant pilot projects funded by SWITCH-Asia (EUR 130 
million  of  EU  money  and  10%-20%  financing  from  project  partners)  repre-
sent the major part of the SWITCH Asia budget. A similar focus can be found 
in  the  budget  of  SWITCH  Med  and  SWITCH  Africa  Green.  Such  pilot  pro-
jects  have  the  effect  of  raising  practical  awareness  on  the  potential  format 
and benefits of SCP actions among the local partners who have been direct-
ly  involved  in  the  projects,  including  local  government,  businesses,  branch 
organisations.  This  is  particularly  useful  within  a  field  such  as  SCP,  which 
can  be  hard  to  define  concretely  in  policy  documents.  The  SWITCH-Asia 
Network Facility was established to spread this awareness to similar organi-
sations  that  were  not  involved  directly  in  any  grant  project.  It  is  not  known 
how successful this has been to date. (I-511) 

Progress is being made on strengthening and establishing the first strategic 
objective of the EU’s EaP GREEN programme, which is to promote the use 
of  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  (SEA)  and  Environmental  Impact 
Assessment  (EIA)  as  essential  planning  tools  for  an  environmentally  sus-
tainable economic development. The UN Economic Commission for Europe 
(UNECE)  is  responsible  for  this  element  of  the  mainly  EU-funded  pro-
gramme, and has initiated the work through carrying out reviews of SEA re-
lated legislation and procedures in Belarus and Moldova. Some elements of 
SEA were found in legislation, and recommendations were given on how to 
strengthen and add to these so that countries comply with provisions of the 
SEA Protocol and the EU’s SEA Directive. The governments of Belarus and 
Moldova are now taking these forward. In Ukraine, however, SEA legislation 
developed under a twinning project with Austria has been before Parliament 
for more than two  years  without progress. Expertise on how to comply  with 
SEA and EIA requirements is also being addressed by EaP Green with na-
tional-level training workshops carried out in Ukraine and Armenia. However, 
these workshops seem to have had no effect in promoting SEA in Ukraine. 
No evidence of the use of SEA was found. (I-512) 

Transfer  of  SCP/  policy  and  standards  is  occurring  most  strongly  in  neigh-
bouring countries to the EU via commitments in neighbourhood agreements 
to  translate  EU  Directives  into  legislation.  Twinning  projects  have  been  es-
sential in assisting with this transfer. Although not at anything like the same 
scale,  there  are  also  examples  of  SWITCH-Asia  Grant  projects  that  have 
made use of EU experiences and standards. The transfer of good practices 
from the EU to Asia is enabled in SWITCH-Asia via the requirement that at 
least one partner in each Grant project is an EU-based organisation − often 
an  environmental  consultant,  NGO  or  government  organisations  with  direct 
EU experience relevant to the project. In China, it was found that demonstra-
tion  of  European  competences  and  practices  within  SCP,  via  SWITCH  and 
other  instruments,  has  contributed  significantly  to  development  of  policies, 
regulation and pilots. However, little evidence was found of direct transfer of 
EU standards and policy, via EU-assistance programmes, into African coun-
tries visited, nor in additional countries that answered the EUD country sur-
vey (Tunisia). However, North African countries that border the Mediterrane-
an  expect  significant  transfer  of  policy  instruments  and  standards  via  the 
SWITCH-Med programme in coming years. (I-513) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

6.5.2  There  is  some  progress  on  transfer  of  good  practice  from  Europe  via  support  pro-
grammes, but it is too early to see signs that the economy is changing to a greener one 
at the macro level (JC52) 

64 

Most of the considered 
programmes assist 
SCP/Green economy 
strategies but it is too 
early to achieve final 
adoption. 

SCP/ GE activities  
adjust to local  
conditions when  
deciding on  
horizontally integrating 
strategies or single 
sector policies. 

There is evidence of the increasing adoption of cross-cutting national devel-
opment  strategies  and  plans  that  focus  on  or  include  green  economy/SCP 
and resource efficiency. For example, a  large part of the  EaP GREEN pro-
ject  budget,  EUR  12.5  million,  is  set  aside  for  activities  focused  on  main-
streaming SCP into national development plans and regulatory frameworks. 
The Green Economy and Social and Environmental Entrepreneurship in Af-
rica, and the more recent PAGE programmes, aim to assist in mainstream-
ing  green  economy  goals  into  national  development  policies.  The  SWITCH 
programmes all include a Policy Support Component (PSC) with the aim of 
strengthening the formulation and implementation of SCP policies. However, 
for green economy and SCP strategies to have  a real effect on a country’s 
subsequent development, they need to be the result of cross-ministerial and 
stakeholder consultation to achieve broad ”buy-in” to the goals and activities 
of  the  plan.  Such  a  process  takes  time,  and  most  of  the  evaluated  pro-
grammes began towards the end of the period evaluated. SCP action plans 
and similar which were adopted during the period evaluated, have been the 
result of non-evaluated processes − such as the Marrakesh Task Forces and 
UNEP/UNDESA  assistance  programmes.  For  example,  SCP  Action  Plans 
adopted  in  Ghana  and  Rwanda  were  developed  with  the  assistance  of 
UNEP. As identified in JC51, the perceptions of what SCP/GE entails differs 
widely  between  countries,  and  this  is  reflected  in  strategies.  For  many,  it 
concerns  cleaner  production  and  energy  efficiency;  in  others,  it  concerns 
stronger principles, such as living within the Earth’s limits (Bolivia). (I-521) 

The policy support activities of all programmes take into account local condi-
tions  and  engage  stakeholders  to  secure  broad  ownership  of  future  policy. 
The existence of a suitable government structure has defined whether or not 
programmes work towards horizontally  integrating action plans  or on single 
issues.  An  example  is  the  SWITCH-Asia  Policy  Support  programme,  which 
has  differed  in  focus  between  recipient  countries.  In  the  Philippines,  where 
there is no government agency with the mandate or strength to  co-ordinate 
inter-ministerial  co-operation,  activities  are  focused  on  assisting  individual 
ministries in implementing existing SCP-related policy over which they have 
sole  mandate  –  for  example,  Green  Procurement  and  Eco-labelling  pro-
grammes. In Malaysia, which has a strong central implementing agency, the 
programme  has  focused  on  developing  a  cross-cutting  strategy  on  SCP. 
Meanwhile, the first year of the EaP GREEN activities focused on engaging 
stakeholders  via  regional  policy  dialogue  meetings,  awareness-raising,  and 
capacity  building.  This  process  is  essential  to  achieve  buy-in  from  stake-
holders for eventual cross-cutting strategies and action plans. (I-521) 

EU support is very  
active in supporting 
concrete SCP pilot 
projects, but a lack of 
affordable finance  
is a challenge to  
scaling up. 

EU-supported programmes are very active in supporting concrete SCP pilot 
projects, including a wide range of partners. The initiation and support of pi-
lot projects comprises the central pillar of the SWITCH programmes, repre-
senting  EUR  130  million  of  the  SWITCH-Asia  budget,  EUR  17.5  million  of 
the SWITCH-Med budget, and EUR 16 million of the SWITCH-Africa Green 
budget.  SWITCH-Asia  is  funding  86  grant  projects  in  15  Asian  countries. 
Most  of  the  projects  that  have  been  evaluated  have  been  found  to  be  suc-
cessful  in  achieving  SCP  objectives  during  the  support  period.  The  EaP 
GREEN  Program  also  includes  some  activities  on  supporting  SMEs  in  a 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

There is some  
evidence of economic 
instruments having 
been put in place, but 
not as a direct result  
of EU support. 

65 

green  transition.  One  of  EaP  Green’s  three  components  concerns  demon-
stration projects within resource efficiency and cleaner production, GPP and 
organic agriculture. The Green Economy and Social and Environmental En-
trepreneurship  in  Africa  Programme  has  stimulated  the  activities  of  green 
businesses  via  SEED  Awards  since  2008.  Winners  are  subsequently  sup-
ported  with  expertise in business and financial  planning,  administrative and 
management matters, and access to networks.  

However,  while  the  projects  supported  by  the  EU  programmes  have  been 
successful while receiving support, the long-term prospects are generally not 
as positive. Evidence from 20 SEED projects in Ghana suggests that it can 
be  difficult  to  attract  funding  for  scaling  up  otherwise  successful  pilot  pro-
jects, and for some entities it is difficult to compete with large multinationals 
−  for  example,  in  the  area  of  innovative  concepts  for  waste  management. 
Long-term  prospects  for  SWITCH  Asia  projects  continuing  once  support  is 
finished are also mixed, in part due to issues with access to finance. To tack-
le similar issues in Eastern Europe, the EaP Green programme is assisting 
in  addressing  lack  of  affordable  finance  for  green  technology  and  eco-
innovation  investments  for  SMEs.  EBRD  is  also  working  on  this  issue  and 
aims to provide guarantees for Ukrainian banks to issue loans for green  in-
novation. (I-522, I-524) 

Many countries make use of economic instruments to encourage, for exam-
ple, resource and fuel efficiency. There is not much evidence − from country 
visits, the EUD survey  or  other sources  − that  EU support  has been key in 
the adoption of already adopted instruments. However, a number of EU pro-
grammes are working on economic instruments. They feature in the four na-
tional Policy Support Component projects of SWITCH-Asia. Baseline studies 
in Indonesia and Malaysia identified that economic instruments exist, but that 
SMEs do not take advantage of support mechanisms, due to the heavy ad-
ministrative burdens they imply. China has for quite some years had a range 
of economic instruments supporting technological and environmental/climate 
change  upgrading  in  a  number  of  key  industries.  Economic  instruments  in 
renewable  energy  are  also  reasonably  common  elsewhere.  Examples  from 
country visits include Ukraine’s feed-in tariffs for renewables, Rwandan sub-
sidies for  SMEs selling solar lamps, and  tax exemptions for solar panels  in 
Kenya.  

In general, economic instruments are less well developed in Africa than oth-
er regions. The reason may  be that a prerequisite of economic instruments 
being  an  effective  tool  is  that  charges  and  taxes  are  effectively  collected, 
and “free riding” is monitored and punished. This can be a challenge in some 
least  developed  countries,  which  lack  capacity  to  administrate  such  instru-
ments  effectively.  As  a  result,  voluntary  agreements  and  information-based 
instruments  tend  to  be  more  commonly  used  than  economic  instruments, 
despite less evidence of their impact. Environmentally-harmful subsidies re-
main significant in many countries and face strong resistance to removal. For 
example,  government  attempts  in  Bolivia  to  withdraw  fuel  subsidies  and  in-
crease prices in 2010 met with civic unrest and were withdrawn. In Ukraine, 
huge coal subsidies to support the industry and its many jobs in the east of 
the  country  are  too  politically  sensitive  to  remove.  Such  subsidies  often  far 
outweigh environmentally-favourable economic instruments. (I-523) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Access to financing 
continues to be one of 
the most significant 
challenges for the cre-
ation and growth of 
eco-innovative SMEs. 

66 

Financing  solutions  seem  to  be  available,  but  a  number  of  barriers  prevent 
SMEs from finding and accessing these. Barriers to good matching between 
funds and businesses include: 

  A lack of financial literacy among SMEs (e.g. poor understanding of the 
conditions and requirements of loans, in part due to poor marketing and 
communication by banks).  

  Services of financing institutions being perceived as too costly by SMEs, 

and a lack of collateral among SMEs.  

  A perception from banks that lending to SMEs is not profitable. 

  A lack of effective channels for communication between credit providers 

for funding purposes.  

The  SWITCH-Asia  Network  Facility,  established  in  2009  with  a  budget  of 
EUR 3.5 million, has been paying particular attention to improving access to 
finance for businesses in Asia, but no information could be found on whether 
the  facility  has  been  successful  in  this  area  so  far.  Certainly,  access  to  fi-
nance for SCP-related improvements in SMEs continues to be identified as a 
problem for SWITCH Asia grant projects. EaP GREEN has also been active 
in attempting to improve access to finance. However, since the programme 
began  only  in  summer  2013,  progress  has  been  limited  to  date.  In  early 
2015,  an  international  consultant  began  preparing  an  inventory  of  existing 
environment-related  credit  lines  in  the  EaP  countries.  This  analysis  is  in-
tended  to  be  used  as  a  basis  to  identify  specific  credit  lines  for  further  in-
depth analysis. (I-524) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.6  EQ6: Environmental governance 

67 

To what extent has ENRTP contributed to strengthening 
international environmental governance in relation to  
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and 
UNEP-related processes? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

This question evaluates an important element of the 
wider EU policy on environment − support provided 
through ENRTP (and managed by DG ENV) for Inter-
national Environmental Governance, with a particular 
focus on biodiversity and on enhancing synergies be-
tween MEAs35, in particular on chemicals and waste. 
Within this, EQ6 focuses exclusively on ENRTP inter-
ventions implemented by UNEP and MEA Secretariats 
hosted by UNEP. In particular, this EQ assesses:  

 

 

Interventions aimed at enhancing the ability of 
UNEP and MEA Secretariats to support and 
facilitate international MEA processes and the 
effective participation of developing countries in 
those processes. 

Interventions aimed at enhancing the ability of 
UNEP and MEA Secretariats to provide tools and 
guidelines for effective implementation of global 
commitments at national level. 

This question is articulated through three judgement 
criteria and a number of indicators, as shown in the 
figure on the right, with detailed reporting in Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

Specific attention has been given to support provided to UNEP, CBD and CITES Secretariats. Atten-
tion has also been given to the support provided for co-ordination of the conventions related to chemi-
cals & waste (Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, the Montreal Protocol, and the Minamata 
Convention). The direct support to UNEP and MEA Secretariats amounted to EUR 72.4 million (2.5% 
of total environment/climate change funding).  

The gradual increase in EU support to UNEP and MEA Secretariats has enhanced their capacity to 
fulfil their mandates, including their ability to contribute to more effective definition and achievement of 
commonly-agreed international environmental goals and priorities in biodiversity conservation. Fur-
thermore, it has significantly contributed to achieving synergies between MEAs within the clusters of 
biodiversity and chemicals & wastes. However, the EU support through UNEP and MEA Secretariats 
has only to a limited extent resulted in more effective national implementation of MEAs, as this is also 
affected by other constraints and barriers. 

35 Please refer to Box 1. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
Key points: 

68 

  Support from the ENRTP has helped UNEP and MEA Secretariats to: 

o 

Improve their ability to plan and prioritise their activities funded from voluntary/extra-budgetary 
contributions on a longer term.  

o  Develop  synergies  and  co-ordination  within  and  among  UNEP  sub-programmes  and  MEA 

Secretariats.  

o  Further  strengthen  the  developing  countries’  active  participation  and  implementation  of  deci-

sions from COPs and subsidiary bodies’ meetings of MEAs.  

o  Further develop UNEP and MEA Secretariats’ roles as ”venture catalysts” conceiving and mo-

bilising resources and knowledge for development of innovative solutions.  

o 

Improve their ability to provide  and facilitate access to up-to-date and reliable data and infor-
mation for decision-making. 

  The Strategic Co-operation Agreements (SCAs) provide the institutions with better financial 
security for implementation of longer-term strategic plans. This has helped in strengthening 
UNEP’s capacity to provide global leadership in environment and biodiversity, has also globally 
promoted EU policies, goals and objectives of common concern (such as sustainable consumption 
and production, climate change, water, sound chemicals & waste management, environmental 
monitoring and assessment, strong environmental governance at global, regional and national 
levels). 

  National capacity for implementation of MEAs has been strengthened. However, it has only to a 

limited extent resulted in national implementation of MEA commitments, since UNEP’s global and 
regional approach to capacity-building alone cannot enable government interventions on the 
ground, as it does not solve financial constraints, institutional barriers, and constraints related to 
the political economy − issues that lie outside the mandate of UNEP to address. 

6.6.1  UNEP  and  MEA  Secretariats  are  better  organised  and  equipped  to  create  an  enabling 

environment and capacity for international environment governance (JC61) 

With EU support the 
international  
environmental  
governance  
institutional framework 
has improved. 

The EU ENRTP support has contributed to the implementation of an institu-
tional  reform  process  aimed  at  reforming  UNEP  and  facilitating  in  cross-
sectoral  work.  The  reform  process  has:  a)  instituted  and  implemented  re-
sults-based planning and management of projects; b) enhanced the ability of 
UNEP and the MEA Secretariats to carry out strategic long-term planning of 
activities. (I-611) 

In the aftermath of the 2012 Rio+20 conference on sustainable development, 
UNEP’s efforts to lead implementation of the environmental dimension of the 
”Future  We  Want”  were  recognised  by  the  UN  General  Assembly  and  the 
newly-created  UN  Environmental  Assembly  (UNEA).  The  UN  General  As-
sembly  in  2013  also  approved  increased  funding  for  UNEP  from  the  UN 
Regular Budget by 2014 – underlining increased confidence in UNEP’s abil-
ity to deliver on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. (I-
611) 

In  June  2014,  recognising  the  global  environment  leadership  position  of 
UNEP, the EU renewed its Memorandum of Understanding with the organi-
sation  to  enable  more  structured  co-operation  on  current  and  future  global 
priorities in areas such as climate change, green economy, and biodiversity. 
Over the next seven years, the EU plans to continue to support UNEP’s work 
on strengthening International Environmental Governance. (I-611) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Greater coherence 
and co-ordination of 
MEAs has emerged 
with support from EU. 

EU support has con-
tributed to an en-
hanced role of devel-
oping countries in 
MEA negotiations. 

69 

UNEP  is  administering  several  MEA  Secretariats,  including  those  for  CBD, 
CITES,  CMS,  Basel-Rotterdam-Stockholm,  the  Ozone  Secretariat  (Vienna 
Convention/Montreal  Protocol)  and  the  Minamata  Convention.  MEA  Secre-
tariats  often  have  limited  capacity  to  support  parties  in  implementing  their 
commitments,  and  some  MEAs  do  not  have  any  funding  mechanism  in 
place. (I-611) 

With  EU  support,  UNEP  has  been  able  to  promote  synergies  between  the 
different  MEAs  and  has  assisted  the  MEA  Secretariats  in  their  efforts  to 
strengthen  the  ability  of  parties  to  engage  in  implementing  decisions  of  the 
COPs.  Equally  important,  the  EU  support  has  given  UNEP  the  possibility 
(due to the flexibility  and long-term commitment of the SCAs) to further de-
velop its role as a ”venture catalyst” conceiving and mobilising resources for 
the development of innovative solutions. 

MEA secretariats assist with the additional funding provided by EU and other 
donors  in  organising  and  facilitating  inter-sessionals  and  MEA  negotia-
tions/COP processes. They also provide capacity development support and 
financial support to ensure the participation of developing countries. In gen-
eral, these support activities are appreciated and found to be very useful by 
participants in the case study countries, and are used (applying skills), espe-
cially when resources are also available for implementing related actions. In 
recent years, developing countries’ delegates and experts have increasingly 
expressed, and advocated, their agendas and priorities in meetings of MEAs 
– for example, in relation to implementation of UNCBD post-2010, the REDD 
mechanism, and climate change. (I-612) 

Developing countries’ delegates and experts have, over time, become better 
organised  (e.g.  Group  77+China)  and  are  now  effectively  engaging  in  the 
COP  negotiations  and  decisions.  This  is  illustrated  by  their  ability  to  more 
firmly  make  well-informed  demands  at  COP  meetings  (e.g.  Bolivia,  Egypt, 
Kenya,  Ukraine,  Rwanda,  Ghana,  DRC),  and  in  some  cases  present  view-
points that are supported by the UNEP and the EU. (I-612, I-613) 

Commitments to MEA 
implementation from 
North to South  
have been more 
 forthcoming. 

