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, 2015–2021

8000000 t

CO2 equivalents directly mitigated

24 projects reported on this in the data for the Standard Indicator Action Mitigation.

267 km

coast improved or protected

5 projects reported on this in the data on the Standard Indicators Action Ecosystems and "S2 – Ecosystems".

 

43000

people directly supported through networking and training

25 projects reported on this in the data for the Standard Indicator "S4 – Capacity".

2000000000

private and public capital catalysed

4 projects reported on this in the data from the Standard Indicator "S5 – Leveraged Finance".

19000000 ha

area of ecosystems improved or protected

49 projects reported on this in the data on the Standard Indicators Action Ecosystems and "S2 – Ecosystems".

1000000

people directly supported by the project to adapt to climate change or to conserve ecosystems

70 projects reported on this in the data on the Standard Indicator Action People.

3000000

private and public capital leveraged

4 projects reported on this in the data from the Standard Indicator "S5 – Leveraged Finance".

50000

people indirectly supported to better adapt to climate change

31 projects report on this in the data on the Standard Indicator "S3 – Adaptation".

Initial analysis using the new standard indicators

In 2022 the IKI re-introduced a revised set of standard indicators. This set is now part of formal reporting requirements for new projects. Going forward, these new indicators offer a better model of the diversity of IKI contributions while answering questions such as “What area and which ecosystems have IKI projects been able to protect to date?” and “How much private capital was leveraged directly or indirectly by IKI projects?”. In addition, the indicators offer insights into the extent of the IKI’s contributions to the achievement of targets set within international commitments.

Overview of the new standard indicators:

  • ‘SI 1 – Mitigation’: greenhouse gas emissions reduced or carbon stocks enhanced directly or indirectly by IKI project measures.
  • ‘SI 2 – Ecosystems’: Area of ecosystems with improved conservation and sustainable use due to IKI project measures.
  • ‘SI 3 – Adaptation’: Number of people directly and indirectly supported by IKI projects to better adapt to climate change.
  • ‘SI 4 – Capacity People’: Number of people directly supported by IKI projects through networking and training to address climate change or to conserve biodiversity.
  • ‘SI 5 – Leveraged Finance’: Volume of private and/or public finance leveraged for climate change and biodiversity purposes in EUR.

The 2022 reporting year is the first year for which the IKI has been able to access data on the new standard indicators. Projects that submitted an interim report before 2022 may continue to use the three old indicators in their reports or switch voluntarily to using the new indicators. For this analysis, all IKI projects were therefore considered that submitted current data for both the old indicators and the new standard indicators during the 2015 to 2021 reporting years. This includes projects that are already complete as well as projects that are still in the implementation phase.

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

The IKI applies a strict frame of reference for the indicators to ensure the collection of valid and reliable data. Impacts are counted only if they are strongly link to project work, ideally occurred during the project duration and have been adequately documented by the project itself. It can be assumed that the IKI’s real-world impacts are higher.

To illustrate, the IKI funds a wide range of projects that seek to achieve general improvements in regulatory and/or societal frameworks and conditions for the implementation of ambitious climate and biodiversity policies, and to remove associated barriers to investment. IKI projects may advise policymakers, administrations 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 five standard indicators. However, since implementation of these frameworks typically occurs after the end of the project and is beyond control or significant influence of the project, this data is not captured by the IKI standard indicators. They are contingent on a host of factors - such as policy-making efforts and political priorities in the country, support from a variety of stakeholders, sufficient resources – that are beyond control or prediction by IKI projects. For IKI projects of this kind it is consequently not possible to make a meaningful and credible prediction and quantification of their impacts during project duration.

A note on data and comparisons with previous analyses

In isolated cases, figures for the standard indicators may be lower when compared with previous analyses. This results from the fact that the IKI checks the plausibility of the data based on the interim reports. If a project makes adjustments to its explanatory notes that indicate irregularities in the data compared with older interim reports, a request for clarification is submitted for this data. If these ambiguities cannot be cleared up with the implementing organisation, the data is not included in the analysis. In some cases, projects will also adjust their reported data downwards themselves.

Detailed evaluations of the individual standard indicators

IKI Annual Report 2022

This article is part of the IKI Annual Report 2022. Learn more about the IKI Year 2022 ...

The link has been copied to the clipboard