This chapter presents the process followed by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer-learning on environment mainstreaming. It starts with a description of the methodology and outlines the timeline of followed in undertaking the peer-learning exercise. It presents a summary of the findings of an initial survey of members of the DAC Network on Environment and Development. The analytical framework developed to assess environmental mainstreaming is described. The chapter ends with for reflections on the learning process.
Greening Development Co-operation
Lessons from the OECD Development Assistance Committee
The Development Dimension
2. The peer-learning process
Abstract
Methodology
The process began with discussions amongst DAC members in 2017. In October 2017, members of the DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET) agreed to participate in the proposed peer-learning exercise. A survey of members of ENVIRONET in February 2018 (Box 2.1) asked members about their practices in environment mainstreaming and their learning needs; 23 members responded.
Box 2.1. Environment mainstreaming by DAC members – initial survey findings
Internal mainstreaming – members’ current approaches
Policy: 100% of respondents say environment is included in development policy.
Project design: 91% integrate environmental objectives at the programme/project design stage.
Environmental safeguards: 78% operate environmental safeguards.
Headquarters capacity: 70% ensure capacity of headquarters staff in environmental mainstreaming.
Country staff capacity: 57% build country/regional/field office staff capacity for environmental mainstreaming.
Strategic environmental assessments: 43% use strategic environmental assessment (SEA) or equivalent.
Do no harm: 43% deploy standards to ensure no negative impacts.
Country partner mainstreaming and outcomes – members’ current support
Capacity development: 78% of respondents support environment capacity development of key ministries and 70% support environment capacity development of local government.
Data and information: 61% are strengthening environmental data and information systems.
Mainstreaming support: 52% promote direct process-related support on mainstreaming.
Creating demand: 35% give attention to creating demand for environment-related technical work.
Top challenges faced by members
Communication: achieving clarity and internal coherence on environment and climate.
Policy makers and senior management: getting their attention in a context of competing issues.
Culture: questioning assumptions about the primacy of economic growth.
Multiple mainstreaming: balancing increasing calls for gender, rights, environment, climate, etc.
Capacity: dealing with expertise gaps and overstretch in programme development and delivery.
Monitoring, evaluation and learning: ensuring meaningful monitoring and evaluation, and providing for systematic learning.
Note: Survey conducted January-February 2018; sent to the 30 DAC members and institutions participating in ENVIRONET.
ENVIRONET discussed the survey results in May 2018. The critical dimensions that emerged helped to shape the analytical framework for the peer-learning process (Box 2.2). The results also informed the decision to focus the learning exercise on environment mainstreaming, as opposed to wider aspects of environmental management.
The next step was to conduct one-week visits to three DAC members – the European Union, Sweden and Canada – between September 2018 and April 2019 (Table 2.1. ). The visits were conducted by peers from other DAC members1 and involved discussions with a wide variety of staff and partners, including staff at embassies. In other words, it was not simply the environment specialists who were consulted. The discussions were informed by detailed background papers prepared by the host agencies on their environment mainstreaming work and their learning objectives, by an annotated agenda for each visit, and by an analytical framework guiding the entire exercise (Box 2.2). Each visit culminated in a multi-stakeholder workshop to review the preliminary lessons.
Workshops were also held to discuss the three learning visits, to draw in wider reflections from additional DAC members and observers, and to review and steer the work at key points (Table 2.1. ).
Table 2.1. Peer-learning timeline
The visited and visiting peers, whose learning provides the main material for this paper, were from Canada, the European Union (EU), Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) facilitated the process and provided technical input, supported by a team from the OECD’s Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD).2 The peers’ findings and suggestions are presented in Chapters 3 and 4.
Outputs
Four products emerged from the learning process, all of which should have continuing value:
A partial 2018 baseline of the state of environment mainstreaming across the DAC drawn from the results of the initial ENVIRONET survey.
The environment mainstreaming analytical framework, developed by IIED in response to critical dimensions discussed at the inception workshop, and subsequently adjusted through the peer visits. This offers a set of six dimensions with more detailed questions to aid diagnosis and discussion (Box 2.2).