The EU has been, and continues to be, a major contributor to the UNEP and 
MEA  Secretariats’  voluntary  budgets.  In  particular,  the  EU  and  its  member 
states  have  been  (and  will  continue  to  be  so,  according  to  commitments 
made at UNCBD COP12) the main contributors to the implementation of the 
CBD  Post-2010  targets.  Transfers  for  implementation  of  the  Aichi  targets 
from  North  to  South  have  been  promised  since  2010  and  been  reaffirmed, 
but are yet to materialise. (I-613) 

EU policies, goals and 
objectives on  
environment and 
 biodiversity have 
been promoted  
internationally through 
strengthening the role 
of UNEP and MEA 
secretariats. 

Thanks to EU support to a number of preparatory actions, UNEP succeeded 
at  the  Rio+20  Conference  in  2012  in  placing  Green  Economy  −  including 
Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production  −  firmly  on  the  global  agenda. 
Green Economy is a shared goal of the EU. (I-611) 

UNEP  facilitated  the  process  of  the  negotiations  for  the  Minamata  Conven-
tion  on  Mercury,  which  was  agreed  upon  by  parties  in  2013.  This  process 
received instrumental EU funding support through the ENRTP. (I-611)  

The CBD Secretariat has the role of facilitating the CBD COPs. In this con-
text,  the  CBD  Secretariat  also  provided  support  to  the  development  and 
adoption  by  the  of  the  Aichi  targets  of  the  Nagoya  Protocol  on  genetic  re-
sources,  by  facilitating  the  background  analysis  informing  the  process.  The 
Aichi targets are also EU policy goals. (I-611) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

70 

This has been achieved through enabling the participation of LDC and SIDS 
delegates,  as  well  as  the  various  groupings  of  civil  society  in  COP-related 
meetings  (e.g.  the  preparation  for  the  Rio+20  conferences  on  sustainable 
development),  technical  working  groups,  workshops  and  through  the  provi-
sion of training − particularly in relation to implementing decisions. All of this 
has been supported under the SCAs. (I-612) 

6.6.2  UNEP  and  MEA  Secretariats  are  increasingly  recognised  as  centres  of  excellence  on 

environmental and biodiversity conservation matters (JC62) 

Reliable and updated 
environmental  
information and 
knowledge for 
 informed decision- 
making is increasingly 
available. 

The EU has contributed to enhancing the ability of UNEP and the MEA Sec-
retariats to provide up-to-date and reliable environmental information, in ac-
cordance with the COP agendas, and to act as information clearing houses, 
thus contributing to informed decision-making. (I-621) 

Contributing  to  this  are  the  various  (and  innovative,  in  that  they  introduce 
something  new  or  different  in  response  to  new  requirements)  EU-funded 
programmes  generating  new  knowledge,  data,  methodologies  and  tools, 
guidelines, best practice information and training materials. These are organ-
ised  and  instigated  by  UNEP  and  MEA  Secretariats  –  for  example, 
IPBES, BIP, IRP, TEEB (Reflecting the Value of Ecosystems and Biodiversi-
ty 
InforMEA  Web-Portal,  BIOPAMA/DOPA  (IUCN-
in  Policy-making), 
UNEP/WCMC-JRC). (I-621) 

New data is continuously added and analysed, and complex scientific results 
are  made  available  in  an  easily  understandable  form  to  a  broad  audience, 
not only to the scientific world. Much of this information is organised through 
the Group of Earth Observations and is made accessible through the Global 
Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems  (GEOSS),  supported  by  EU.  (I-621) 
(Monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystems is discussed in EQ4). 

UNEP’s improved capacity for providing technical quality assurance of inter-
ventions  (being  the  ”think  tanks”  of  environmental,  biodiversity  and  climate 
change  issues)  has  placed  it  in  a  position  where  it  can  greatly  reduce  the 
distance between science and policy change by putting real-time information 
in the hands of governments, corporations and civil society. (I-621) 

Information, guidelines and manuals produced by UNEP and MEA Secretar-
iats are generally found to be very useful by scholars and national MEA im-
plementation authorities or focal points. (I-621) 

6.6.3  Developing  countries  are  increasingly  able  to  address  implementation  of  MEAs,  but 

they do not have the will or means to do so (JC63) 

National capacity  
development has 
raised awareness,  
but only to a limited 
extent has it  
influenced national 
implementation  
of MEAs. 

One  of  the  main  objectives  of  EU  support  to  environmental  governance 
through UNEP and MEA Secretariats is to enhance the capacity of develop-
ing countries to implement the various conventions they have agreed on.  

Judging  by  the  amount  of  activities  and  evaluations  of  the  workshops  and 
seminars  by  the  participants,  the  UNEP  and  MEA  Secretariats  have,  with 
support from ENRTP, fulfilled their mandates in terms of providing capacity-
building,  training  programmes,  and  dissemination  of  knowledge,  data  and 
information.  In  addition,  by  applying  the  ”training  of  trainers”  concept,  they 
have  the  potential  to  reach  much  larger  national  audiences,  besides  those 
directly participating in the activities. (I-631) 

For example, there is strong evidence in Ukraine that the skills imparted by 
UNEP or CBD to officials and stakeholders (UNEP-MEA guidelines and ac-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

71 

tivities)  have  directly  been  applied  in  the  development  of  national  policy, 
regulations, and national plans/programmes. The State Programme and the 
legal requirement for the development of a National Ecological Network have 
resulted  directly  from  co-operation  with  UNEP-MEA-Council  of  Europe.  (I-
632) 

Through these capacity-development activities, awareness has been raised, 
and environmental concerns feature more prominently in national debates − 
particularly where countries are facing significant impacts of climate change. 
Nevertheless,  judging  by  the  general  lack  of  national  implementation  of 
MEAs (EQ4) and the general very low priority given to environment and bio-
diversity  conservation  in  national  budgets  (all  countries  visited),  the  im-
portant economic and social value of natural resources and biodiversity has 
still not been fully recognised at political levels. (I-632) 

The  real  impact  of  the  capacity-development  activities  supported  by  EU 
through UNEP and MEA Secretariats is, therefore, difficult to measure, in as 
much  as  the  use  of  skill  and  knowledge  gained  is  highly  dependent  on  na-
tional priorities. Furthermore, UNEP and MEA Secretariats have seldom es-
tablished  a  clear  baseline  and  outcome  indicators  in  terms  of  application 
and/or dissemination of the knowledge gained through the training sessions, 
workshops and seminars. (I-631) 

A number of countries (Bolivia, DRC, Ukraine, Rwanda, Egypt),  have devel-
oped and approved (or are in the process of developing) policies, plans and 
strategies for productive sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tour-
ism,  energy,  and  for  the  major  extractive  industries  of  oil  and  gas,  where 
mainstreaming  of  biodiversity  conservation  and  climate  change  is  expected 
to feature more prominently. Examples of this include the development of the 
Integrated Plan for Environment and Water (in Bolivia), the National Consti-
tution (in Kenya  and  Bolivia), the national strategy for REDD  (in DRC), and 
key sector policies (in Ukraine). All these initiatives have been supported by 
the EU, and are expected to be reflected in the next generation of CSPs. By 
doing  so,  they  address  the  Aichi  Strategic  Goal  to  address  the  underlying 
causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government 
and society. (I-632) 

Countries on the path 
to mainstreaming  
biodiversity. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.7  EQ7: Climate governance 

72 

To what extent has ENRTP contributed to strengthening 
international climate governance? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

This question evaluates an important element of 
the wider EU policy on climate change − support 
provided through ENRTP for international climate 
governance/external climate policy, focusing 
mainly on the support for the UNFCCC Secretari-
at36, but also looking at specific questions  
related to support for the IPCC37 and other institu-
tions. 

This question is articulated through three judge-
ment criteria and a number of indicators, as 
shown in the figure on the right, with detailed  
reporting in Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

The EU is committed to multilateralism as a critical tool to tackle global challenges, such as climate 
change. It is thus a priority for the EU that globally-binding agreements in GHG emissions are reached 
to curb the effects of climate change, and that the capacity of vulnerable countries is increased so they 
can adapt to the effects that are inevitable. The EU and its Member States advocate their positions at 
international negotiations. But EU also provides financial support to strengthen the global climate gov-
ernance mechanisms and processes, in order to: a) create a conducive environment for reaching 
global agreements; b) to ensure that developing countries have the capacity to engage effectively in 
global negotiations and to translate their commitments into tangible action. The main partner for the 
EU’s support to global climate governance has thus been the UNFCCC Secretariat, but other interna-
tional entities − especially UN agencies such as UNEP and UNDP − have also been partners in rela-
tion to capacity-building. 

36 Please refer to Box 1. 
37 The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and  socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of 
the risk of human-induced climate change. For more information please refer to: http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
Key points: 

73 

  The EU has been a critical partner for the UNFCCC Secretariat and has strengthened its capacity 
to plan and support UNFCCC processes in order to facilitate agreements. EU support has thus 
been important for the creation of an enabling environment for reaching ambitious climate 
agreements in the future. 

  EU support has contributed to creating an increased recognition of the needs and positions of 

developing countries in UNFCCC negotiations. 

  EU support has played an important role in facilitating the establishment of climate financing 
mechanisms, which contributed to the increased prominence of this topic in the UNFCCC 
negotiations and debates − a key priority for developing countries. 

  EU support has contributed considerably to building a stronger knowledge base on climate change 

in developing countries, and tools and approaches to address climate change, and has 
implemented UNFCCC commitments, which informed decision-making at global and national 
levels. 

  Developing countries actively use the skills obtained to address climate change at national level, 

and good progress has been made in the formulation of climate change policies, strategies and 
plans. EU support has been an important contribution to this development. 

6.7.1  ENRTP support significantly  strengthened UNFCCC-related negotiation processes and 

institutional frameworks in view of developing country participation (JC71)  

EU support centred on 
making UNFCCC ne-
gotiation processes 
conducive to reaching 
international  
agreements. 

The support provided through ENRTP focused on:  

1.  Achieving binding agreements on GHG emissions reductions.  

2.  Ensuring  that  the  international  community  agrees  on  assistance  to 

developing countries in adapting to climate change.  

3.  Ensuring  that  international  agreements  are  globally  owned,  and  that 
the  priorities  and  concerns  of  LDCs  and  SIDS  are  adequately 
reflected and addressed in international agreements.  

4.  Enabling developing countries to plan and implement their obligations 

under UNFCCC.  

The UNFCCC Secretariat was the principal partner for the EU in this regard, 
as  it  plays  a  central  role  in  the  preparation  and  facilitation  of  the  UNFCCC 
COP,  inter-sessional  meetings,  and  the  activities  of  working  groups  estab-
lished  under  UNFCCC  −  and  thereby  in  creating  a  conducive  environment 
for  a  strengthened  debate  and  for  achieving  tangible  commitments  by  the 
parties (countries). The EU was an important contributor to the Secretariat’s 
budget. (I-712) This support comprised two main elements, which were inter-
related and mutually reinforcing:  

  Ensuring that all LDCs and SIDS parties are represented and included in 
the  UNFCCC  negotiations  and  process  at  COPs,  inter-sessionals,  and 
meetings (funding for travel costs). (I-711) 

  Strengthening  the  capacity  of  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  to  plan  and 
support  UNFCCC  processes  in  order  to  facilitate  agreements  (funding 
for  workshops,  capacity-building  and  process  facilitation).  (I-712  and  I-
713) 

  Other  organisations  have  also  been  supported  to  engage  in  UNFCCC-
related  policy  dialogue,  with  a  view  to  strengthening  the  dialogue  and 
involvement  in  the  UNFCCC  process.  For  example,  this  support 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

74 

contributed to strengthening the participation of local  governments, and 
the  process  and  build 
to  high-level  policy  dialogue 
consensus. (I-712) 

facilitate 

to 

EU support helped in 
ensuring that  
developing countries 
could participate  
proactively in the UN-
FCCC negotiations 
and processes. 

The EU has been an  
important partner for 
the UNFCCC  
Secretariat, and 
strengthened its  
capacity to plan and 
support UNFCCC pro-
cesses. 

EU support facilitated 
the establishment of 
climate financing 
mechanisms. 

The EU proportion of the total funding for participation of developing country 
delegates in UNFCCC COPs and meetings was significant − with a peak in 
2013,  when  40.9%  of  the  contributions  to  the  Trust  Fund  for  Participation 
(covering  travel  costs  for  LDC  and  SIDS  delegates  to  the  COPs  and  inter-
sessional meetings) was provided by the EU. Moreover, EU support contrib-
uted to ensuring that LDC and SIDS delegations had the capacity to engage 
proactively  in  UNFCCC  negotiations  and  advocate  their  priorities,  through 
support  for  capacity-building  and  improved  access  to  knowledge.  It  is  thus 
clear  that  the  support  has  enabled  an  increased  degree  of  participation  by 
LDCs and SIDS through UNFCCC’s Trust Fund for Participation, as well as 
through  various  workshops,  meetings  and  events.  The  EU  also  supported 
the  active  participation  of  LDC  and  SIDS  stakeholders  outside  central  gov-
ernments  (ie,  local  governments,  and  civil  society  organisations),  which 
brought perspectives from the local level into the process. (I-711, I-712) 

Stakeholder  interviews  indicate  that  developing  countries  have,  over  the 
years, become more vocal and influential in the UNFCCC negotiations as a 
result of an increased capacity and  through co-ordination and co-operation, 
where  developing  countries  now  often  “speak  with  one  voice”.  The  agree-
ment to establish climate-financing mechanisms, such as the Green Climate 
Fund  (GCF),  is  an  indicator  of  the  increased  influence  of  developing  coun-
tries on the negotiation process. (I-711) 

While  the  EU’s  support  covered  only  7.4%  of  the  total  funding  for  the  UN-
FCCC  Secretariat  in  2007-2013,  its  support  for  participation  of  developing 
countries  and  for  capacity-building  grew  significantly  during  the  period,  and 
especially after 2011. The EU proportion of the total funding for these areas 
became significant. Another important feature of EU support was that it was 
provided  consistently  every  year,  which  facilitated  the  planning  and  imple-
mentation of technical work. It is thus fair to conclude that EU support played 
an instrumental role, which strengthened the UNFCCC Secretariat’s capacity 
to  facilitate  the  UNFCCC  process  and  create  a  conducive  negotiation  envi-
ronment. (I-711, I-712) 

In relation to providing climate change funding for LDCs, important progress 
has been made with the Copenhagen Accord, including the provision of fast-
track funding in 2010-2012 and an ambitious long-term commitment to raise 
USD 100 billion per year by 2020. The establishment of the GCF, launched 
in Durban in 2011, is another important result. Also, significant commitments 
have  been  made  in  terms  of  REDD  financing.  The  progress  illustrates  that 
this high priority for developing countries has gained increased prominence 
in UNFCCC negotiations and debates. The EU provided financial support for 
the  activities  of  the  Standing  Committee  on  Finance  to  establish  the  GCF, 
and  to  provide  funding  for  the  Interim  REDD+  Partnership  Secretariat.  The 
ENRTP support in this area was reinforced by the EU commitment to provide 
EUR 150 million  in Fast Start Financing for developing countries. However, 
the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 17/2013, “EU climate fi-
nance in the context of external aid” found that while both the EC and the EU 
member states have made contributions to the GCF and to the 100 bn USD 
climate finance target, this was not done as a joint act, and the large number 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

EU support was  
important for the  
creation of an  
environment  
conducive to reaching 
ambitious climate 
agreements  
in the future. 

75 

of climate funding mechanisms (the EU and its member states use 22 multi-
lateral channels for climate funding) posed a challenge to co-ordination, and 
can reduce overall effectiveness. (I-713) 

The progress in UNFCCC negotiations is influenced by several factors other 
than  EU  support  −  including  the  global  financial  crisis,  as  well  as  national 
political agendas and  varying degrees of economic dependency  on the use 
of fossil energy. The progress made and the results achieved in the interna-
tional negotiation process during 2007-2013 are mixed. Efforts to enter into a 
binding post-Kyoto agreement on emission reductions have so far not been 
successful. The Kyoto Protocol was extended in 2012, with emission reduc-
tion targets for 2012-2020, but this extension has not yet been ratified, and 
some  countries  have  not  committed  themselves  to  new  targets.  Nonethe-
less, it was agreed at the Durban climate change conference in 2011 to de-
velop a new treaty, to be adopted in 2015 and implemented in 2020. Accord-
ing to stakeholders close to the negotiation process, there is now a stronger 
will to reach a political agreement than previously. The good progress in es-
tablishing  financing,  compared  with  the  challenges  related  to  binding  emis-
sions  reduction  commitments,  probably  lie  in  the  fact  that  climate  financing 
does not demand the same deep structural changes in the developed coun-
tries as does the transition towards a low-carbon economy. (I-712) 

It  is  difficult  to  attribute  changes  in  the  climate  debates,  negotiations  and 
commitments made  by  countries  to  curb  emissions  and  provide  funding  for 
increased climate resilience. However, the EU support has been important in 
terms  of  the  ability  of  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  to  create  an  environment 
conducive  to  reaching  ambitious  climate  agreements. Without  ENRTP  sup-
port, many activities would not have been implemented. The ENRTP Priority 
4  evaluation  report  (2012)  notes  that  EU  desk  officers  are  convinced  that 
ENRTP-supported  international  climate  governance  activities  play  a  signifi-
cant  role  in  the  progress  made  in  the  international  climate  change  negotia-
tions, and that discontinuing this support would have a disastrous impact on 
the  future  possibility  of  reaching  a  globally-binding  agreement.  38  This  im-
pression is confirmed by interviews with  EC and UNFCCC Secretariat staff. 
(I-712, I-722) 

EU support has con-
tributed to creating 
increased recognition 
of the needs of  
developing countries 
in UNFCCC  
negotiations. 

The  progress  in  global  establishing  climate  financing  mechanisms,  and 
pledges made by developed countries to provide funding for these, is a good 
indicator  of  increased  recognition  of  developing  countries’  specific  develop-
ing needs and demands, even if the root cause has not yet been addressed 
with binding emission reduction targets. It is thus fair to assume that the EU 
support,  through  ENRTP,  has  strengthened  the  UNFCCC  negotiation  pro-
cess, and especially in terms of the participation of developing countries. 

