The Tragedy of the All-Too-Common Common Themes Raised in Climate Change Mitigation Evaluations AEA: November 9, 2017 Amy Arbreton, Evaluation Officer: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Rees Warne, Director of Evaluation & Learning: ClimateWorks Foundation Maurice Samuels, Program Officer of Evaluation: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Overview: Addressing Common Themes What we did What we found All-Too-Common Themes Concept example Case example What we (session participants) can do about it

What we did: Reviewing our Evaluations Philanthropies working on climate change mitigation reviewed 9 recent evaluations of our work So much in common -> Wow! -> Disappointment… But, hmmmm, hadn’t we seen all this before? WHY are we still seeing this?

What we found: All-Too-Common Themes Importance of well-developed theories of change Balance between feasibility and ambition (strategies and grants) Funder coordination Importance of individuals’ qualities and capacities to achieving results Focus on climate mitigation vs. co-benefits (health, etc.) Theories of change (level of match between theory and activities, gaps in theory and lack of clarity on pathways for change)  Balance between feasibility and ambition of strategies and grants (unrealistic achievement expectations given context, timeframe, and funds) Focus on mitigation vs. “mitigation plus” (including multiple benefits and adaptation) Funder coordination (coordination within and across initiatives and supporting shared grantees)  Importance of individual leadership qualities and capacities to achieving results (implementer and field staff networks, trust, and on-the-ground contextual knowledge)

Any Questions?

What we, as evaluators, can do about it: Working together In your small groups Choose a common finding/theme Why is this finding so common? // What makes this finding/theme hard to resolve? If we are seeing similar types of findings/themes arising across evaluations - how do we, as evaluators (or evaluation managers) Think about these themes in our work Help implementers avoid them?  What are practical ways we can apply what we’ve discussed?

Thank you!