Three detailed reports of learning from each visited member. These are summarised in Annexes A-C.
Greening Development Co-operation: Lessons from the OECD Development Assistance Committee.
Box 2.2. An analytical framework for assessing environmental mainstreaming
This framework was found to be helpful both for guiding dialogue during the member visits and for diagnosis. All three hosting members used it to structure their background papers, provided in advance of the visits. This report is also structured along similar lines, developing five building blocks derived from the six elements below and informed by the experience of the peer-learning process.
1. Mainstreaming mandate, leadership and intentions: What are the overall priorities of the DAC member’s development co-operation? How has environment been included in its development vision, institutional mandates, policies, strategies, theories of change, and management and staff priorities; and with what definitions and assumptions? What drives attention to the environment and what environmental issues are given most priority?
2. Mainstreaming system and tools: How is environment promoted throughout the programme cycle (Figure 2.1) and using which tools and procedures – such as safeguards, standards, assessments, progress indicators and monitoring, incentives and accountability mechanisms? How far are these embedded or separate? Do they work or not – and why? How are they improving over time?
3. People and their capacities for mainstreaming: Who is involved in mainstreaming environment in development co-operation? What are their responsibilities for mainstreaming, what skills are applied and what kind of partnerships are mobilised?
4. Knowledge, learning and engagement: How is the DAC member learning about progress made in supporting positive links between environment and development as well as reducing negative links; about drivers and constraints affecting these links; and about emerging issues?
5. Partner country mainstreaming: How is the DAC member informing itself about points 1-4 above in terms of how they affect partner country policies, systems, capacities and knowledge? What use is made of country mainstreaming systems, and/or support given where necessary?
6. Outcomes of mainstreaming: What changes are achieved through environment mainstreaming – across a spectrum from improved awareness, to improved decisions, behaviour and institutions, to actual changed conditions on the ground?
A generic programme cycle was also mapped, so that the framework can be used to interrogate and plan for environment mainstreaming across all activities (Figure 2.1). This is in part to move beyond the common situation in which mainstreaming tends to concentrate only on issue identification and planning.
Figure 2.1. The Generic Programme Cycle
Source: Author
Reflections on the process
The peers benefited considerably from the learning process. The final workshop in April 2019 strongly validated the process as a way to get to grips with shared challenges. All three visited DAC members (Canada, the EU and Sweden) commented that the peer learning had:
helped them to take stock of their approaches to a multi-faceted and fast-changing agenda: this was achieved through preparing background papers and the peer-led dialogue, both based on a rigorous analytical framework
validated some approaches to mainstreaming, challenged others, and brought in inspiring ideas and stories of change from peers’ experiences
drawn the attention of colleagues, including senior management, to the significant issues of environment in development co-operation, to the progress made, and to the growing need to improve environmental performance
helped them to prioritise what to do next to improve environment mainstreaming. All three members drew up an action list after the peer visit, and some have already made internal decisions, e.g. preparing a formal management response to the peer learning, and opening up new programming opportunities.
The April 2019 workshop raised considerable interest in continuing learning beyond the current exercise, to help other DAC members and to build a community of practice on environment mainstreaming.
‘The learning week was an enjoyable, efficient and high-profile event. It has really increased attention to environment in-house, including at high levels.’
‘Exchanging learning with peers facing similar challenges is much more energising than a classical external evaluation. We know we are not alone!’
‘We are better at knowing ourselves – what we are good at.’
‘We now resolve to make a quality step in our mainstreaming.’
Notes
← 1. The peer visitors were Michelle Tremblay and Stéphane Tremblay (Canada), Bernard Crabbé, Juan Palerm and Egger Topper (European Commission), Maite Martín-Crespo Muro (Spain), Ulrika Åkesson (Sweden), Daniel Maselli (Switzerland), and John Carstensen (United Kingdom).
← 2. The facilitators of the process and authors of this paper were Paul Steele and Steve Bass from IIED. John Egan and Nicolina Lamhauge (OECD/DCD) participated in all activities and provided oversight.