38  Evaluation of  ENRTP  2007-2010  Actions  under  Priority  4:  Strengthening  of  International  Environmental  Gov-
ernance, June 2012. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

                                                      
76 

6.7.2  Developing  country  stakeholders’  access  to  knowledge  on  climate  change  has  im-

proved (JC72) 

EU support has  
contributed to 
strengthening tech-
nical work under, and 
developing country 
participation in, UN-
FCCC and IPCC. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading inter-
national  body  for  the  assessment  of  climate  change,  and  its  periodic  As-
sessment Reports are a cornerstone for the global climate change negotia-
tions.  It  is  therefore  critical  to  ensure  the  active  participation  of  scientists 
from developing countries in the IPCC, in order to ensure that knowledge is 
available for the international climate policy processes, as well as for the na-
tional strategy and policy-making in developing countries. (I-721) 

EU  support  has  strengthened  the  ability  of  the  IPCC  and  UNFCCC  ad  hoc 
working  groups,  committees,  and  technical  groups  to  carry  out  their  work, 
and thereby  deliver  important  inputs to the  UNFCCC process and flesh out 
modalities for the implementation of agreements, by funding their activities − 
such as the review process for GHG inventories. In 2013, 21.4% of the fund-
ing  for  the  UNFCCC  Supplementary  Trust  Fund  (covering  capacity-building 
and activities of working groups) came from the EU. Developing country par-
ticipation  in  the  IPCC  was  also  supported  through  the  contribution  for  the 
IPCC Trust Fund. (I-721, I-722, I-712) 

EU  support  to  the  IPCC  and  UNFCCC  enabled  the  development  of  online 
tools  that  support  developing  countries  in  fulfilling  their  obligations  under 
UNFCCC – for example, in relation to the preparation of NAMAs and NAPs. 
(I-721,  I-722)  Moreover,  the  EU  support  has  also  enabled  experts  from  de-
veloping  countries  to  engage  in  the  work  of  the  IPCC,  contributing  to  en-
hancing the credibility and broad ownership of its findings, and thus enhanc-
ing  the  value  of  its  inputs  to  the  UNFCCC  process.  (I-721)  Technical  work 
under  the  UNFCCC  has  also  been  strengthened  –  for  example,  the  review 
process for GHG inventories. (I-721) 

There is still a need for more knowledge to inform policies and agreements. 
Knowledge gaps are particularly pertinent in relation to the impacts, as well 
as opportunities, in developing countries. Developing countries also highlight 
the need for access to appropriate technologies, methodologies and tools to 
address climate change and implement the commitments made at UNFCCC. 
(I-722) 

Numerous  EU-funded  actions  (including  research  and  science-based  inter-
ventions)  at  global,  regional  and  national  levels  through  both  ENRTP  and 
geographical  instruments  have  generated  new  knowledge,  lessons  and  ap-
proaches.  The  EU  has  played  an  important  role  in  improving  the  access  of 
developing  countries  to  climate  knowledge.  This  is  not  only  due  to  the  vol-
ume  of  support  to  climate  change  actions,  and  the  wide  geographical  and 
thematic  scope  of  its  support,  but  also  to  the  strategic  support  provided  for 
knowledge generation, the development of tools, and to enabling active par-
ticipation of developing countries in key international mechanisms. (I-722) 

The  workshops  and  knowledge  products  have  contributed  by  providing  in-
creased knowledge to delegates and experts, especially those from develop-
ing countries. The guidelines and tools provided by the UNFCCC Secretariat 
are  considered  by  national  stakeholders  to  be  very  useful  and  of  a  good 
quality.  Stakeholders  indicate  a  positive  trend  towards  increased  scientific 
capacity and availability of climate information and data in developing coun-
tries. (I-721, I-722) 

EU support has con-
tributed to a stronger 
knowledge base in 
developing countries 
and approaches to 
address climate 
change. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

77 

6.7.3  EU support to international entities enhanced developing countries’ capacity to engage 
effectively  in  climate  change  policy  formulation  and  planning  to  meet  their  commit-
ments in relation to UNFCCC and new initiatives, and/or responding to EU climate initi-
atives (JC73) 

Developing countries 
use skills obtained to 
address climate 
change, and good 
progress has been 
made in the formula-
tion of policies. 

While  the  international  agreements made  under  UNFCCC  provide  direction 
for, and commitments by, the parties/countries, it is at national level that po-
litical  and  financial  decisions  are  made  that  determine  the  framework  for 
emission reductions and adaptation, and where the implementation of tangi-
ble interventions to curb emissions and enhance resilience is done. Hence, 
the main challenge for developing countries is how to apply the Convention 
in  national  policies,  plans,  regulations  and  investments,  and  the  NAPs,  
NAMAs and other plans/tools to be prepared by developing countries under 
the Convention aim at supporting this. (I-731, I-732) In many countries, there 
are still capacity constraints, in terms of addressing climate change and the 
related  uncertainty  in  policies,  plans,  and  budgets.  (I-731)  Nonetheless, 
good  progress  has  been  made  by  many  developing  countries,  which  now 
have national climate change policies and strategies in place. In the case of 
NAPA  development,  the  status  is  very  clear:  by  end  2014,  50  developing 
countries had submitted their NAPAs, and 38 of these were submitted during 
the  period  under  evaluation.  Developing  countries  are  still  working  on  their 
NAPs, NAMAs and MRV systems, and 15 countries have submitted a total of 
50 NAMAs. (I-732)  

The EU has, through ENRTP, supported developing countries in the  prepa-
ration of key planning documents under UNFCCC − such as NAPs, NAPAs, 
NAMA and MRV systems. The support has helped in building the capacity of 
national  policy-makers  and  experts  to  engage  in  national  climate  policy-
making  and  planning,  as  illustrated  by  the  progress  on  the  MRV  process 
(EQ2). Much of the support has been provided through the UNFCCC Secre-
tariat  and  UNFCCC  expert  groups,  strengthening  the  capacity-building  and 
advice  they  have  provided  to  developing  countries  in  relation  to  adaptation 
(NAPAs, NAPs) and mitigation (NAMAs, MRV), as well as to the formulation 
of  technical  guidelines  for  the  development  of  these  key  national  UNFCCC 
planning documents. (I-731, I-732) In addition to the UNFCCC Secretariat, a 
number  of  organisations  were  provided  with  funding  to  engage  in  capacity-
building − including UNDP, UNEP and GIZ, local governments, and civil so-
ciety organisations. UNDP has, for example, received significant support for 
the Low Emission Capacity Building Programme (LECBP), which assists 25 
countries in NAMA and MRV development, and has contributed to significant 
progress on the MRV processes − although it is still too early to measure the 
results of the MRV process. Currently, UNDP provides support for the devel-
opment of 70 NAMAs. (I-732, EQ2) 

Multiple actors have provided significant resources and inputs to building the 
capacity of developing countries with regard to climate change policy formu-
lation  and  planning,  mitigation  and  adaptation.  Among  these,  the  EU  is  an 
important  actor,  not  only  through  the  support  provided  via  ENRTP  for 
strengthening  international  climate  governance,  but  also  through  other 
ENRTP priority areas related to climate change (e.g. support for GCCA), as 
well  as  through  its  geographical  instruments.  The  combined  efforts  by  all 
these actors were found to be mutually reinforcing, in the sense that they all 
contribute to enhanced capacities and broad coverage of a range of climate 
change issues. (I-731) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

6.8  EQ8: Mainstreaming approach 

78 

To what extent has the EU developed both an appropriate 
framework and an approach for environmental and climate 
change mainstreaming in its support to partner countries? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

This question evaluates an important element of 
the intention of the EU to integrate/mainstream 
environmental sustainability and climate change 
resilience in EU external aid. It thus focuses on 
whether the approach, modalities, tools and in-
stitutional capacity are appropriate and sufficient 
to enable EU staff to promote mainstreaming, 
with a focus on Delegation staff. 

This question is articulated through two judge-
ment criteria and a number of indicators, as 
shown in the figure on the right, with detailed 
reporting in Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

The EU has a longstanding commitment to addressing environmental concerns in its external aid, as 
part of a wider commitment to sustainable development, and has a comprehensive policy framework 
promoting mainstreaming. Prior to 2007, the mainstreaming of environment in EU support was limited, 
and the use of mainstreaming tools was unsystematic, due to capacity constraints and ambiguities in 
relation to EU requirements and the roles and responsibilities of staff. In response to this situation, DG 
DEVCO established an Environmental Helpdesk, and developed in 2007 a set of mainstreaming 
guidelines, which were revised in 2009. Moreover, the use of Country Environment Profiles was heavi-
ly promoted for the development of CSPs for the period 2007-2013, to help identify mainstreaming 
provisions and key environmental issues to address, and options available. By the end of 2009, the 
situation had changed, with a far more extensive use of mainstreaming tools and a much stronger re-
flection of environment in programming. After the Helpdesk closed in 2009, DG DEVCO has continued 
to provide mainstreaming training and support, albeit at a lower level. The capacity of EUDs to engage 
in mainstreaming has significantly increased during the period under evaluation, as has their engage-
ment in environmental integration. 

Key points: 

  EU policies are ambitious and demand that environment and climate change considerations are 
addressed in all its development assistance across sectors. As such, the framework is highly 
conducive to mainstreaming, but with several policies and the lack of a single overview policy, it is 
difficult for EU staff to get a clear overview of EU positions and requirements. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
79 

  Guidelines, tools, capacity-building and technical support provided to EUDs are appropriate and 
have led to a significant step forward in the mainstreaming of environment and climate change, 
with a significantly increased EUD capacity and proactive engagement in mainstreaming. 
However, there is still room for further improvement. Mainstreaming capacity building is not always 
reaching the intended non-environmental staff target audience, and the access to capacity-
building for national counterparts _ who have the ultimate responsibility for mainstreaming in their 
national systems and programmes − has declined, and is now limited. 

  Moreover, an opportunity is being missed in terms of taking the economic opportunities and the 

national systems fully into consideration. These are critical aspects for ensuring sufficient national 
ownership and capacity to adopt mainstreaming. ENRTP has funded leading mainstreaming 
initiatives (PEI, TEEB), which have developed approaches that specifically deal with enhancing 
the ownership and capacity of national systems, but these have not been fully adopted in EU 
bilateral support. 

6.8.1  The  EU  has  developed  an  appropriate  strategic  approach  and  related  guidelines  and 
tools to deal with environmental and  climate  change mainstreaming, but it is not fully 
benefiting from the approaches and capacities developed by dedicated mainstreaming 
programmes funded under ENRTP (JC81)  

EU policies are con-
ducive to, and  
explicitly demand, 
mainstreaming – but 
they numerous, and 
thus make it difficult 
 to establish current 
positions. 

The  EU  has  a  longstanding  commitment  to  addressing  environmental  con-
cerns in its external aid, as part of a wider commitment to sustainable devel-
opment. EU policies have evolved over the years, and have gradually moved 
from  general  statements  on  mainstreaming  towards  increasingly  detailed 
reflections on how integration relates to EU development assistance. Article 
6  of  the  Amsterdam  Treaty  stipulates  that  “environmental  protection  re-
quirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the 
Community  policies  and  activities  (…)  with  a  view  to  promoting  sustainable 
development”. The 1999 European Council in Brussels called for integration 
of climate change mitigation and adaption across sectors. Consequently, the 
EU’s  Development  Policy  of  24  April  2000  identified  the  environment  as  a 
key  cross-cutting  issue  to  be  mainstreamed  in  all  priority  themes.  In  May 
2001, the European Council endorsed the strategy for  “Integrating the Envi-
ronment  into  EC  Economic  and  Development  Co-operation”,  with  practical 
steps  and  indicators.  The  mainstreaming  intention  was  subsequently  rein-
forced  in  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Climate  Change  and  the  communication 
“Climate Change in the Context of Development Co-operation, Communica-
tion  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament”  − 
both  from  2003.  The  2005  European  Consensus  on  Development  (ECD) 
states  that  it  is  a  major  aim  to  “integrate  environmental  protection  require-
ments  and  climate  change  action  into  the  Community’s  development  and 
other external policies as well as to help promote the Community’s environ-
mental  climate  and  energy  policies  abroad  in  the  common  interest  of  the 
Community  and  partner  countries  and  regions”.  The  2007  Communication 
“Building a global climate change alliance between the European Union and 
poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change” has as one of 
its five priority areas the integration of climate change into poverty reduction 
strategies and programmes.  

In recent years, the growing emphasis on pursuing the transition to a green 
economy  and  climate  change  resilience  has  further  underscored  the  im-
portance  given  to  mainstreaming  in  EU  policies.  A  green  economy  is  pro-
moted in the “Millennium Development Goals – Impact of the Financial Crisis 
on  Developing  countries”  (SEC  (2009)  0445),  which  calls  for  “support  to 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

EU mainstreaming 
guidelines are of good 
quality – but there is 
more focus on  
formulation than on 
implementation. 

80 

countries to integrate climate resilience and low car-bon strategies into their 
development  plans  through  assistance  for  adaptation,  clean  energy  and 
technology”.  “Increasing  the  impact  of  EU  Development  Policy:  an  Agenda 
for Change” (COM (2011)  637) explicitly calls for  EU  support for the devel-
opment of a green economy. 

EU policies thus emphasise the need to ensure that mainstreaming is done 
within  the  framework  of  national  priorities  and  policies,  but  also  emphasise 
that the EU should consider environment and climate change in all its devel-
opment co-operation − including policy dialogue, strategic programming, and 
implementation. The policies are consistent and coherent in their promotion 
of mainstreaming. EU policies are not only conducive to mainstreaming, they 
explicitly  require/demand  mainstreaming  in  order  to  meet  EU  development 
policy goals and objectives.  

EU HQ staff, EUD staff and consultants interviewed found that the EU poli-
cies  on  mainstreaming  environment  and  climate  change  were  consistent, 
appropriate and clear – but that the large number of policies and communi-
cations  can  make  it  difficult  to  establish  the  required  positions  and  infor-
mation.  The  evaluation  identified  20  policies  and  communications,  from 
2001-2011, that deal with mainstreaming. The EUD survey revealed that the 
level of familiarity with some of the key policies was low. 

Since  2007,  the  EU  has  had  guidelines  for  the  mainstreaming  of  environ-
ment in development co-operation. These were updated in 2009, and again 
in  2011,  which  enhanced  the  coverage  of  climate  change.  However,  the 
2011 guidelines were not formally adopted until 2014, and are still not public-
ly  available  in  a final form. In 2009, the  guidelines became part of the core 
set  of  guidelines  for  EU  programming  and  implementation,  but  this  version 
was issued too late to inform the programming for 2007-2013.  

The guidelines are found to be of a  good quality. They  provide an easy-to-
access reference, promote relevant and important mainstreaming tools (e.g. 
CEPs,  SEAs,  EIAs),  and  take  into  account  that  the  mainstreaming  options 
and  relevant  tools  differ  for  the  various  aid  modalities.  However,  while  the 
guidelines provide quite detailed guidance on the tools to be applied during 
the  identification  and  formulation  stages,  the  guidance  for  the  implementa-
tion and evaluation stages is brief and generic. 

Box 7 

Key mainstreaming tools promoted  

Country Environment Profile (CEP): Profile identifying the key environmental context 
in a country and the challenges in different sectors, and opportunities for EUDs to 
address these in the country programme. 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): Assessment of the environmental impli-
cations at sector level − for example, of sector policies, plans and sector programmes 
− and analysis of different options to mitigate negative environmental impacts and 
harness opportunities for improving the environmental status. 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Assessment of the environmental impacts 
of planned projects (e.g. infrastructure), and provision of recommendations to avoid 
or mitigate negative environmental impacts. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
The tools do not fully 
consider economic 
opportunities and na-
tional systems, alt-
hough ENRTP  
supported approaches 
to this. 

81 

The tools promoted focus on identification, assessment and mitigation of the 
negative environmental impacts of economic activity, but there is less focus 
on other important aspects. These include demonstrating how improved en-
vironmental  management  can  contribute  positively  to  sector  performance 
and economic growth, and promoting the mainstreaming of environment and 
climate  change  into  in  sector  policies,  planning,  budgets,  investment  and 
governance, taking the political economy and vested interests into consider-
ation. Some ENRTP-funded initiatives (PEI, TEEB, GCCA) already address 
these  elements  and  have  developed  tools,  concepts  and  approaches  for 
mainstreaming, but these tools have not been fully adopted in the EU’s own 
mainstreaming approach. Therefore, an opportunity in this regard has so far 
been missed. (I-812)  

However,  current  EU  mainstreaming  courses  take  departure  in  the  EU 
guidelines,  but  also  use  approaches  from  PEI,  GCCA,  and  TEEB.  Hence, 
while the EU’s mainstreaming guidelines  have  not adopted the  approaches 
developed by the UN mainstreaming programmes funded under ENRTP, the 
training made available to Delegations does introduce current mainstreaming 
thinking.  Moreover,  governance  and  the  political  economy  are  now  being 
addressed in the training. (I-821) 

The guidelines result-
ed in a significant step 
forward for the main-
streaming of environ-
ment and climate 
change. 

Prior to 2007, the implementation of mainstreaming was limited, and the use 
of mainstreaming tools unsystematic. The guidelines resulted in a significant 
step  forward.  The  EUDs’  awareness  of  the  guidelines  is  much  higher  than 
the awareness of the earlier Communications promoting mainstreaming, and 
the EUDs survey shows  a  much higher use of the  guidelines than  of previ-
ous mainstreaming guidance. 

6.8.2  The  capacity  of  EU  Delegations  and  key  beneficiaries  in  partner  countries  to  main-
stream environment and climate change in their operations has increased significantly 
(JC82) 

The capacity- building 
and support increased 
Delegation capacity, 
and ensured en-
hanced mainstreaming 
in programming. 

While  the  policies  have  for  many  years  been  conducive  to  mainstreaming, 
the actual implementation of mainstreaming was a struggle, with limited and 
unsystematic  use  of  key  tools  such  as  CEPs,  SEAs,  and  EIAs.  Therefore, 
during  2004-2009,  significant  mainstreaming  support  and  capacity-building 
was  provided  for  Delegations,  through  a  Helpdesk  with  long-term  consult-
ants. This support comprised technical  advice on request, training courses, 
and the production and dissemination of materials (including the guidelines, 
sector scripts, and case studies). Current regional training courses on main-
streaming provided to Commission and Delegation staff are also introducing 
participants  to  the  above-mentioned  approaches  from  PEI,  GCCA  and 
TEEB.  In  general,  the  training  plays  a  significant  role  in  promoting  main-
streaming. Following the training, the Delegations and EC staff are more ac-
tive and become drivers of the application of mainstreaming tools. One inter-
viewee  said that SEAs or CEPs  were almost always  initiated and driven by 
someone  who  had  been  motivated  by  training.  EUDs  were  generally  satis-
fied with the support provided throughout the period evaluated. (I-821, I-822) 

Mainstreaming  
support was more  
comprehensive before 
2010 than after. 

Several training courses were carried out annually, and a total of 737 people 
were trained from 2008-2009. Training was provided not only to EU Delega-
tion  and  HQ  staff,  but  also  to  a  significant  number  of  national  stakeholders 
(41% of the people trained). After the Helpdesk closed in 2009, the support 
became less intensive and more irregular, but two regional training courses 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

82 

on  mainstreaming  are  still  provided  to  EC  and  Delegation  staff  −  a  general 
course  on  environmental  mainstreaming  tools  and  methodologies,  and  a 
course  specifically  on  country-led  environment  and  climate  change  integra-
tion. 

It  seems  that  the  attention  given  to  mainstreaming  guidelines,  tools  and 
training declined after the closure of the Helpdesk. As described in JC81, the 
2011  draft  guidelines  were  only  formally  adopted  in  2014,  and  the  sector 
script revision has been ongoing since 2012. This seemingly reduced promi-
nence appears to be a result of: a) internal staff movement and restructuring 
in  DG  DEVCO,  which  has  caused  a  lack  of  continuity  and,  periodically,  an 
unclear allocation of the responsibility for mainstreaming; b) the political at-
tention to climate change peaked in 2009 up to COP-15 in Copenhagen, and 
is now not as prominent in the political agendas; c) environment and climate 
change is now better captured in the general guidance given to Delegations 
on  the  broad  priorities  for  programming.  However,  the  declining  trend  has 
been  reversed  in  2014-2015:  a)  with  the  launch  in  late  2014  of  a  new 
Helpdesk, and in 2015 with a tender process being carried out in this regard 
for “technical assistance for the mainstreaming of environmental sustainabil-
ity, including biodiversity, climate change and disaster risk reduction”; b) with 
the  first  new  sector  script  (agriculture  and  rural  development)  finalised  and 
published in spring 2015. (I-821) 

Mainstreaming  
capacity-building often 
reached only environ-
ment staff, rather than 
non-environment staff 
as intended. 

While  the  intention  was  to  reach  outside  the  environment  sector  and  train 
national  partners  from  finance/planning  and  from  sector  ministries,  the  ma-
jority of national participants came from the environment sector. One positive 
trend  is  that  some  participants  now  also  come  from  ministries  of  fi-
nance/planning  and  other  sectors.  Similarly,  there  has  been  a  tendency  for 
EUD environmental staff, rather than non-environment staff, to participate in 
the training. (I-821, I-822) 

The capacity-building 
for national  
counterparts  
has declined. 

