Selected IKI impacts, 2015–2023
In the reporting period 2015 to 2023, IKI projects stated the following …
directly supported through networking and training.
99 projects reported on this in the data for the Standard Indicator ‘SI 4 - Capacity People’.
private capital catalysed.
16 projects reported on this in the data from the Standard Indicator ‘SI 5 - Leveraged Finance’.
coast improved or protected.
12 projects reported on this in the data on the Standard Indicators Action Ecosystems and 'SI 2 - Ecosystems'.
CO2 equivalents directly or indirectly mitigated.
40 projects reported on this in the data for the Standard Indicators Action Mitigation and 'SI 1 - Mitigation'.
directly or indirectly supported by the project to adapt to climate change and/or to conserve ecosystems.
Based on the data reported for ‘Action People’ and ‘SI 3 - Adaptation’.
private capital mobilised.
6 projects reported on this in the data from the Standard Indicator ‘SI 5 - Leveraged Finance’.
area of ecosystems improved or protected.
84 projects reported on this in the data on the Standard Indicators Action Ecosystems and 'SI 2 - Ecosystems'.
Data
The current analysis was based on all IKI projects that provided plausible target or actual values for the Standard Indicators in the reporting period 2015 to 2023. This includes not only completed projects, but also projects that are still in the implementation phase.
Not all projects report on the SIs. Those that don't report on them include projects that have been running for some time or started before the introduction of SIs in 2015 and have already been completed in the meantime, as well as some trust funds without binding agreements on SI reporting.
The IKI is currently in a transitional phase and is working to close these gaps in order to report on its cross-programme impacts on the basis of an ever broader and better database. A general improvement in data quality can already be observed.
A note on data and comparisons with previous analyses
In isolated cases, figures for the Standard Indicators may also be lower when compared with previous analyses. The reasons for this are as follows: the IKI checks the plausibility of the data based on the annual interim reports. If a project makes adaptations to its explanatory notes that indicate irregularities in the data compared with older reports, a request for clarification is submitted for this data. If these ambiguities cannot be cleared up with the implementing organisation, then this data is not included in the analysis. In some cases, projects will also adjust their reported data upwards or downwards themselves.
The link has been copied to the clipboard