Impact and Learning

Understanding what difference the IKI is making

The mere launch of climate and biodiversity protection projects does not by default translate into reduced greenhouse gases, floods being prevented or ecosystems flourishing after years of degradation. Rather, what matters is that these measures planned are implemented in a way that will actually bring about these positive outcomes.

In order to make sense of the progress made by individual projects and the IKI as a whole, and to gain a clearer understanding of effective approaches, the IKI repeatedly puts itself to the test. To achieve this, it deploys various monitoring and evaluation questions and tools. The reflections triggered and insights thus gained are fed into IKI-wide learning and exchange with other organisations, thereby ensuring effective climate and biodiversity protection projects.

For more information on the IKI’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Knowledge Management.

Read on …

Selected IKI impacts 2015–2020

 

 

During the 2015 to 2020 reporting years…

Assessment of figures: IKI’s real-world impacts are significantly higher

For this analysis, all IKI projects were considered that submitted current data for the three indicators ‘Action Mitigation’, ‘Action People’ and ‘Action Ecosystems’ in the 2015 to 2020 reporting years. These projects include IKI projects already completed as well as projects that are still in the implementation phase. The latter group will therefore be submitting updated data for the three indicators over the next few years. In 2022, the IKI also introduced new Standard Indicators, which permit a more granular analysis of impacts from the IKI’s work. The IKI office at Zukunft – Umwelt – Gesellschaft gGmbH (ZUG)checked all data submitted for plausibility.

The IKI applies a strict frame of reference for the indicators to ensure the collection of comparable and reliable data. Impacts are counted only if they relate directly to project work, occurred during the project runtime and have been adequately documented by the project itself. As a result, the numbers reported here are relatively small. It can be assumed that the IKI’s actual impacts – which continue to occur after project completion or which are indirectly aided by project work – are considerably higher.

As one example, the IKI funds a wide range of projects that seek to achieve general improvements in regulatory frameworks or economic conditions, and therefore aim to contribute to changes in the future that have a broad and long-lasting impact. In these cases cross-sectoral mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, far-reaching improvements to ecosystem protection and resilience to climate change impacts typically occur only after project completion. This makes it difficult to assign them to specific projects or achieve their reliable quantification during project implementation.

IKI projects may advise policymakers, ministries or the private sector on the development of specific strategies and action plans or legislation at all levels of government, for example, from a single village to metropolitan areas and multilateral contexts. Only once these plans are implemented do quantifiable impacts arise that could be assigned to these three Standard Indicators. However, since implementation typically occurs after the end of the project, these data are not captured by the analysis of direct IKI impacts.

The following pages therefore present detailed analyses and examples of projects with relevance for the three Standard Indicators. 

Detailed analysis of the ‘Mitigation’ standard indicator (2015–2020)

Detailed analysis of the ‘People’ standard indicator (2015–2020)

Detailed analysis of the ‘Ecosystems’ standard indicator (2015–2020)

The link has been copied to the clipboard