The mainstreaming 
capacity in  
Delegations has  
increased significantly, 
and they have  
become more active 
 in mainstreaming. 

National partners comprised 41% of participants in Helpdesk training. In the 
post-Helpdesk, country-led mainstreaming course was originally implement-
ed  as  a  series  of  regional  seminars  under  GCCA,  specifically  for  national 
counterparts/partners.  Since  2013,  this  regional  training  has  been  provided 
mainly for Delegation staff, and the participation of national counterparts has 
been limited to participants from the host country, due to funding constraints. 
The more limited participation of national counterparts appears to have left a 
gap,  when considering the focus of the training on  country-led mainstream-
ing, and since  national stakeholders have the  ultimate responsibility for en-
suring  that  environment  and  climate  change  issues  are  adequately  ad-
dressed. (I-821) 

Prior to 2007, mainstreaming was limited, but this situation had changed by 
the  end  of  2009,  with  a  far  more  extensive  use  of  CEPs,  SEAs,  EIAs  and 
environmental screenings, and a much stronger reflection of environment in 
CSPs,  SPSPs  and  project  designs.  These  changes  are  evidence  of  an  in-
creased  Delegation  capacity  and  prioritisation  of  environmental  integration, 
and thus demonstrate that  the Helpdesk had been successful in enhancing 
Delegation  capacity  and  had  kick-started  the  actual  implementation  of  EU 
mainstreaming  aspirations.  Commission  staff  and  consultants  interviewed 
are of the opinion that environment and climate change issues are now sig-
nificantly  better  covered  in  programming  than  previously,  and  this  was  also 
confirmed  by  the  field  visits,  which  revealed  that  several  EUDs  finance  ac-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

There are still some 
challenges in relation 
to the ownership  
and quality of  
mainstreaming. 

83 

tions  promoting mainstreaming. Hence,  the discontinuation  of the Helpdesk 
appears  justified  in  the  light  of:  a)  the  decreasing  demand  for  training  and 
support; b) the increased technical capacity of Delegations; c) an increased 
in-house technical capacity in DG DEVCO, DG Environment and DG CLIMA 
to  provide  support  to  Delegations  (even  if  affected  by  staff  and  time  con-
straints). (I-822) 

In  2009,  there  were  still  significant  challenges  related  to  the  adequacy  and 
quality of environmental integration – for example, in relation to the coverage 
of  climate  change  in  CSPs  or  the  incorporation  of  SEA  findings  in  SPSPs. 
Some  tools  in  the  2009  Guidelines  on  Mainstreaming  are  reportedly  used 
only to a limited extent, such as the sector scripts on climate change integra-
tion. Moreover, the use of SEAs (and, for the 2007-2013 programming cycle, 
also CEPs) is primarily driven by a demand from the HQ. While some SEAs 
are  done  on  the  initiative  of  Delegations  (e.g.  in  Rwanda  and  Kenya),  they 
are still not used systematically − reportedly due to limited awareness of how 
to use them. Therefore, a capacity constraint appears to remain in terms of 
ensuring  that  Delegations  more  broadly  understand  the  use  and  value  of 
mainstreaming  tools,  so  that  they  assume  ownership  and  apply  them  in  a 
manner that benefits the programming, rather than as a mechanical applica-
tion because it is a requirement.  

A  related  challenge  is  that  partner  governments  often  see  them  as  an  EU 
requirement  for  the  provision  of  funding  support,  since  they  are  not  part  of 
the national legal framework. As a result, the national ownership of SEA find-
ings, and the implementation of the recommendations, remain low. However, 
the situation appears to be improving.: In Rwanda, there is a strong level of 
national ownership of SEAs, and SEA is now a legal requirement in Ghana 
and Rwanda, and likely to become so in Kenya. 

EUD staff members interviewed indicate that: a)  it can be difficult to bring in 
mainstreaming if it is not an explicit objective of the country programme; b) 
there is not a buy-in to the mainstreaming agenda from all DG DEVCO and 
EUD staff members; c) there is a tendency to refer all environmental issues 
to the EUD environment teams, which is not conducive to mainstreaming. 

Nonetheless,  the  understanding  of  environmental  issues  among  Delegation 
staff has increased over time. This was confirmed by the fact that all EUDs 
visited  by  the  evaluation  team  demonstrated  a  good  understanding  of  the 
importance of mainstreaming. It seems that the extent to which Delegations 
engage  in  mainstreaming  still  depends  on:  a)  the  presence  of  champions, 
who take an interest in mainstreaming; b) whether the Head of Delegation is 
supportive of mainstreaming. (I-822) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.9  EQ9: Mainstreaming practice 

84 

To what extent has environment and climate change been 
mainstreamed throughout the programme and project  
cycle of EU support to a) agriculture and rural  
development, and b) infrastructure? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

This evaluation question assesses the extent to which 
programmes and projects supported by the EU have 
helped in mainstreaming environment and climate 
change in sector policy, planning and implementation 
by national governments, the private sector and civil 
society. Two environmentally-sensitive sectors have 
been selected for this assessment: agriculture and ru-
ral development, and infrastructure (transport, water 
and energy). These two sectors are highly relevant 
because they are prioritised in the Agenda for Change, 
especially agriculture and energy. 

This EQ focuses entirely on mainstreaming practices 
used under the geographic instruments and policy dia-
logue. 

This question is articulated through two judgement cri-
teria and a number of indicators, as shown in the fig-
ure on the right, with detailed reporting in Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

Mainstreaming is an essential approach for the EU to reach its policy goals, as well as international 
commitments on biodiversity conservation, climate change, environment and sustainable develop-
ment. That is because these goals and commitments cannot be reached through dedicated environ-
mental and climate change sector projects alone. Country Environmental Profiles (CEPs) were intro-
duced to help identify mainstreaming provisions for all phases, with a focus on the programming 
phase. Where the provisions were clearly made, they have been addressed in the Country Strategy 
Papers (CSPs) and Government Agreements. Other key tools employed by the EU are Strategic Envi-
ronmental Assessments (SEAs) at sector support level, and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIAs) 
at project level39. SEAs have only recently started to gain influence in the programming phases, 
whereas EIAs are applied at the project level. There is also a potential to use other tools and ap-
proaches, such as the assessment of the value of biodiversity “The Economics of Ecosystems and 
Biodiversity” (TEEB (2010), providing added insight into the problem of biodiversity loss in economic 
terms. This mainstreaming tool that has not yet been fully exploited.  

The EU has promoted mainstreaming of environment and climate change in all activities it supports. 
However, success is highly dependent on the commitment of national partners and decision-makers.  

39 CEP and SEA were introduced with: COM (2001) 264 final: A sustainable Europe for a better world: A Europe-
an strategy for Sustainable Development  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
                                                      
Key points: 

85 

  At project level, EU support has applied an approach in which environmental considerations are 

already analysed and addressed in the design phases. 

  SEAs have contributed to ensuring mainstreaming at design level, and to a lesser extent at 

implementation level, but their use have not been widespread and consistent across the sectors. 
Analysis shows that it is a useful tool, and in some countries it has (or will be) a legal requirement 
(Rwanda, Kenya, Ghana). 

  EIAs are applied to EU interventions where relevant. Most of the sample countries require EIAs of 
development projects by law. In general, the EIAs − especially those funded through the EU in the 
case study countries − are judged to be of good quality in the design of environmental mitigation 
measures. 

  EIA mitigation measures are followed and monitored during implementation of interventions, 
including independent audits. However, once the projects are finalised, the monitoring of 
compliance becomes solely the responsibility of national authorities. 

  Where projects and programmes in environmentally-sensitive sectors have incorporated, from the 
onset, specific outcomes and SMART indicators clearly directed towards improvement of the 
environmental situation, the actual implementation is more likely to correspond with the intentions 
than if just outlined in, for example, project purposes. 

  The degree of success in mainstreaming efforts varies considerably from country to country, and 
is much dependent on the underlying political and institutional commitment to environment and 
climate change. Programmes and projects supported under the modality of project support have 
addressed the environmental and climate change issues at project level, but seem not to have 
prompted wider mainstreaming of environment and climate change into sector policy. By providing 
SBS (to agriculture/rural development in Bolivia, Ukraine, Egypt, Rwanda) the EU has been 
instrumental − through policy dialogue and promotion of the inclusion of environmental and climate 
change targets and performance criteria – in advancing the mainstreaming of environment and 
climate change. 

6.9.1 

Incorporation  of  existing  mainstreaming  provisions  in  the  design  of  support  has  im-
proved, but lacks clear and measurable indicators (JC91) 

CEPs have been  
developed, but have 
failed to show a clear 
path to mainstreaming 
within the sectors. 

CEPs  have  been  used  to  integrate  an  environmental  dimension  into  the 
CSPs.  However,  the  quality  varies,  with  many  CEPs  having  room  for  im-
provement in terms of providing in-depth analysis of inter-linkages between 
environment  and  poverty,  as  well  as  impact  analysis  of  different  develop-
ment  alternatives  within  the  infrastructure  and  the  agriculture  and  rural  de-
velopment sectors. (I-911) 

Out of 49 projects submitted to the EU Environmental Helpdesk in 2008 (on 
agriculture and rural development, food security, energy; transport, and wa-
ter supply and sanitation), 25% showed insufficient and inadequate attention 
to integrating the environmental dimension. (I-921) 

Many of the CEPs did not adequately cover biodiversity and climate change 
issues. In some cases, recommendations on how to address mainstreaming 
in environmentally-sensitive sectors were missing or not operational. Indica-
tors to monitor mainstreaming efforts are usually lacking. (I-911) 

In  most  of  the  CSPs  analysed,  the  intentions  on  the  part  of  EU  for  main-
streaming environment and climate change are outlined and follow the man-
dates provided through EU policies and strategies. In most of the case study 
countries,  the  CSP  has  placed  increased  focus  on  environment  or  related 
NRM  sectors.  In  part,  this  can  be  attributed  to  the  CEPs,  but  other  factors 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

SEAs have not been 
used to their full  
potential. 

EU-supported projects 
and programmes are 
applying EIAs in  
accordance with  
international practice. 

86 

also  influence  the  EU  choices.  These  include  increased  focus  on  climate 
change impacts; general increase in awareness of the dependency on well-
functioning ecosystems; and/or simply because it makes economic sense, in 
the long term, to focus on contributing towards restoring a balance between 
human activities and the ecosystems we depend on. Compared with climate 
change  and  biodiversity,  environment  concerns  have,  to  a  greater  extent, 
been incorporated in the CSPs. (I-911) 

Use of SEAs has not been widespread, with only 17 during the period 2005-
2009  −  despite  25  CSPs  for  the  10th  EDF  envisaging  the  development  of 
SEAs. In many cases, the quality of the SEAs that have been funded is high, 
and  they  were  useful  for  raising  awareness  (the  process  of  developing  the 
SEAs) for programming (e.g. the SEAs for agriculture, 2012), and for energy 
(2014)  in  Rwanda  and  the  sugar  sector  in  Kenya.  As  a  result  of  its  experi-
ence with the agriculture SEA, the Government of Rwanda is now promoting 
the use of SEA on all policies and programmes. (I-912) 

However,  several  SEA  processes  were  initiated  when  the  programming 
phases  were  already  in  progress,  and  even  nearing  completion,  so  these 
SEAs, although found useful, may not have influenced changes in the actual 
programmes. Better co-ordination between the PPP design and SEA would 
have helped to address this common shortcoming. (I-912) 

Most  of  the  SEAs  reviewed  focused  strongly  on  the  biophysical  issues  and 
impacts and proposed environmental safeguards. Only few embraced deep-
er  consideration  of  socio-economic  linkages  and  the  role  of  environment  in 
contributing  towards  goals  of  poverty  reduction  and  economic  growth.  The 
Ghana  SEA  was  one  of  those  that  did  highlight  poverty  and  livelihoods  is-
sues. While it came too late to influence the actual programming, it still influ-
enced the preparation of the Road Sector Medium-Term Development Plan 
for 2014-2017. (I-912) 

In most countries, EIAs are mandatory for environmentally-sensitive sectors, 
and EU-supported interventions are applying EIAs in those sectors. (I-912) 

As in  the case of infrastructure financed through the  blending  instrument in 
Egypt, the EIA is often of a very high quality. This might in part be attributed 
to  the  EU’s  requirements  to  have  the  EIA  recommendations  implemented 
and  the  provision  of  accompanying  funding  of  for  carrying  out  the  recom-
mended activities, for which government funds often are still too scarce.  

To  a  large  extent,  EU-supported  sector  programmes  in  rural  development 
and  agricultural  development  integrate  environmental  results  and  indicators 
at  an  early  stage  of  their  design.  Whereas  for  infrastructure  the  formal  re-
quirement is usually on the use of EIAs post-design, most EU support went 
beyond this and made efforts to address environmental considerations dur-
ing their design phase.  

Although  the  mitigating  measures  and  conditions  of  the  EIA  are  monitored 
by  the  Delegations  during  implementation  (see  below),  the  long-term moni-
toring of environmental adherence once support has ended is dependent on 
the national authorities, which in some cases are weak − particularly in rela-
tion to the indirect environmental impacts of infrastructure projects. Sustain-
ability provisions in that regard have in most cases not been made, thus in-
creasing the risk of damages in the medium and long term. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Integration during the 
design of support is  
on the right track. 

87 

By integrating an environmental and climate change dimension into the  de-
sign  of  SPSPs,  the  EU  has  promoted  mainstreaming  of  environment  and 
climate  change  in  environmentally-sensitive  sectors.  However,  correspond-
ing and clearly defined environment and climate change indicators and pro-
gramme budget  items are not as visible, clearly  defined and  integrated into 
the  sector  support  as  they  could  be  (e.g.  Bolivia,  Ghana).  In  Egypt,  main-
streaming  has  taken  place  through:  provision  of  TA  (e.g.  developing  EIA 
guidelines in the Ministry of Transport); supervision of indicators; provision of 
budget support that ensures resources are in place to be mainstreamed (e.g. 
within  infrastructure  −  purchase  of  laboratory  equipment  for  the  water  sec-
tor); policy dialogue aimed at supporting important reforms that have an en-
vironmental and climate change effect (e.g. electricity tariff reform). Howev-
er,  specific  environmental  and  climate  change  indicators  (e.g.  reduction  of 
CO2) have not been included.(I-913) 

6.9.2  Mainstreaming of environment at policy and strategy level has taken place, but there is 

room for improvement (JC92) 

Policy dialogue,  
especially in the 
framework of SBS in 
environmentally-
sensitive sectors, has 
proved useful. 

Where mainstreaming 
was already  
addressed in the  
design phases, it was 
more likely to be  
implemented. 

Over  the  period  under  evaluation,  the  EU  has  increasingly  promoted  main-
streaming of environment and climate change into environmentally-sensitive 
sectors, and thus has been following the mandates provided through EU pol-
icies and strategies (I-921).  

With  regard  to  mainstreaming  in  environmentally-sensitive  sectors,  policy 
dialogue has been successfully used by the  EU  in the  context of SBS sup-
port, by promoting and/or requesting the inclusion of environment indicators 
in the targets and performance criteria for the support. (I-922) 

In  addition,  SEAs  to  inform  sector  policy  reforms  and  strategies  have  been 
introduced,  although  still  limited  in  number.  Applying  SEAs  has,  however, 
proved  difficult  at  PPP  level  and in the field,  in as much as  these tools  are 
not fully  integrated and mainstreamed into the programming process at na-
tional  policy  level,  and  less  so  at  corresponding  institutional  levels.  Policy 
dialogue, supported  by  national  environmental  legislation, has certainly lev-
eraged the incorporation of EIA in nearly all development activities within the 
two sectors. (I- 922) 

Actual  implementation  of  intentions  has  often  been  found  to  be  lacking  or 
lagging  behind  where  environmental  concerns  have  been  included  as  add-
ons to the core purposes of projects and programmes. For example, it is the 
obligation  of  the  contractors  for  road  construction  (e.g.  in  Transport  Sector 
Support Programme in Ghana) to develop and implement an Environmental 
Management Plan (EMP) to govern the  work in the field,  but expertise  was 
lacking,  or  in  place  very  late  in  the  process.  The  EMP  was  presented  only 
after being requested by several interim audits. (I-922) 

Monitoring of EIA mitigation measures are stated clearly as intentions in in-
frastructure  projects.  A  limitation  for  appropriate  monitoring  is  that  contrac-
tors are responsible for most of the monitoring and implementation of activi-
ties,  including  the  implementation  of  environmental  mitigation  measures  at 
project  level.  For  example,  while  Ghana’s  biannual  audits  of  the  Tarkwa-
Bogoso-Ayamfuri road construction indicate that previous recommendations 
are followed up upon, a Monitoring Report in 2013 found that good environ-
mental practices were not shown in the construction of a road, and that the 
mitigation  plan  was  not  fully  operational.  In  the  agriculture  and  rural  devel-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Sector Budget Support 
only partially paved 
the way for  
mainstreaming. 

88 

opment  sector,  indicators  are  related  to  the  programme  results,  rather  than 
monitoring  compliance  with  EIA  mitigation  measures,  and  thus  part  of  the 
outputs of the projects. (I-922) 

Once support is completed, it is the responsibility of the national authorities 
to ensure that the project continues to comply with requirements. (I-922) 

Overall,  EU  policy  dialogue  accompanying  SBS  (Bolivia,  Ukraine,  Egypt, 
Rwanda) has yielded mixed results in terms of enhancing the inclusion, into 
policy  matrices,  of  (measurable)  environmental  and  climate  change  indica-
tors  reinforcing  the  government’s  intentions  for  mainstreaming  environment 
and  climate  change  into  all  policy  areas.  In  Bolivia,  the  Government  has 
been  positive  towards  incorporation  of  environmental  targets  and  perfor-
mance  criteria,  but  has  some  difficulties  in  meeting  the  targets  concerning 
human resources for implementation. In Egypt, policy dialogue and TA have 
been  successful  in  supporting  the  country  to  implement  many  far-reaching 
reforms.  In  Ukraine,  the  objectives  have  not  been  achieved,  and  main-
streaming  remains  weak.  In  Rwanda,  the  PEI  provided  an  important  contri-
bution to the Government’s mainstreaming agenda.  

The level of awareness and priority given to mainstreaming environment and 
climate in the two selected sectors seems to vary a great deal, depending on 
how the national decision-makers actually integrate the concerns raised and 
supported  by  the  EU.  The  case  of  Egypt  shows  that  promoting  the  main-
streaming of environment and climate change even  where  national authori-
ties are not highly supportive at the political level can  produce results, as it 
increases the technical capacity and state of readiness for situations where 
windows of opportunities might arise – for example, favourable policy shifts. 
(I-923) 

SEA processes were 
useful for awareness 
raising and commit-
ment.  

From various reviews and evaluations of the implementation of programmes 
and  projects,  it  is  evident  that  mainstreaming  requires  much  greater  effort 
and  national  commitment  and,  in  particular,  mechanisms  in  order  to  over-
come sectoral barriers between agencies (e.g. Ukraine and Kenya). 

Analysis of SEAs developed in the sample countries (Ghana, Rwanda, Ken-
ya,  Egypt)  shows  that  the  process  of  developing  the  SEA  in  general  has 
raised  awareness  among  decision-makers  and  the  public.  In  particular,  the 
SEA  process  in  Rwanda  identified  environmental  safeguards  in  broad  con-
sultation with stakeholders, and was able to secure financing for their imple-
mentation.  

The level of awareness and priority given to mainstreaming environment and 
climate into the two selected sectors seems, however, to vary a great deal, 
depending  on  how  the  national  decision-makers  actually  integrate  the  con-
cerns raised and supported by the EU. (I-923) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
6.10  EQ10: Complementarity 

89 

To what extent has EU used its available instruments in a 
way that enhances complementarity in support of the 
overall EU goals of a healthy environment, sound natural 
resource management and strong environmental and  
climate governance in developing countries? 

xx 

Rationale and coverage of the question  

Judgement Criteria 

Indicators 

This question evaluates the extent to which 
there has been a synergy and complementari-
ty between environment support funded under 
geographic instruments (usually where envi-
ronment/climate change is a focal sector) and 
the ENRTP. It also considers synergy and 
complementarity between EU support and that 
of other donors, including EU member states. 

This question is articulated through three 
judgement criteria and a number of indicators, 
as shown in the figure on the right, with  
detailed reporting in Volume 2. 

Summary answer to the Evaluation Question 

The original intention of the ENRTP was to deal with important environment and climate change is-
sues that could not be adequately covered by geographic instruments, due to their global dimension 
and the fact that the priority given to environment by governments is often not very high. ENRTP was 
thus established as a complementary tool to the geographic instruments, which provided support to 
global environmental governance processes and to international organisations (such as UNEP), in line 
with the EU’s policy objectives − unlike geographic instruments, which have a geographically delineat-
ed scope. Other distinct features of ENRTP was that it supported civil society organisations, engaged 
in emerging environmental themes and tested innovative approaches that were not necessarily de-
fined as support areas under the country programmes, which mainly focus on supporting partner gov-
ernments and take into account in their national priorities.  

Key points: 

  ENRTP provided the EU with an instrument to engage in global environment and climate change 
issues in a coherent and comprehensive manner. This could not have been done with geographic 
instruments alone, as they are not adequately suited to tackling issues at the global level, For 
example, ENRTP enabled the strategic funding for global processes and global programmes, 
which geographic instruments could only have funded in a fragmented manner, if at all. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
90 

  ENRTP funded regional and national level actions – some of which allowed the testing of 

innovations that would have been difficult to cover under geographic instruments. Content-wise, 
other actions could in principle have been financed through the geographic instruments – if the 
country strategy provided the necessary provisions for engagement in such environmental actions, 
which was not always the case. Synergies and benefits were obtained between a number of 
ENRTP and geographic actions, and between ENRTP and the actions of other donors, but there 
were also a number of examples of potential synergies not being fully taken advantage of. 
Synergies were mainly obtained when: a) EUDs were actively involved in the actions (e.g. GCCA, 
FLEGT); b) when there was a shared thematic/topical focus of country programmes and ENRTP. 
On the other hand, limited involvement of the EUDs often posed a limitation to ensuring synergies 
with both geographic programmes and the interventions of other donors. 

  ENRTP enabled the EU to address environmental issues in countries where the country strategies 
did not make provisions for geographical instruments to do so − albeit at a significantly lower scale 
than would have been possible had environment been a focal sector. This use was not in line with 
the objectives of ENRTP, which were to support innovation and global processes, but not to 
function as a stop-gap for country programmes; 

  Limited involvement of Delegations in ENRTP restricted the ability to achieve synergies and 

complementarity between ENRTP and geographic instruments, as well as actions of other donors. 

  Given the often global or innovative nature of many ENRTP actions, ENRTP more often provided 

benefits for geographic actions or actions of other donors than vice-versa. 

6.10.1  ENRTP  enabled  the  EU  to  address  environment  and  climate  change  issues,  which 
could  not  have  been  fully  addressed  through  its  geographical  instruments,  or  which 
were outside the scope of the Country Strategies for some countries (JC101)  

ENRTP enabled the 
EU to address  
challenges in coherent 
and strategic manner. 

The rationale for having a thematic programme on environment and climate 
change  is  that  it  enables  the  EU  to  respond  to  issues  that  cannot  be  re-
sponded  to  through  the  geographic  instruments  −  which  are  the  primary 
funding mechanisms and backbone of EU development assistance. The jus-
tification and need for a thematic programme is that environment and climate 
change  are  global  issues,  with  impacts  reaching  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
national  states.  This  was  reflected  to  a  large  extent  in  the  actions  financed 
through ENRTP, which differed from the funding provided through geograph-
ic instruments in a number of ways. 

The  key  implementing  partners  were  international  entities,  especially  UN 
agencies,  but  also  the  World  Bank,  international  NGOs  and  other  interna-
tional institutions. The primary partners for the geographical instruments are 
national governments. (I-1011) 

Of  the  ENRTP  funding  allocations,  54%  were  directed  towards  global  level 
initiatives,  17%  to  regional  initiatives,  and  only  29%  allocated  to  national-
level actions. Under the geographic instruments, most environmental funding 
is  allocated  to  the  national  level.  (I-1011)  Many  actions  under  ENRTP  fell 
outside the scope of the geographic instruments, with support for:  

 

International  environment  and 
strengthening MEA processes.  

climate  governance,  especially 

  Multilateral global thematic programmes (e.g. UNEP). 

  EU-initiated  global  and  regional  thematic  initiatives  (including  GCCA, 

GEEREF, EUWI). 

  Development of new approaches and innovations (e.g. FLEGT labelling 

and tracking of legal tropical timber for export to the EU market).  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Some ENRTP actions 
enabled innovative 
approaches; geo-
graphic instruments 
could have financed 
others. 

ENRTP enabled the 
EU to address  
environment in  
countries where  
country strategies did 
not allow geographical 
instruments to do so. 

91 

These  actions  could  not  have  been  financed  through  geographic  instru-
ments,  or  could  at  the  very  best  have  been  only  partially  funded  in  a  frag-
mented  manner  on  a  country-by-country  or  regional  basis,  without  support 
for  global  elements  and  functions.  Hence,  ENRTP  has  enabled  the  EU  to 
provide coherent support for global thematic actions. It has also provided the 
flexibility  to  respond  to  emerging  issues  and  changing  circumstances.  (I-
1011) 

At regional level, ENRTP funding has engaged in actions where the benefits 
reach beyond the region of implementation, such as climate change and bi-
odiversity actions in the ENP region. (I-1011) 

The extent to which ENRTP financed interventions at the regional and coun-
try  levels  differ  from  those  that  can  be  implemented  under  geographic  in-
strument  appears  mixed.  (I-1011)  Content-wise,  a  number  of  country-level 
actions  could  have  been  funded  by  geographic  instruments  (e.g.  GCCA 
support  for  land  regularisation  in  Rwanda).  And  the  2009  MTR  of  ENRTP 
found that there  was a common perception  of ENRTP as  an  instrument for 
compensating  for  the  absence  of  environmental  focus  in  geographic  pro-
grammes. The review suggested that this  perception  should be changed  in 
order  to  achieve  a  better  subsidiarity  between  ENRTP  and  geographic  in-
struments.  Similarly,  regional  environmental  actions  were  funded  both 
through ENRTP and geographic instruments, seemingly without a clear defi-
nition  of  when  a  given  instrument  should  be  used.  Nonetheless,  ENRTP 
funding also enabled the testing of innovative approaches − for example, in 
relation to testing systems for payment for environmental services in Bolivia. 
(I-1011) 

With only 22% of the partner countries having environment as a focal sector, 
in  practical  terms  it  was  not,  or  only  to  a  limited  extent,  possible  in  many 
countries to finance environment actions under the geographic instruments, 
given that the ability to provide support to a sector in a country is determined 
by  EU’s  country  strategy.  In  these  countries,  ENRTP  allowed  for  the  en-
gagement  in  environment  projects,  which  would  otherwise  not  have  been 
possible, although budget limitation did not allow for ENRTP to fully make up 
for  the  lack  of  geographical  funding.  Therefore,  the  complementarity  in  this 
regard  was  only  partial  –  on  average,  the  ENRTP  support  per  receiving 
country  was  EUR  3.8  million,  whereas  countries  receiving  environmental 
support from geographic instruments on average received EUR 17.6 million. 
The use of ENRTP to substitute geographic funding raised the dilemma of to 
what extent ENRTP should focus on tackling global issues or on responding 
to local needs. (I-1012) 

ENRTP calls for proposal enabled support for local projects implemented by 
non-state  actors,  and  thereby  provided  access  to  EU  funds  for  local  stake-
holders  with  otherwise  poor  access  to  EU  funds  –  for  example,  where  the 
support  was  mainly  provided  as  budget  support  for  government,  or  where 
actions addressed issues that were not prioritised by governments. (I-1011) 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

6.10.2  Environment and climate change interventions financed by ENRTP and geographic in-
struments have benefited from/complemented each other, but not always to the full po-
tential (JC102) 

92 

Limited Delegation 
involvement in ENRTP 
restricted the potential 
to achieve synergies 
between ENRTP  
and geographic 
 instruments. 

In general, the involvement of EUDs in ENRTP was limited. This is not sur-
prising, considering the global nature/focus of the majority of ENRTP actions 
and  the  extensive  use  of  international  agencies.  The  active  involvement  of 
EUDs in ENRTP was mainly related to: a) FLEGT; b) GCCA; c) calls for pro-
posals  (Ghana,  Kenya,  Rwanda). While  EUDs  were  involved  in  the  project 
selection  under  the  ENRTP  calls  for  proposals,  synergies  with  the  country 
programme were not among the assessment/selection criteria. Some EUDs 
reported that this meant that actions that would have strengthened the deliv-
ery of the country programme were not selected for support (Kenya, Ghana). 
(I-1022) 

The often low level of awareness among EUDs and implementers at country 
level  of  the  EU  contribution  through  ENRTP  to  a  given  global  programme 
(e.g.  PEI)  also  posed  limitations  to  exploring  opportunities  for  synergies.  (I-
1022) One example of potential synergies not being fully utilised is the sup-
port  ENRTP  provided  to  UNEP  and  UNEP-administered  MEA  secretariats 
for  the  implementation  of  global  or  regional  training:  Participants  in  work-
shops  or  trained  related  to,  for  example,  UNFCCC  or  CITES  would  some-
times return to institutions that do not have adequate capacity to provide an 
enabling  environment  for  the  trained  person  to  put  the  skills  obtained  into 
practice.  In  such  situations,  national-level  institutional  capacity-building 
through geographic instruments could have helped alleviate this bottleneck. 

Synergies between 
ENRTP and  
geographic actions 
were mainly obtained 
where there  
was a shared 
 thematic/topical focus. 

The EUDs consulted had mixed opinions on the influence of ENRTP on ge-
ographic  actions.  This  confirms  the  tendency  observed  from  the  field  visits 
that the contribution of ENRTP varied significantly from country to country. In 
many  countries,  the  scope  for  complementarity  was  limited  due  to  different 
thematic focuses of ENRTP and the country programme (in countries where 
environment is not an EC focal nor a non-focal sector). Moreover, the direct 
presence of ENRTP-funded actions is limited in a number of countries. Syn-
ergies were more widely obtained in countries where the country programme 
had a focus on environment (e.g. Bolivia, DRC). (I-1022) 

Synergies and benefits 
were obtained  
between a number  
of ENRTP and  
geographic actions – 
even if not to the full 
potential. 

The evaluation team did identify a number of actions where synergies were 
achieved between ENRTP and geographic instruments. The most prominent 
example of strategic use of ENRTP and geographic instruments to achieve 
synergies  and  mutual  strengthening  is  the  FLEGT  programme.  In  this  pro-
gramme, ENRTP-funded actions focused on the global level, capacity build-
ing,  support  for  civil  society  involvement  and  transparency,  whereas  geo-
graphic  instruments  have  been  used  to  finance  support  to  partner  govern-
ments  for  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  voluntary  partner  agree-
ments (VPAs) at national level. An early finding from the desk phase of the 
FLEGT  evaluation  is  that  “Two  [ENRTP-funded]  FLEGT  support  pro-
grammes  implemented  by  EFI  and  FAO  provide  valuable  technical  and  fi-
nancial  support  in  a  complementary  manner,  responding  to  EC  needs…”. 
There are also a number of other examples of geographic actions benefiting 
from  ENRTP  actions,  including  NGO  projects  implemented  under  the 
ENRTP  calls  for  proposals  informing  country  programmes  (Bolivia),  or 
GCCA-funded actions complementing and reinforcing sector support (Rwan-
da). (I-2021, I-2022) 

Examples  of  ENRTP  actions  benefiting  from  geographic  actions  are  fewer, 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

93 

which is not surprising  because ENRTP as a thematic instrument has a fo-
cus on global actions and testing new approaches and innovations. Howev-
er,  one  example  of  benefits  is  the  SWITCH  programme,  where  the  experi-
ence  and  approaches  of  SWITCH-Asia  on  sustainable  consumption  and 
production  (DCI-ASIE  funded)  are  now  replicated  in  SWITCH-Africa  Green 
(ENRTP-funded and UNEP-implemented). (I-1022) 

While  not  intentional,  the  country  programme  in  Rwanda  and  the  ENRTP-
funded  PEI  achieved  synergies  in  relation  to  the  mainstreaming  of environ-
ment  in  the  agricultural  sectors  –  for  example,  in  relation  to  the  EU-funded 
SEA. (I-1021) 

Overall, the evaluation’s findings are in line with DG DEVCO’s annual activity 
report  for  2013,  which  recognises  that  complementarity  between  thematic 
and  geographic  programmes  is  difficult  to  implement  in  practice.  They  are 
also  in  line  with  the  2000-2013  ROM  Results  Study,  which  found  that  the-
matic and geographic programmes should be more complementary. (I-1021, 
I-1022) 

Programme  
documents and the 
related reporting was 
too generic and  
provided only limited 
guidance in relation to 
complementarity. 

Information regarding complementarity and how ENRTP and geographic ac-
tions  benefit  each  other  is  not  captured  systematically  in  the  programme 
documentation. Information on synergies is often absent or limited to general 
statements about complementarity, without a description of the nature of the 
synergies,  and  even  more  rarely  of  how  well  collaboration  worked  and  the 
results  emanating  from  complementarity  with  other  actions.  This  seems  in 
part to relate to the structure of the available reporting formats, which ask the 
partners to describe how the action builds on previous grants to the partner, 
but not about the wider complementarity with other actions. 

6.10.3  Environment and climate change interventions financed by ENRTP and those financed 
to  some  extent  benefited 

by  EU  Member  States  or  other  donors  have 
from/complemented each other (JC103) 

Limited involvement of 
Delegations in  
ENRTP restricted 
complementarity of 
ENRTP actions  
with actions of  
other donors. 

The  above-mentioned  limited  involvement  of  EUDs  in  ENRTP  has  also  af-
fected  the  extent  to  which  ENRTP  achieved  synergies  with  other  donors  at 
country  level  −  but  not  necessarily  at  global  level,  where  both  ENRTP  and 
other  donors  support  international  institutions.  The  2009  MTR  of  ENRTP 
found  that  the  representation  and  involvement  of  EUDs  in  environment  do-
nor  co-ordination  groups  would  be  a  key  factor  to  ensure  co-ordination  of 
ENRTP  with  other  donors  at  national  level.  However,  Delegations  were 
found not to be − or only to a limited extent − involved in or informed about 
global and regional ENRTP actions. This is still the case. (I-1021, I-1031) 

Complementarity with 
other donors’ actions 
was achieved by 
ENRTP in relation to 
some actions – even if 
not to the full potential. 

Complementarity with actions funded by other donors has been achieved in 
some  cases  −  even  if  not  always  systematically.  One  obvious  synergy  be-
tween ENRTP and actions by other donors is that many ENRTP actions are 
not only funded by EU, but also receive significant financing from other do-
nors, which reduces transaction costs, enhances the delivery and capacity of 
the funded programmes, and generates knowledge and approaches for wid-
er application.  

There are also  examples of complementarity  where ENRTP actions benefit 
from actions funded by other donors, and vice versa:  

A particularly important area where ENRTP support is contributing to laying 
the  foundation  on  which  the  interventions  of  other  donors  can  benefit  is 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

94 

international environment and climate governance, as described under EQ6 
and  EQ7.  For  example,  the  support  for  strengthening  the  UNFCCC 
processes  has  laid  the  foundation  for  climate  actions  at  country  level  by 
generating  knowledge,  developing  approaches  and  tools,  and  facilitating 
global  agreements  and  priorities  on  which  donor  engagement  at  country 
level is based. (I-1031) 

At  project  level,  FLEGT  processes  in  Ghana  and  Liberia  are  supported  by 
actions funded by EU, as well as by other donors, in a co-ordinated manner, 
thereby  creating  significant  synergies.  Hence,  the  FLEGT  experience  with 
complementarity  appears  to  be  best  practice  in  terms  of  joint  and  co-
ordinated  approaches,  and  worthwhile  replicating  in  other  actions  and 
industries.  Moreover,  an  early  finding  from  the  FLEGT  evaluation  is  that 
“FLEGT  and  REDD+  approaches  have,  despite  their  different  objectives, 
been converging and are increasingly seen as complementary and mutually 
reinforcing. The FLEGT Action Plan has clearly added value to the initiatives 
of  individual  MS  by  providing  a  basis  for  action  on  forest  governance  and 
management globally.” However, the FLEGT evaluation also finds that there 
is  still  a  need  for  more  co-ordination  across  initiatives,  and  improved 
collaboration between the EC and member states. (I-1032) 

PEI  in  Tajikistan  and  Bhutan  benefited  from  using  programme  structures 
funded by EU member states (DFID and Danida) for delivery of PEI activities 
− thereby capitalising on their infrastructure and relations with governments, 
while  at 
these  bilateral  programmes  with 
environmental  mainstreaming.  The  linking  of  smaller  thematic  actions  to 
larger  programmes  can  be  an  effective  leverage  for  the  smaller  thematic 
project, as well as its larger host programme. (I-1031) 

time  enriching 

the  same 

The  recent  global  evaluation  of  GCCA  found  that  its  country  actions  in 
general  achieved  significant  synergies  with  actions  of  other  donors.  GCCA 
often  brought  in  new  perspectives,  and  in  return  benefited  from  the  project 
structures and outreach established by other donors. (I-1031, I-1032) 

There  are  also  examples  of  other  donors  building  on,  and  continuing, 
ENRTP results, such as: a) USAID support for coastal forests in Ghana tak-
ing account of the CREMA community-based conservation approach devel-
oped  under  the  ENRTP-funded  Protected  Areas  Development  Project 
(PADP); b) the USAID-funded, UNDP/EC-led project in Kenya, which will be 
a continuation of the ENRTP-funded UNDP LECB project. 

Overall,  there  are  a  number  of  examples  of  complementarity  between 
ENRTP and geographic instruments, as well as actions funded by other do-
nors. However, complementarity has not always been ensured in a strategic 
and  systematic  manner,  and  opportunities  for  synergies  have  not  always 
been fully capitalised on − as illustrated by the mixed degree of contribution 
from ENRTP registered by EUDs. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
7  Overall assessment 

Ten major observations can be made. 

95 

The support has been relevant at country, regional and global 
levels, and has paved the way for increased prioritisation of  
environment and climate change in current programming. 

The  overall  goal  of  the  EU’s  support  to  environment  and  climate  change  is  that  EU’s 
partner countries achieve a healthy environment and sound management of their natu-
ral  resources.  The  “European  Consensus”  on  Development  calls  for  the  EU  to  “lead 
global efforts to curb unsustainable consumption and production patterns. We will as-
sist  developing  countries  in  implementing  the  Multilateral  Environmental  Agreements 
and promote pro-poor environment-related initiatives. The EU reconfirms its determina-
tion  to  combat  climate  change.”  This  would  entail  renewable  natural  resources  being 
managed  sustainably,  so  that  their  integrity  is  maintained  or  even  enhanced  so  they 
can support economic activities and provide environmental services for future genera-
tions.− and that future economic growth is “green”. 

The  policies  designed  to  support  this  goal  are  ambitious,  with  highly  relevant  targets 
aimed  at  enhancing  sustainable  development.  The  support  provided  through  the  the-
matic  programme  and  geographic  instruments  has  contributed  towards  achieving 
those policy goals and targets. The involvement of EU support is highly appropriate as 
the  EU  has  much  to  offer  in  terms  of know-how,  technology  transfer,  citizen  engage-
ment, and the adoption of regulatory frameworks and support initiatives that  increase 
the  incentives  for  sustainable  development.  The  scale  of  the  support  to  environment 
and  climate  change  has  been  a  rather  modest  6%  of  the  total  development  co-
operation  budget.  However,  the  period  2007-2013  has  seen  an  increase  generally  in 
priority given to environment and climate change – and this is, in part, due to the advo-
cacy  and  actions  of  the  EU.  The  NIPs  for  2014-2017,  for  example,  put  considerably 
more emphasis on environment and climate change than the CSPs for 2007-2013. 

Box 8 

Elements  of  success:  Country-led  prioritisation  of  environment  and 
climate change – Egypt  

Context: Egypt is a major recipient of EU development assistance, with the co-operation related 
to infrastructure (energy, water, transport) and, to a lesser extent, agriculture and rural develop-
ment. This enables a thorough evaluation to be made of the success of mainstreaming of envi-
ronment and climate change. The co-operation in Egypt has also used budget support and pro-
ject approach modalities, especially in the water and energy sectors. Egypt is involved in a num-
ber of relevant regional environmental and climate change projects, and also has elements of a 
fragile and conflict-affected state. 
Elements of success: Progress in making the difficult environmentally-related reforms implied by 
the association agreement with Egypt and the NIP was disappointingly slow for many years, and 
came to a halt during the Arab spring democracy uprising of 2011. However, during the following 
years, and especially after in the subsequent revolutions, the new political system recognised 
the gravity of the impending water and energy crisis. It started to prioritise environment and cli-
mate change, and to introduce fundamental reforms that were necessary to enable a transition 
to a green economy − for example, revision of electricity tariffs. These changes have led to sig-
nificant advances in mainstreaming environment and climate change in the support provided for 
the energy, water and transport sectors. At the same time, Egypt has also been contributing 
more to global environmental and climate change governance. 
Support from the EU and other countries combined to create a state of readiness that allowed 
the Egyptian institutions − such as the Electricity Regulatory Authority and the Egyptian Envi-
ronmental Affairs Agency − to respond in a timely and competent way to the new political priori-
tisation for environment and climate change. This was in sharp contrast to the earlier experi-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
96 

ence, in which changes in political prioritization of environment and climate change were often 
wasted because the operational Egyptian institutions on the ground were not ready, and their 
response was often too slow or not sufficiently well considered to take advantage of the political 
change. 
Egyptian partners point to key elements in developing the required readiness to respond to the 
new opportunities: the persistent messages on environment and climate change raised at policy 
dialogue meetings; the introduction and follow-up of environmental and climate change indica-
tors in budget support operations; the provision of significant additional resources through the 
budget support; and, in particular, the provision of highly-competent technical assistance. 
Geographic instruments − using both budget and project support, as well as blending operations 
and regional projects and support through the ENRTP − have all contributed to increasing readi-
ness and ability to react to the new political prioritisation for environment and climate change.  

The combination of thematic and geographic instruments has 
been reasonably effective in reaching the overarching policy 
goals. 

Significant results have been achieved in all the focus areas of support. Within climate 
change  adaptation,  the  GCCA  flagship  initiative  has  built  considerable  capacity  in 
some  of  the  world’s  most  vulnerable  countries. Within  climate  change  mitigation,  the 
progress  has  been  slower  as  it  is  an  evolving  area  of  work  and  highly  dependent  on 
voluntary  co-operation  at  country  level.  Nevertheless,  a  strong  foundation  has  been 
laid for future results. Within sustainable energy, the GEREEF has led to concrete re-
sults,  with  1.9  million  people  now  accessing  clean  and  sustainable  energy  through  a 
highly-leveraged  and  market-based  mechanism.  Biodiversity  has  been  mainstreamed 
into many sector operations, such as agriculture and rural development, and initiatives 
have been  taken to test  and demonstrate  innovative  approaches in conservation and 
protected areas management. The green economy support initiatives started relatively 
late  and, although promising, have not  yet reached  a stage  where results are  visible. 
Although the thematic support has strengthened UNEP, there is still much to be done 
in  implementing  conventions  at  country  level.  Co-ordination  with  geographic  instru-
ments in this respect has not been optimal. Moreover, the support provided for regional 
organisations and for actions at the regional level was limited under ENRTP. Consider-
ing that some major environmental issues are of a regional/transboundary nature and 
can be sensitive issues, such as the sharing of transboundary water resources in water 
scarce contexts (e.g. the Nile Basin and the major rivers in Central Asia), it is rational 
that the EU has chosen to increase the support for regional organisations. 

The added value of the EU support has been in its scale, consistency and coherence 
with  other  support  efforts.  This  has  been  particularly  important  support  for  the  global 
governance  of  environment  and  climate  change  where  EU  support  has  contributed 
strongly to the credibility of these efforts because of the reputational value of EU sup-
port  and  because  the  support  has  been  sufficient  to  create  tangible  benefits  and 
demonstrated results.  However, opportunities to make better use of EU expertise and 
knowhow, and to engage with EU business interests and promote an exchange of civil 
society, have not been fully exploited. 

Mainstreaming has been more effective than in earlier periods, 
but there is still much improvement that can be made. 

For  the  sectors  considered  (infrastructure,  and  agriculture  and  rural  development), 
there has clearly been an improvement in mainstreaming during the period from 2007 
to 2013, as measured by the priority (at the 2007 and the 2014 programming periods) 
given by the EUD  to policy dialogue on environment and climate change,  and the in-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
97 

corporation  of  environmental  and  climate  change  indicators  in  other  sectors.  One  of 
the main factors in improving mainstreaming is the incorporation of mainstreaming into 
the quality support group agenda on the project fiche templates. ENRTP funded lead-
ing mainstreaming initiatives (e.g. PEI), but their approaches have not been adopted in 
the EU bilateral support.  

Box 9 

Elements of success: Partner-led mainstreaming – Rwanda 

Context: EU development co-operation  with Rwanda  focuses on agriculture and rural 
development,  infrastructure  (mainly  transport  in  2008-2013,  and  mainly  energy  in 
2014-2020),  governance,  and  general  budget  support  (2008-2013  only).  While  envi-
ronment was not specified as a focal sector, one of the objectives in 2008-2013 for the 
agriculture and rural development focal sector was related to environmental sustaina-
bility.  Climate  change  was  not  addressed  in  the  CSP,  but  climate  change  adaptation 
was  an  element  of  the  actions  implemented  under  the  Strategic  Plan  for  Agricultural 
Transformation (SPAT), the Sector-Wider Approach for which the EU provided budget 
support.  The  co-operation  in  Rwanda  has  used  both  budget  support  and  project  ap-
proach modalities, and the country is also involved in a number of global and regional 
environmental and climate change projects − some of which are funded by ENRTP. 

Elements of success: Compared with other countries, Rwanda has consistently given 
high priority to environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation, as illustrat-
ed  by  the  requirement  for  integrating  environment  and  climate  change  in  sector  and 
district  development  plans,  with  costed  measures.  However,  while  the  political  com-
mitment is high, there are capacity gaps in relation to implementing the environmental 
aspirations and balancing environmental sustainability with socio-economic priorities − 
such as increasing agricultural production and incomes in a densely-populated country 
with little land and a fragile, hilly environment.  

The support of the EU and other donors has contributed to the improved environmental 
governance framework, and to enhancing the capacity to implement these aspirations. 
Particularly  notable  contributions  from  the  EU  include  support  for  PEI,  which  has:  a) 
contributed  to  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  Government  of  Rwanda’s 
agenda  for  mainstreaming  environment  across  sectors;  b)  demonstrated  the  value  of 
carrying out SEAs in connection with policy and planning processes. The EU initiated 
and funded the first  SEA  in Rwanda and, based  on this experience,  the Government 
has  now  made  SEA  a  requirement  for sector  policy  and  planning.  Moreover,  the  EU, 
together  with  other  donors,  has  supported  the  land  regularisation  process.  Early  evi-
dence suggests that the improved tenure security has led to farmers investing more in 
maintaining the natural resource base and land productivity. 

Geographic  instruments −  using  a mix of general budget support, sector budget sup-
port, and project support −  regional projects and support through the ENRTP have all 
contributed to increasing the readiness and ability of the Government to implement its 
ambitious commitment to achieving sustainable development and green growth. While 
not pursued in a systematic manner, the environmental objective of the support for the 
agricultural sector and the ENRTP support for the PEI reinforced each other in terms of 
promoting environmental integration and mainstreaming in the agriculture sector. 

Global governance actions have been effective and have 
strengthened country commitments, but they need to be com-
plemented by concrete country-level projects. 

The EU support has significantly increased the capacity of UNEP and UNFCCC to op-
erationalise their unique global mandates for supporting countries to implement global 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
98 

conventions  and  agreements  on  environment  and  climate  change.  However,  support 
through  global  mechanisms  cannot  replace  country-level,  project-based  support.  The 
training at high policy level and the capacity development needs to be complemented 
− particularly in the poorer countries − by concrete projects in areas such as protecting 
biodiversity. 

The partner-centric approaches adopted are slow, but promote 
ownership and sustainability. 

Geographic instruments and the thematic programme have  both adopted  approaches 
that  are  likely  to  enhance  sustainability.  Efforts  to  promote  mitigation  of  greenhouse 
gases  have  been  grounded  in  country  priorities.  They  have  taken  the  longer,  slower 
route of securing country ownership and embedding low-emission development strate-
gies in current policy and strategy processes, rather than take a quicker but less sus-
tainable  route  of  publishing  consultant-driven  strategies.  This  strategic  approach  is 
prevalent in virtually all the actions taken to advance environment and climate change. 
This approach has been supported through exchange of best practices and sharing of 
lessons  learnt  that  involve  and  are  driven  by  partners  which  tends  to  internalise  the 
learning and awareness raising. 

Results have been achieved, but more is needed over a long 
time span to create impact. 

Although  there  have  been  significant  results,  the  scale  and  timescale  of  support  has 
not been enough to lead to impacts in terms of reversing negative trends. An example 
is in the area of biodiversity, where new approaches have been piloted and particular 
protected areas have been better conserved, but not to the extent that the overall loss 
of  biodiversity  (habitats/ecosystems  and  species)  has  been  reversed  or  even  signifi-
cantly slowed down. The decline is undoubtedly  less than  would have been the  case 
without  EU  support,  but  before  a  tangible  and  long-lasting  impact  can  be  seen  more 
support  is  needed  −  working  closely  with  others  −  to  stimulate  a  higher  prioritisation 
within developing countries themselves. 

The coherence of the thematic programme has improved from 
phase 1 to phase 2. 

The  coherence  of  the  thematic  programme  significantly  improved  in  moving  from 
phase  1  to  phase  2.  The  thematic  programme  itself  is  now  easier  to  understand  and 
manage.  The  fragmentation  of  projects  has  reduced,  and  longer-term  efforts  have 
been launched that are more likely to have a sustainable impact. Key areas – including 
mitigation,  sustainable  energy,  biodiversity,  and  forestry  −  are  supported  through  a 
combination of improvements in global governance, thematic projects based at region-
al  and  country  levels,  and  country-based  projects  funded  under  geographic  instru-
ments. 

The efficiency of the thematic programme efficiency has 
improved from phase 1 and 2. 

The  recommendations  from  the  first  phase  review  −  to  simplify  the  structure  of  the 
ENRTP, to reduce the scattered calls for proposals,  and to  work more systematically 
through  global  governance  bodies  such  as  UNEP  and  UNFCCC  −  have  been  imple-
mented.  They  have  resulted  in  consistent  and  predictable  support  to  UNEP  and  UN-
FCCC,  which  has  enabled  them  to  carry  out  their  tasks  more  efficiently.  Working 
through  the  global  agencies  has  led  to  a  greater  economy  of  scale  than  would  have 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
 
99 

been possible under EU-launched projects. Given the global governance nature of the 
interventions working through the global agencies, this shift has also been appropriate. 
A drawback has been that the engagement of civil society  and NGOs has been less, 
and  the  EU  visibility  is  also  reduced.  Within  sustainable  energy,  the  high  leverage 
achieved  with  other  sources  of  finance  −  development  finance  and  private  sector  fi-
nance through GEREEF − has been highly efficient, and it seems likely that the full EU 
contribution will be returned (or returnable) with interest. 

The EU’s aim of linking the global policy dialogue with country-level dialogue has had 
mixed  success,  due  to  co-ordination  challenges  between  EU  HQ  and  EUDs,  where 
initiatives are sometimes issued late and come at a time where the Governments have 
already  developed  their  positions  (e.g.  in  relation  to  UNFCCC  COPs).  In  countries 
where the EU bilateral support does not target the environment sector, it has been dif-
ficult for EUDs to engage the relevant Government representatives, due to the lack of 
an  existing  working  relation.  In  some  cases  where  the  policy  dialogue  was  closely 
linked  to  a  programme,  there  was  a  tendency  for  the  dialogue  to  focus  on  the  pro-
gramme, rather than on the broader issues. Awareness of the GDN was generally low 
among the EUDs visited, and the GDN did not appear to have been engaged in sup-
port  of  the  projects,  which  reduced  the  efficiency  of  the  thematic  programme  across 
the  entire  EU  scope  of  action.  However,  there  have  also  been  significant  improve-
ments,  especially  in  terms  of  the  mainstreaming  of  environment  and  climate  change 
across  the  sectors  examined  (infrastructure,  and  agriculture/rural  development).  The 
EUDs’  awareness  of  the  guidelines  is  much  higher  than  the  awareness  of  the  earlier 
Communications  promoting  mainstreaming,  and  the  survey  of  EUDs  shows  a  much 
higher use of the guidelines than of previous mainstreaming guidance. 

The support has been co-ordinated well, and is complementary 
to support from Member States and other donors. 

Although  there  is  room  for  improvement,  the  EU  support  has  been  co-ordinated  well 
and  is  complementary  to  support  from  Member  States  and  other  donors,  as  well  as 
between the thematic and geographic instruments. For example, many of the blending 
projects  within  infrastructure  financed  under  loans  through  EU  Member  State  institu-
tions have been complemented by EU grants that have been used for undertaking im-
provements related to environment and climate change.  However, the full potential of 
co-ordination between thematic and geographic support has not been exploited. Many 
EUDs are unaware of the thematic projects being undertaken in their country − espe-
cially those that are regional in nature. 

The EU support to environment and climate change has evolved 
during 2007-2013 and has formed a strong basis for responding 
to the opportunities and challenges of a new development  
co-operation context. 

The development co-operation landscape changed over the period 2007-2013, and is 
continuing  to  change.  Many  developing  countries  are  moving  from  being  defined  as 
lesser developed to being medium-income countries. At the same, there is also an in-
creasing  number  of  fragile  and  conflict-affected  states.  In  2011,  the  EU  −  as  the 
world’s  largest  donor  −  targeted  40%  of  its  co-operation  assistance  to  fragile  states, 
and in 2013 this figure reached 60%. The contexts of the developing countries are thus 
highly differentiated. In some countries, such as the medium-income countries, current 
and future development co-operation focuses increasingly on global public goods and 
on promoting private sector and market-led development. In others, such as those that 
are fragile and/or in conflicted-affected situations, current and future development co-

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
100 

operation focuses on developing resilience both  to  natural shocks and those that are 
caused or exacerbated by humans − such as droughts and floods. In both cases, prior-
itising environment and climate change in development co-operation will contribute to 
addressing the new opportunities and challenges.  

In  the  medium-income  countries,  the  focus  will  be  on  mitigation  of  GHGs,  and  en-
gagement  of  the  private  sector  in  sustainable  consumption  and  production  and  the 
green  economy.  In  fragile  states,  the  focus  will  be  on  developing  natural  resource 
management  and  conservation  practices  that  can  build  resilience  to  climate  change 
and  natural  disasters,  and  on  the  governance  of  access  to  natural  resources  as  a 
means to reduce the underlying causes of conflict.  

The EU support to environment and climate change during 2007-2013 has provided a 
wealth of information and experience that can be used to respond to these new oppor-
tunities  and  challenges.  Moreover,  EU  support  has  contributed  significantly  to  the 
strengthening of international environmental governance processes − and thereby con-
tributed  to  enhancing  the  ability  of  the  international  community  to  tackle  global  and 
cross-boundary  environmental  issues  and  the  drivers  of  environmental  degradation. 
The  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  that  will  replace  the  Millennium  Devel-
opment Goals (MDGs) emphasise the role of environment and climate change, and the 
need  to  respond  in  a  differentiated  manner.  Goal  2  emphasises  sustainable  agricul-
ture; Goal 3 points to the need for a healthy environment (free from pollution); Goal 6 
focuses on availability of water and access to sanitation; Goal 7 aims at ensuring en-
ergy  for  all;  Goal  11  focuses  on  creating  sustainable  urban  environments;  Goal  12 
promotes sustainable consumption and production; Goal 13 focuses on action to com-
bat  climate  change  and  its  impacts;  Goals  14  and  15  aim  to  conserve  the  world’s 
oceans  and  ecosystems,  forestry  and  biodiversity;  and  Goal  17  aims  to  strengthen 
global partnerships for sustainable development. More than half the SDGs are directly 
related  to  environment  and  climate  change,  whereas  only  one  of  the  previous  MDGs 
was directly related to environment (MDG 7). 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
 
101 

Summary of 10 suggestions, reflections and lessons learned that inform the main conclusions 
and recommendations: 

  Funding global approaches − such as the Poverty Environment Initiative and the Economics of 

Ecosystems and Bio-Diversity − is a valuable contribution, but greater EU visibility and 
incorporation into EU programming should take place to exploit fully and make use of the 
advances. 

  Support to international conventions at global level is important, but more focus is needed on 
country-level implementation. EU project-level support should be more systematically used to 
complement global efforts and to consolidate advances in implementing international conventions. 

  A longer-term approach that focuses on developing ownership, increasing country-led prioritisation 
of environment and climate change, is valuable and necessary for combating climate change, 
reducing the loss of bio-diversity, and ensuring economic and social development that is 
sustainable. At the same time, and even if country-level prioritisation is not evident, it is worthwhile 
promoting a technical and operational readiness for political shifts that are favourable to 
environment and climate change.  

 

Increasing the focus on environment and climate change in development co-operation will respond 
well to the new context and development co-operation landscape.  

  Geographic and thematic interventions at country, regional and global levels are valuable, but they 

need a very high degree of communication and exchange of information if the inherent synergies 
are to be exploited. Active involvement of EUDs in the planning and oversight of thematic 
interventions has proved critical in ensuring that full advantage is taken of potential synergies. 

  A simpler thematic programme, as was the case for phase 2 of the ENTRP (compared to phase 

1), is much easier to understand and implement, and is likely to have more visible results. The 
recently launched thematic programme  on global public goods and challenges, based on the 
findings of this evaluation, is highly appropriate and relevant. Support through a thematic 
programme should be combined with mainstreaming environment and climate change into all EU 
development cooperation where the priorities are decided in a dialogue with the partners. 

  A combination of global governance interventions on environment and climate change, regional 

and country actions, blending with international finance institutions and the promotion of 
mainstreaming, as well as emphasising environment in policy dialogue, will serve to further the 
achievement of the SDGs. These various elements are mutually reinforcing, when planned in an 
integrated manner. 

  Working through international organisations has many advantages, provided that EU visibility is 
respected, the international organisations are used where they have a genuinely unique role or 
mandate, and the EU engages in active monitoring of performance. Ensuring that support for 
international organisations is well co-ordinated with the EU’s bilateral assistance – for example, 
where bilateral support assists countries in implementing agreements, approaches and skills 
obtained from international processes − will further enhance the benefits of supporting 
international organisations. 

  A combination of updated and reader-friendly guidelines, training (both delegations and partners), 

and the use of templates and the Quality Support Group processes are effective in the 
mainstreaming of environment and climate change. 

  There is scope in the new development landscape to integrate environment and climate change 

into current and new instruments, such as the EU Trust Fund, blending, Private Sector 
Development, and the Partnership Instrument. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
 
8  Conclusions 

102 

Four  
clusters of 
conclusions. 

For analytical clarity, we have grouped the conclusions into four clusters: 

  Policy and strategic focus: conclusions 1 to 3. 

  Results and impacts: conclusions 4 to 6. 

  Governance: conclusions 7 to 9.  

  Mainstreaming: conclusions 10 to 11. 
While this evaluation covered the period 2007 to 2013, it should be noted that the Mul-
tiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 provided a significantly increased focus on 
coherence and complementarity of thematic and geographic instruments.  

8.1  Policy framework and strategic focus 

8.1.1  Conclusion  1:  EU  policies  and  strategies  for  environment  and  climate  change  are  ap-

propriate, but fragmented and difficult to access 

EU policies and strategies for environment and climate change are appropriate, but fragmented and 
difficult for EUD staff and others to access. The EU has developed a series of policy statements and 
strategies that have been continuously adjusted and updated. They are highly appropriate and, in 
many respects, at the leading edge, but they are numerous and scattered across many different doc-
uments. There is no one document that summarises or provides an overview of the complex arena of 
environment and climate change. EUD staff, and especially others outside the EU staff, find it difficult 
to access, refer to and make use of the guidance provided. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 1, 5 and 8 

The EU has a comprehensive and appropriate policy framework in relation to environment and climate 
change that has evolved over time and is, in many respects, at the forefront of international practice. 
The policy framework has gradually become more ambitious and more specific in its guidance. EU 
policies, for example, addressed sustainable consumption and production issues before the SCP con-
cept became prominent. On the other hand, what comprises SCP and green economy is less clearly 
defined than for other environment/climate change support themes. This has led to different interpreta-
tions and applications in assisted countries, although these variations also reflect responsiveness to 
different country needs and stages of development. 

EU policies not only promote environmental mainstreaming at sector level, they also explicitly demand 
that environmental considerations are integrated and addressed in all sectors. EU policies are also 
supportive of MEAs and of MDG 7 on environment. The focus on climate change in EU policies has 
significantly increased over time.  

However, these policies are numerous. Policy analysis revealed that, in the period 2001-2013, more 
than 40 policies, Council Conclusions and Commission Communications addressing a range of envi-
ronmental issues and/or climate change were issued. A clear overview of the EU’s environment and 
climate change policy positions is lacking, not least since there is not a single policy that comprehen-
sively captures the EU’s position on all environmental aspects. Climate and environment are institu-
tionally cross-cutting, and the policy framework is not communicated clearly enough to ensure coher-
ence across the various different entities involved at head office and in the field. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

103 

8.1.2  Conclusion  2:  The  EU  policy-level  influence  on  environment  and  climate  change  has 

been considerable, but has not yet reached its full potential  

Through a combination of direct policy support actions, the use of indicators related to environment 
and climate change in budget and project support, and policy dialogue, the EU focus on sustainable 
development substantially increased in the period 2007 to 2013. However, the full potential has not 
been reached, and there is still considerable scope for increasing policy influence. Close to half of the 
Delegations surveyed40 report that environment and climate change still does not feature strongly in 
their interaction with national partners. Moreover, opportunities have not been fully exploited to make 
greater use of indicators in budget support and to strengthen the linkages between country-level and 
global dialogue. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 1, 2, 4 and 9 

The EU support to third countries increasingly recognises the importance of sustainable development 
in achieving economic growth and poverty reduction, as well as promoting peace and security. This 
position has, over time, translated into an increasingly strong policy dialogue on environment and cli-
mate change – as illustrated, for example, by survey responses from Delegations on the evolution 
from 2007 to 2013. Of the total respondents, 31% indicated that the policy dialogue on environment 
and climate change was of a good quality in 2007, whereas 69% indicated that this was the case in 
2013. Moreover, 55% of the Delegations indicated that the EU had made a high contribution to ensur-
ing that environment was covered in national development strategies through policy dialogue and pro-
gramme support, whereas 45% indicated a low contribution. Delegations also report a significantly in-
creased presence of environment and climate change in non-environment sector policy dialogues. 
With regard to the agriculture, rural development, infrastructure (energy, water) sectors, more than 
50% of the responding Delegations reported a high level of integration of environment and climate 
change in the sector dialogue in 2013. However, the above figures also show that, in almost half of the 
partner countries, there is scope for enhancing the dialogue and policy-related support in relation to 
environment. Moreover, the majority of Delegations still report that environment and climate change 
do not figure significantly in the dialogue related to transport infrastructure. In the case study countries 
examined, environmental indicators were systematically included and reported on in relation to sector 
budget support. The EU engages in environment policy dialogue processes at both national and global 
levels (e.g. in relation to global agreements), and it attempts to link the two levels with, for example, 
demarches for Delegations to gather information about national positions, present EU positions to 
partner governments, and find shared positions. However, in practice, the co-ordination is not suffi-
ciently strong to ensure an effective link. For example, it is often very difficult for Delegations to en-
gage government institutions responsible for environmental governance, if these are not the Delega-
tions’ normal country programme partners. 

8.1.3  Conclusion  3:  By  supporting  environment  and  climate  change,  even  where  the  initial 
response of national partners is weak, the EU support has been able in some countries 
to promote and build up a readiness to respond to change 

Even where the initial response of national partners has been weak and the context unfavourable, the 
EU support to environment and climate change policy has often had a constructive effect. By sending 
consistent messages on the importance of environment and climate change, supporting more in-
formed decision-making through studies, promoting institutional reforms and building up a technical 
level of readiness and a capacity to respond, the EU has ensured that national partners are more like-
ly to promote changes in the political and institutional context that are favourable to environment and 
climate change. Such support has also put the relevant institutions in a better position to respond 
when change does occur. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9 

40 30 out of 35 EUDs targeted by the survey replied 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

                                                      
104 

Where the policy and political environment for integrating environment and climate change into devel-
opment is unfavourable, it is difficult for the EU to promote and support such integration. Ironically, it is 
often in such situations that support is most needed.  

Where, despite unfavourable circumstances, the EU working with other donors has continued to pro-
vide consistent assistance, the support has helped to trigger change. Even where the support itself 
has not been a prime driver of change, it has served to create a technical and policy readiness to re-
spond to political change. In Egypt, for example, environment and especially climate change were not 
high on the national agenda at the start of the 2007-2013 period. However, due to the energy and wa-
ter crisis and to the desire of the new government to engage in international governance, there was a 
sudden change in political willingness. Information from studies, awareness-raising, capacity-building 
and systems built up through the EU support in the energy and water sectors in Egypt meant that 
these sectors were well placed to take advantage of the new opportunities and political signals. In Bo-
livia, a highly-fragmented institutional set-up threatened long-term support to Integrated Water Re-
sources Management. However, the EU did not withdraw from supporting the important concept of 
integration, and this investment was later rewarded when the government undertook institutional re-
forms, formed a coherent ministry to deal with water and environment issues, and promoted a territori-
al approach to watershed management.  Although the evaluation found this effect most strongly in a 
medium income country (Egypt), there is still as the case of Bolivia shows a potential for the same ef-
fect in lesser developed countries.  

There is, of course, no guarantee that changes will occur. Where the right policies are in place, but 
only lip service is paid to implementing them, the task of promoting environment and climate change is 
often even more difficult − as the case of Ghana and Kenya to some extent shows. However, there are 
an encouraging number of cases where the EU’s consistent and coherent support for sustainable de-
velopment policies and practices has been able to create a readiness to respond when the political 
situation becomes more favourable. 

8.2  Results and impacts 

8.2.1  Conclusion  4:  EU  support  has  led  to  results  across  the  environment  and  climate 
change sector, but there is still a long way to go before this will lead to transformative 
change and to reversing declining trends  

The EU support has led to important results within biodiversity conservation, use of sustainable ener-
gy, mitigation of greenhouse gases, improved adaptation, management of natural resources, control of 
pollution, and the promotion of sustainable consumption and production. However, the scale of the 
support − even though the thematic EU support has been largely harmonised with global effort − has 
not been sufficient to reverse declining trends and to combat the strength of forces working against 
sustainable development. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ2, 3, 4 and 5 

EU support has made a very significant contribution to dialogue on environment and climate change, 
including exchanges on good practice between countries, regions and the EU. In most cases, the 
grants provided fulfilled a useful purpose in promoting and supporting policy debate on environment 
and climate change, and in a number of instances they have helped raise the priority of environment 
and climate change on the political agenda. 

Despite the important contribution and results arising from the EU support, the recently released 
Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 Report (GBO 4) confirms that efforts in all fields are still insufficient to 
reach sustainable development and reverse the trends of degradation of natural resources.  

The main impact has been created at localised levels, involving the local authorities and communities, 
but all these efforts have failed to lead to measurable transformative change at national and global 
levels. One of the main reasons for this is the failure − despite attempts being made − to address ade-
quately the underlying causes of environmental degradation: population pressure, inequity, poverty, 
consumption and production patterns, market failure, and corresponding institutional weaknesses. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

105 

8.2.2  Conclusion  5:  Where  the  EU  has  promoted  market-based  approaches  on  a  pilot  basis 
there  have  been  encouraging  results,  but  access  to  finance  has  proved  a  major  chal-
lenge for scaling-up 

Access to sustainable energy and the promotion of the green economy through sustainable consump-
tion and production has been promising at the pilot level, and has, in some cases, also resulted in en-
couraging levels of replication. However, securing access to finance has proved a major challenge. 
The EU initiative to set up a risk capital facility for sustainable energy has led to significant results, 
which indicates the benefit of promoting dedicated, market-based and innovative approaches. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ3 and 5 

Grants for the establishment of pilot projects have been a central element of a number of EU support 
programmes in the areas of renewable energy and sustainable consumption and production. These 
have complemented assistance at policy level by providing concrete examples of how SCP and re-
newable energy projects can work in practice. Such pilot projects have the effect of raising practical 
awareness of the potential format and benefits of green economy and renewable energy actions 
among the local partners who have been directly involved in the projects. They have been particularly 
useful in demonstrating what SCP/GE entails in concrete terms, and the projects have tested and 
demonstrated a wide range of applications. However, survival of supported projects following end of 
funding, and the scaling-up and spreading of successful concepts to other businesses, has been 
hampered by a continuing lack of access to affordable finance. Within the field of renewable energy, 
lack of access to funding for small-scale projects is caused by a perception of high investment risk. 
This is partially a result of the high upfront costs and long payback periods, but also because of an 
over-reliance on subsidies, which have encouraged low-quality investment. The GEEREF project has 
reduced this risk by robustly demonstrating that returns can be made in small renewables in develop-
ing countries if innovative approaches to development and investment are adopted. 

8.2.3  Conclusion 6: The thematic and geographic instruments have been complementary and 
have  created  results,  but  advantage  has  not  always  been  taken  of  opportunities  for 
synergy 

The combination of ENRTP and geographic instruments enabled the EU to engage in a relevant and 
substantial manner at global, regional and country levels. This has led to results, but full advantage of 
opportunities has not always been taken, due to a limited involvement of EUDs in the design and im-
plementation of many ENRTP actions. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 9 and 10 

ENRTP provided significant support to global programmes and international entities (especially UN 
agencies), which enabled the EU to engage systematically in global and trans-boundary environmen-
tal issues, such as climate change, in a coherent and strategic manner. This has also promoted inter-
regional and cross-country learning. Geographic instruments, in turn, enabled nationally-owned and 
comprehensive engagement at national and regional levels, particularly when environment and/or cli-
mate change were a focal sector. 

The evaluation came across a number of examples of synergies between actions funded by ENRTP 
and those funded geographic instruments. The most notable example of comprehensive synergies 
and mutual strengthening obtained in a structured manner is the FLEGT process. In this, the combina-
tion of geographic instruments finance support for governments and the ENRTP funding of global ca-
pacity support and support for civil society constituted a comprehensive approach to forest govern-
ance. In other cases, opportunities for synergies were not fully or systematically taken advantage of, 
although the Unified Action Document Template requires that potential synergies are considered and 
described in the programme design. For example, ENRTP funded the UNDP-UNEP Poverty-
Environment Initiative (PEI), which is a leader on environmental mainstreaming, but PEI country pro-
jects are often not connected to EU country programmes − even if these try to promote mainstream-
ing. The low involvement of EUDs in ENRTP poses a limitation for the systematic pursuit of synergies.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

For example, Delegations are not always fully aware of which programmes ENRTP supports in their 
country – and most of the strongest examples of synergies are related to those actions where Delega-
tions play an active role in the design and implementation, such as FLEGT and GCCA. 

106 

8.3  Environment and climate change governance 

Environment  and  climate  change  governance  was  one  of  the  main  focus  areas  for  this  evaluation. 
These conclusions point to the extent to which results have been achieved in this area. 

8.3.1  Conclusion 7: The scale and consistency of EU support to global governance of envi-
ronment  and  climate  change  has  strongly  contributed  to  progress  towards  reaching 
global agreements, and strengthening the implementation of such agreements 

The consistent EU support for global environment and climate change governance has been an im-
portant contribution to strengthening the capacity of developing countries to participate effectively in 
the negotiations, and to implement their outcomes. The scale and consistency has meant that the in-
ternational organisations assisting developing countries to take an active role in global governance 
have been able to plan on the basis of a longer-term and more consistent framework, which has con-
tributed to creating cumulative capacity development. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 2, 6, 7 and 10 

The EU is strongly committed to multilateralism and reaching strong international environmental and 
climate related agreements − and, not least, ensuring that these agreements are implemented. Thus, 
the EU has prioritised supporting the multilateral institution established for international environmental 
and climate change governance. In this light, it is not surprising that the EU has been a particularly 
important partner for enabling international institutions, with a central role in relation to global environ-
mental and climate change governance to implement effectively their mandates. Most notably, this 
applies to UNEP as the key normative multilateral environmental agency, as well as MEA secretariats 
for the most important MEAs (e.g. the UNFCCC Secretariat, the CBD Secretariat, and the Secretariat 
for the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions), but also for other international entities, such as 
UNDP. This, in turn, has led to significant capacity development results – for example, developing 
countries such as Egypt are taking a more active role in leading regional groups in climate change ne-
gotiations. The reason that these global institutions view the EU as a key partner that enhanced their 
ability to implement their global mandates is explained by: a) the scale of support, where the EU is 
usually one of the biggest, if not the biggest, of the donors; b) the consistency and reliability of EU 
support, which allows for planning and engagement in actions and processes that run over a number 
of years. Due to these factors, EU support has been a major contributor to facilitating/strengthening 
global governance processes, not least because the support accompanied a proactive engagement 
and ambitious commitments of EU in global negotiations. This applies, for example, in relation to pro-
moting binding agreements and commitments in terms of: a) reducing the EU’s GHG emissions; b) 
doubling its support for biodiversity conservation. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

107 

8.3.2  Conclusion  8:  EU  support  to  UNEP  and  MEA  Secretariats  has  led  to  greater  effective-
ness and coherence in the international efforts to support MEA implementation, but the 
results in terms of implementation of conventions at country level is still lagging, par-
ticularly for biodiversity 

The gradual increase in EU support to UNEP and MEA Secretariats has contributed to more effective 
implementation of their mandates and functions in order to achieve agreed international environmental 
goals and priorities. Furthermore, EU support has significantly contributed to achieving synergies and 
co-ordinated work between MEAs within the clusters of biodiversity and chemicals & wastes. Howev-
er, the potential for synergies between global environmental governance support and country pro-
grammes has not been fully capitalised on in terms of ensuring that the enabling environment is in 
place at national level for the implementation of MEA provisions. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 4 and 6 

EU support for UNEP and MEA Secretariats has strengthened their ability to fulfil their mandates, as 
defined by the UN General Assembly and the COPs. Moreover, EU support has contributed to im-
provements in their efficiency by supporting the introduction of result-based planning and monitoring of 
activities. Nonetheless, implementation of MEAs at national levels is very limited, despite extensive 
training and capacity development activities provided through UNEP and MEA Secretariats. Many of 
the sample countries have said that the lack of follow-up interventions (lack of funding) at national lev-
el is one of the key limitations for being able to transform knowledge and capacity into actions. Ad-
dressing these constraints is beyond the reach and mandates of UNEP and the MEA Secretariats, and 
hinges on support provide through other channels. However, the link and co-ordination between ac-
tions under geographic instruments and the global or regional training programmes provided by UNEP 
and UNEP administered MEA secretariats is very limited. Therefore, potential synergies that could en-
hance MEA implementation have not been fully utilised. People trained by UNEP or MEA Secretariats 
would sometimes return to institutions that do not have adequate capacity to provide an enabling envi-
ronment for the newly-acquired skills to be put into practice. National-level institutional capacity-
building through geographic instruments has not helped to alleviate this bottleneck. 

8.3.3  Conclusion 9: By working through international  organisations, the EU has contributed 
to  greater  effectiveness  and  coherence  in  addressing  global  public  goods  and  chal-
lenges in the field of environment and climate change – where the international organi-
sations have a global mandate that is credible and a high level of performance.  

The strategy of working through already established international programmes − such as those of 
UNEP, UNDP, the World Bank, OECD, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Local 
Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) − has led to greater coherence and has reduced the danger of 
proliferating different approaches than would probably have been the case with the alternative of set-
ting up new EU-led projects. For example, developing countries are approached from all angles by 
support efforts for MRV, NAMA and LEDS, and there is an acute danger of confusing methodologies 
and incompatible databases and processes being set up. If not harmonised and -co-ordinated well, 
this could lead to duplication, waste of resources, and a lowering of capacity in the countries. Attempts 
to establish a global co-ordination have not yet met with success. However, the EU approach of work-
ing through global organisations has considerably helped in reducing the overlap, and in strengthening 
national-level co-ordination. A global approach to a global problem has shown itself to be more credi-
ble and more likely to lead to voluntary adoption of climate change mitigation and environmental tar-
gets. However, it is crucial that the global mandate of the relevant organisation is credible and its per-
formance high. The findings indicate that monitoring of fulfilment of visibility requirements and perfor-
mance levels are essential factors in working effectively through international organisations. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 2, 6, 7 and 10 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

108 

Environment and climate change are often placed in a highly-fragmented institutional setting, which 
makes it difficult to provide coherent support. Most actions aimed at improving environment and cli-
mate change are also long-term, which calls for consistent and cumulative support. With many donors 
interested in supporting environment and climate change, there is a tendency for highly piecemeal as-
sistance that has little prospect of leading to consolidated results. Many minor projects are also time-
consuming, overlap and increase the transactions costs of the recipient countries. By harmonising its 
support through international agencies, the EU has significantly reduced the transaction costs, and 
has increased coherence of its support efforts. 

By working through agencies that have a global governance mechanism, but which are not involved 
directly in international negotiations, the EU support to potentially sensitive areas − such as mitigating 
GHG emissions and sharing data − has gained credibility and a reputation for neutrality. Working 
through such agencies has delinked technical support and capacity-building from the more politically-
charged negotiation forums, and has allowed a considerable degree of expertise to build up to allow 
well-informed national decisions.  

In some cases, working through international agencies has reduced the visibility of the EU assistance, 
even if all visibility rules were followed. There is also a drawback that the link to potentially useful and 
transformative EU policies, systems and technology know-how has not been optimised because the 
international agencies are not familiar with what the EU and Member States can offer. 

8.4  Mainstreaming 

8.4.1  Conclusion 10: There has been significant progress in mainstreaming environment and 
climate  change  in  EU  support  to  sectors  such  as  infrastructure  and  agriculture/rural 
development, especially where there is national ownership 

EU support has contributed to an increased focus on mainstreaming environment and climate change 
at national policy level in “environmentally sensitive sectors” in partner countries. However, there is 
still a gap between policy/ strategies and actual implementation. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 5, 8, 9 and 10 

In line with its policy objectives related to mainstreaming of environment and climate change in its de-
velopment co-operation, and to promoting a green economy, the EU has significantly increased its ca-
pacity and developed solid approaches to ensure that environmental considerations are addressed. 
As a result, EUDs have increasingly engaged in mainstreaming in the agriculture/rural development 
sector and in the infrastructure sector − although more strategically so in relation to energy than to the 
transport infrastructure. An example of this change is the increased and more strategic use of SEAs – 
such as in Rwanda, where an SEA of the agriculture sector inspired the government to make it a legal 
requirement. An SEA is an important input for the future support for Rwanda’s energy sector, which 
will focus specifically on sustainable energy. Moreover, mainstreaming is, in general, figuring more 
prominently in the new NIPs for 2014-2020, compared to the CSPs for 2007-2013.  

Partner country policies and strategies generally lack clear mainstreaming related outcome indicators 
and budgetary breakdowns by which progress could be measured. The EU is supporting work on the 
establishment of such indicators, and seeks − through dialogue with the governments − to get these 
incorporated as national sector performance indicators. The modality of providing SBS support seems 
to facilitate this dialogue and a broader dialogue on environmental mainstreaming in sector policies 
and development plans (e.g. Bolivia, Rwanda and Egypt), to a larger extent than project support (e.g. 
Kenya). However, it is also evident that mainstreaming has been most successful where there is a 
strong national ownership of the mainstreaming agenda. In countries, where this ownership is strong 
(e.g. Rwanda), the results are more convincing than in countries with less buy-in. However, EU sup-
port has also contributed to build such national ownership – for example, through ENRTP, which has 
supported the UNEP-UNDP PEI that has focused on building national mainstreaming awareness and 
capacity. The PEI has played an important role in building the mainstreaming capacity in several coun-
tries – and, in the case of Rwanda, this has also been of benefit to the country programme.  

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

Moreover, ENRTP has been an important instrument for the EU to engage in promoting sustainable 
consumption and production to achieve a green economy. 

109 

8.4.2  Conclusion 11: The EU guidance and tools for mainstreaming are appropriate, but need 

updating 

EU mainstreaming guidelines and tools are appropriate and have significantly contributed to enhanc-
ing mainstreaming in EU actions in other sectors. But they do not fully take into consideration the eco-
nomic opportunities and national systems, and ENRTP-supported specialist mainstreaming projects 
and approaches (PEI, TEEB/biodiversity mainstreaming) are not fully taken advantage of in the efforts 
to ensure mainstreaming in the EU’s bilateral support. 

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 4, 8 and 10 

The EU’s mainstreaming guidelines are found to be of a good quality, and provide an easy-to-access 
reference. The tools they promote are relevant and important for mainstreaming. There has been a 
strong increase in the use of mainstreaming tools by Delegations in programming during the period 
under evaluation, as illustrated by the increased use of SEAs in relation to sector support − such as 
the recent energy SEA in Rwanda, which is feeding into the detailed programming of EU support to 
the energy sector. This increase appears to be a result of a combination of: a) the availability of the 
mainstreaming guidelines; b) mainstreaming capacity-building and support provided by DG DEVCO to 
Delegations; c) a general global increase in awareness and capacity. However, the mainstreaming 
guidelines currently available to Delegations focus on mitigation of the negative environmental impacts 
of economic activity, but have too little focus on how improved environmental management can con-
tribute positively to sector performance and economic growth as well as the importance of taking the 
political economy into consideration. In addition, the SEAs have not been used to their full potential to 
steer the EU to support and address the underlying causes of degradation and present different de-
velopment scenarios where the positive and negative long-term direct and indirect impacts of sustain-
able development are presented. The ENRTP-funded initiatives PEI and TEEB have developed tools, 
concepts and approaches for mainstreaming, but these tools have not been fully integrated in the EU’s 
own mainstreaming approach. Moreover, the linkage between EU country programmes and PEI coun-
try projects is usually limited, so the mainstreaming capacity that PEI has built with EU support has not 
benefited EU country programmes to the full potential (see conclusion 6). 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

9 

 Recommendations 

110 

Two sets of 
recommen-
dations to 
strengthen 
EU support. 

The following key recommendations emerge from the conclusions. The recommenda-
tions are presented in two clusters: 

  EU policy framework and actions − recommendations 1 to 3. 

 

Implementation approach − recommendations 4 to 8. 

The linkages between EQs (findings), conclusions and recommendations are illustrat-
ed in the following figure. 

Figure 15 

Major links between EQs, conclusions and recommendations 

Prioritising 
recommen-
dations. 

The table below provides an overview of the level of priority in terms of importance of 
the recommendations and the urgency (agenda) of their realisation. This information is 
also  provided  schematically  in  the  figure  below.  Addressing  these  priorities  requires 
actions by different actors. Therefore, each recommendation includes suggestions for 
operational steps to put it into practice, and proposes implementation responsibilities. 

Table 5 

Prioritisation of recommendations 

No. 

Issue 

1  Develop a one-stop policy brief 

2 

Strengthen coherence between global and national policy 
dialogue 

3  Optimise indicators in budget support 

4 

Enhance co-ordination between geographic and thematic 
actions 

5  Promote innovative finance 

6  Work with international programmes 

7  Use mainstreaming tools 

8 

Promote greater co-operation on environment and climate 
change 

* 1 = low, 4 = high 

Importance*  Urgency* 

3 

4 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

EQ1 Policy & instrumentsEQ2 Low emissionEQ3 Sustainable energyEQ4 BiodiversityEQ5 Green economyEQ6 Environmental governanceEQ7 Climate governanceEQ8 Mainstreaming approachEQ9 Mainstreaming practiceEQ10 ComplementarityPolicy & strategy focusResults and impactsGovernanceMainstreamingC1 EU policies & strategiesC2 Policy influenceC3 Readiness strategyC5 Market based approachesC4 ImpactC8 MEAsC7 Consistent supportC9 Delivery approachC6 ComplementarityC11 Use of toolsC10 Progress & ownershipR1 One stop policy briefR2 Policy coherence & focusR3 IndicatorsR5 Innovative financeR4 Thematic coordinationR6 Working with international programmesR7 Use of mainstreaming toolsR8 More emphasis on ENV/CCPolicy framework and actionImplementation approach 
 
 
 
111 

Figure 16 

Prioritisation of recommendations, schematic overview 

9.1  Policy framework 

9.1.1  Recommendation 1: Develop a one-stop policy brief 

Prepare a one-stop policy brief of the current EU policy positions, in the form of a living document that 
is kept up-to-date. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion 1 on policies and strategies, which indicates the absence of a single document to 
summarise  and  point  to  the  key  policy  statements.  This  absence  makes  it  difficult  for  EUD  staff 
and others to follow and adhere to policy. 

  Conclusion  2  on  policy  influence,  which  indicates  that  the  linkages  and  coherence  between 
global policy positions and the actions taken by EUDs in policy dialogue need strengthening. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, DG ENV, DG CLIMA, EEAS 

The  recommendation  could  be  implemented  by  establishing  a  cross-department  working  group  that 
will: 

  Review current policies and strategies. 

  Review the policies of other aid agencies for inspiration on what works well. 

 

Interview users at EUD level to confirm needs and to shape the potential response. 

  Develop a summary and overview that can easily be updated. 

  Consider if a new communication or staff working paper is needed. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

UrgencyImportanceHigherLowerShorter-termLonger-term4                      3                       2                      14                       3                     2                     178461237835421Cluster 1: EU Policy frameworkCluster 2: Implementation approach56 
 
 
112 

9.1.2  Recommendation 2: Strengthen coherence between global and national policy dialogue 

Strengthen linkages between global, regional and national policy dialogue; mobilise EU member state 
embassies to help in establishing a link to Government in countries where EUDs do not have a sub-
stantial engagement in the environment/climate change sectors; provide extra resources for EUDs that 
do not have a substantial engagement in environment/climate change for mobilising short-term inputs 
for specific demarches; ensure demarches are timely, so that partner governments can consider EU 
positions before developing their own MEA positions. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion  2  on  policy  influence,  which  indicates  that  the  linkages  and  coherence  between 
global policy positions and the actions taken by EUDs in policy dialogue need strengthening. 

  Conclusion  3  on  readiness  strategy,  which  indicates  that  policy  dialogue,  knowledge  and 
awareness-raising  can  influence  policies  in  a  positive  way  –  underlining  the  importance  of 
establishing a clear link between national and global levels. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, DG ENV, DG CLIMA, EEAS 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

  Targeting follow-up by developing a list of key delegations where: a) policy influence on MEAs is 
crucial to the EU; b) environment and/or climate change is a significant component of the country 
programme;  c)  national  government  partner  ministries/agencies  correspond  to  those  with  a  lead 
role in MEA processes (with a thematic disaggregation). 

  Continuing  the  efforts  already  made  during  the  2014-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  to 

ensure coherence between national, regional and thematic programmes  

 

Instituting  a  procedure  for  developing  demarches  well  in  advance  (7-12  months)  of  key  MEA 
events and decision points. 

  Using  GDN,  as  well  as  Sector  Working  Groups,  as  channels  to  engage  EU  member  state 
embassies  with  a  strong  position  in  relation  to  the  environment  sectors  in  the  delivery  of 
demarches. 

 

Instituting  a  procedure  for  developing  demarches  well  in  advance  (7-12  months)  of  key  MEA 
events and decision points 

9.1.3  Recommendation 3: Optimise indicators in budget and project support 

Increase the use of indicators related to environment and climate change in budget and project sup-
port operations in order to improve mainstreaming and strengthen the coherence with the new SDGs. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion  2  on  policy  influence,  which  indicates  that  the  linkages  and  coherence  between 
global policy positions and the actions taken by EUDs in policy dialogue need strengthening. 

  Conclusion 4 on impact and conclusion 9 on mainstreaming, which indicate that indicators on 
budget  support  are  highly  influential  in  creating  environment  and  climate  change  results  and 
change. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EUDs, EEAS 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

113 

  Further  sensitising  the  QSG  group  on  the  need  to  include  environment  and  climate  change 

indicators. 

  Sensitising senior staff in EUDs on the need to include and follow up on environment and climate 

change indicators. 

  Ensuring that programme officers have undertaken environment and climate change training. 

  Vigorously following up − as indicated in the new programming guidelines − on the monitoring of 

attainment of indicators that are already part of current programmes. 

9.2 

Implementation approach 

9.2.1  Recommendation 4: Enhance co-ordination between geographic and thematic actions 

Enhance the involvement of EUDs in thematic programmes by ensuring that they are involved in the 
early decision-making on thematic priorities related to their country and are kept well informed, particu-
larly on targeted actions. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion  3  on  readiness  strategy,  which  indicates  that  policy  dialogue,  knowledge  and 
awareness-raising  can  influence  policies  in  a  positive  way  –  underlining  the  importance  of 
establishing a clear link between geographic and thematic actions. 

  Conclusion 6 on complementarity, which indicates that the opportunity for synergies in a given 
country  between  global  ENRTP  actions  and  country-level  geographic  actions  is  not  always 
utilised. 

  Conclusion  8  on  support  for  MEAs,  which  indicates  that  potential  synergies  between  EU 
support  for  global  environmental  and  climate  governance  and  country  programme  support  for 
environment and climate change action are not fully exploited. 

  Conclusion 9 on delivery approach, which indicates that ENRTP support to international entities 

is enhancing coherence in an otherwise fragmented context. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EUDs/EEAS 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

  Ensuring  that  there  are  selection  criteria  for  thematic  actions  that  favour  those  that  are  mutually 

supportive of country operations. 

  Communicating to EUDs that thematic instruments for environment and climate change are meant 
to  support  innovation  −  and  not  to  compensate  for  a  lack  of  environment  priority  in  the  country 
strategy – and screening proposed actions to validate they are of an innovative nature and outside 
the scope of what geographic instruments can fund, even in cases where environment is a focal 
sector. 

  Developing  a  website  for  the  thematic  programmes  that  provides  an  easy-to-access  overview  of 

country-by-country actions. 

  Requesting  international  agency  partners  to  engage  EUDs  in  the  planning  and  design  of 

actions/activities at country level – and submitting progress reports to these. 

  Engaging  international  agency  partners  in  a  discussion  on  how  the  technical  capacity  and 

structures put in place can support the country programmes. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

9.2.2  Recommendation 5: Promote innovative finance 

114 

Increase EU support for access to finance, especially by SMEs, so that they can participate in market-
based approaches aimed at increasing the adoption of sustainable energy and transition to the green 
economy, thereby responding to SDG 12. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion  4  on  impact,  which  indicates  the  importance  of  transformative  change  in  creating 
long-term impact, where removing market barriers for environmental goods and services are a key 
element of change. 

  Conclusion 5 on finance, which indicates that access to finance, especially for SMEs, is a major 

barrier to adopting and scaling-up promising market-based approaches. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EUDs/EEAS 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

  Developing a next phase of the risk capital facility for renewable energy (GEEREF) to encourage 
the  leverage  of  more  non-development  finance  sources,  and  continuing  to  emphasise  non-
financial benefits. 

  Placing equal emphasis on strengthening access to affordable finance − to allow pilot projects to 

continue and expand − as on seeding pilot projects in the first place. 

Continuing, and consider expanding, the resources made available for blending that targets, or at least 
includes, SMEs and green economy. 

9.2.3  Recommendation 6: Work with multilateral institutions  

Continue to work through established multilateral institutions for global public environment and climate 
change goods. Place a greater emphasis on the engagement of EU and Member State actors, and on 
the transfer of technology and institutional and regulatory know-how. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion 7 on consistent support, which notes the benefit of long-term predictable support to 

international governance bodies. 

  Conclusion  8  on  support  for  MEAs,  which  indicates  that  the  link  between  support  for  global 
environment  and  climate  governance  and  EU  bilateral  support  at  country  level  could  be 
strengthened. 

  Conclusion 9 on delivery approach, which indicates the benefit of working through international 

governance bodies that have neutrality and global credibility. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EUDs/EEAS, DG CLIMA, DG ENV 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

  Summarising  the  areas  where  the  EU  and  Member  States  have  relevant  knowledge,  know-how 

and green technology, and making this information available to implementing agencies. 

  Adding  the  use  and  transfer  of  EU  institutional,  regulatory  and  technology  knowledge  to  the 

dialogue with implementing agencies. 

  Organising  knowledge  exchange  events  between  relevant  parties,  which  will  also  increase  the 

visibility of EU support. 

  Undertaking monitoring of the fulfilment of visibility obligations and the continued improvement in 
performance of the projects and actions implemented through international organisations, using a 
rigorous, results-based framework. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

115 

9.2.4  Recommendation  7:  Enhance  synergies  and  strengthen  mainstreaming  in  EU  support 
across  sectors  by  linking  future  thematic  supported  mainstreaming  projects  and  non-
environment/climate change interventions in country programmes  

Further integrate the approaches and capacities of global mainstreaming projects provided through 
thematic instruments with the implementation of non-environment/climate change interventions in 
country programmes − for example, by developing joint actions between EUDs and the national inter-
ventions of the global thematic mainstreaming projects. Better mainstreaming is central for achieving 
the new SDGs, as they emphasise the interconnectedness of environmental sustainability, poverty 
reduction and sustained economic development. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion  11  on  tools,  which  indicates  that  global  ENRTP  actions  have  developed  leading 

approaches, tools, technical capacity, and in-country structures for mainstreaming. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EUDs/EEAS 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

  Requesting future global-funded mainstreaming programmes (e.g. PEI, TEEB) to review the EU’s 

own mainstreaming toolbox and materials, and provide recommendations. 

 

 

Including, in support for mainstreaming programmes, provisions for calling upon their expertise – 
for  example,  to  provide  advice  on  how  to  include  mainstreaming  provisions  in  actions  under  the 
country programmes. 

Identifying  at  country  level  the  opportunities  for  synergies  and  collaboration  between  future 
thematic support funded mainstreaming programmes. 

 

Integrating the TEEB approach in the EU’s mainstreaming guidelines. 

  Further prioritising training in mainstreaming environment and climate change for EUDs, and also 

their national partners. 

  Enhancing  the  potential  for  thematic  programmes  to  provide  leadership  in  environment  and 
climate change that country programmes could then build on and complement when appropriate – 
that  is,  EUDs  to  look  at  results  of  thematic  programmes  when  they  elaborate  the  country 
programming. 

  Ensuring  that  thematic  programmes  on  environment  and  climate  change  are  not  seen  as  a 

substitute for allocating geographic funding to environment and climate change. 

9.2.5  Recommendation  8:  Prioritise  environment  and  climate  change  in  development  co-

operation 

Promote and prioritise greater co-operation on environment and climate change through close co-
ordination of the ongoing thematic programme on Global Public Goods and Challenges and through 
support provided via geographic instruments to contribute to the new SDGs  – responding to the in-
creasing importance of securing sustainable development in medium-income and lower-income coun-
tries, and in fragile and conflict affected situations. 

This recommendation is linked to: 

  Conclusion 2 and 3 on policy influence  and building readiness for change, which indicates 
that EU influence on policy − through a combination of thematic and geographic instruments and 
the  budget  support  and  project  modalities  −  can  be  considerable  even  where  the  political  and 
economic environment is not favourable. 

  Conclusion  4  on  results,  which  indicates  that  significant,  concrete  results  can  be  achieved 

through support to environment and climate change. 

  Conclusion  8  on  support  for  MEAs,  which  indicates  that  the  link  between  support  for  global 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

116 

environment  and  climate  governance  and  EU  bilateral  support  at  the  country  level  could  be 
strengthened. 

  Conclusion  10  on  ownership  and  progress,  which  indicates  the  importance  of  country 

ownership for ensuring progress in mainstreaming environment and climate change. 

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EUDs/EEAS 

The recommendation could be implemented by: 

  Better  mapping  for  EUD  staff  and  country  partners  of  the  EU  comparative  advantage  for 

supporting environment and climate change. 

  Ensuring  that  EUDs  are  fully  briefed  at  least  once  a  year  on  the  Global  Public  Goods  and 

Challenges thematic support in their countries. 

  Preparing policy dialogue agendas and approaches for promoting the prioritisation of environment 

and climate change. 

  Scaling-up the non-focal sector support to environment and climate change. 

  Briefing  top  management  on  the  need  for,  and  benefits  of,  environment  and  climate  change  co-

operation. 

Thematic global evaluation of the EU support to environment and climate change in third countries (2007-2013) 
Final Report; Particip; September 2015 

 
The  European  Commission  Directorate 
General  for  International  Partnerships  - 
INTPA 

INTPA Mission 
Our  mission 
to  sustainable 
to  contribute 
is 
development, the eradication of poverty, peace and 
the 
through 
international  partnerships  that  uphold  and  promote 
European values and interests. 

protection 

human 

rights, 

of 

Follow us: 

: @EU_Partnerships 

: EUPartnerships 

: eu_partnerships 

: EUintheWorld