Greening Development Co-operation

4. Moving forward: suggestions for the OECD DAC

Abstract

This chapter concludes the results of the peer-learning exercise and outlines seven areas in which the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee and its Network on Environment and Development Co-operation might collaborate in future. It notes the fast-changing context for environment mainstreaming and the importance of mainstreaming practices evolving over time so as to improve the quality of development co-operation.

In conclusion, the peers learned that environment mainstreaming has evolved considerably over time, the context is changing fast, and mainstreaming practices will need to respond to be fit for the future. While environment mainstreaming has improved the quality of development, it needs to be treated as a highly dynamic and continuing concern. Environment mainstreaming is not a one-off task that can be ignored once environmental issues are reflected in the words of policies and plans. Environmental pressures, scientific knowledge, technology and markets change fast, and so do the goals of developing countries and the mechanisms of development co-operation. There is much to do to improve understanding, behaviour and investment concerning the environment in many sectors – and especially to ensure that the environment is considered during implementation and not only at the planning stage. The peers concluded that all five building blocks of effective mainstreaming outlined in the previous chapter are necessary, and they share ambitions to invest in these areas of learning.

The three peer visits and the Paris workshops revealed striking common ground among DAC members in the lessons and challenges of environment mainstreaming. At each event there was strong interest in continuing to share and learn together, and several collaboration needs and opportunities were noted:1

1. Developing peer review guidance: this report should be made available to DAC peer review teams as informal guidance on how to approach issues of environment mainstreaming. The six-part analytical framework in particular was found to be a robust way to explore the issues (Box 2.2). and the emerging lessons recorded in this report are a step towards an approach for environment mainstreaming. Following pilots, formal peer review guidance could be developed.

2. Continuing informal peer learning among DAC members: those who took part in this peer-learning exercise, as well as many other DAC members who did not, have expressed interest in continuing a programme of peer learning visits. The learning approach was thought to be a good way for the DAC to get to grips with the fast-changing dynamics of environment, development and holistic policy concepts.

3. Sharing and harmonising environment mainstreaming tools, materials and facilities: many DAC members noted the potential advantages of pooling their documentation on tools and procedures, as well as proven communications products, training and support facilities. This was particularly welcomed by some smaller agencies who do not have the time to develop, test and disseminate their own approaches. It was also suggested that this sharing might help to improve and harmonise best practice, and to reduce duplication and confusion among developing country authorities. Bilateral arrangements for sharing were encouraged, and the possibility of ENVIRONET playing a facilitating role noted.

4. Improving engagement with country stakeholders: the scope for DAC members to collaborate in partner countries was frequently highlighted. Opportunities that could be explored include joint policy dialogue with country partners; joint capacity assessment and support of national partners; and joint (or sharing of) EIAs, SEAs and monitoring of environment mainstreaming.

5. Enhancing coherence and effectiveness of multilateral partners’ approaches to the environment: peers also noted the need and opportunity for DAC members to jointly challenge United Nations organisations, multilateral development banks and financial institutions to develop, apply and improve mainstreaming systems and tools. This is needed across their development co-operation portfolio, for example ensuring that humanitarian responses take account of environmental impacts and opportunities, as well as throughout the programme cycle from planning to evaluation. Members may also wish to consider joint assessment of proposals put before boards of multilateral development banks and financial institutions.

6. Filling thematic gaps in mainstreaming: in the learning process, it became evident that some environment themes are worthy of joint exploration as they are either not well addressed at present, or there will be greater demands in future: these include natural capital approaches, environment in humanitarian aid, biodiversity and pollution.

7. Improving systems: the learning process pointed to mainstreaming system issues that warrant joint exploration in future. These include guidelines for assessing environment integration when tracking financial commitments, and ensuring the environment is considered in blended finance initiatives. Particular emphasis was given to monitoring and evaluation, and prioritisation:

a. Monitoring and evaluation: Few data are available on the environmental contributions and impacts of development assistance, especially at portfolio level (country, sector or thematic programmes). There is a need for more systematic evidence to answer the questions: ‘what does success in environment mainstreaming look like?’, ‘how successful have we been?’ and ‘how does success or failure correlate with particular development policies, plans, finance vehicles, implementation, or paradigms?’

b. Environment policy marker: DAC members monitor the extent of mainstreaming using the data they report to the Creditor Reporting System. ENVIRONET could review the definitions and eligibility criteria for the environment policy marker and develop further guidance for marking.

c. Prioritisation: There is scope, too, for joint work on the challenge of prioritising among environment issues – how to shift from the potentially paralysing imposition of the full ”A-Z” of the environment to deciding priorities in a way that can be energising, efficient and effective. This would likely bring together a range of criteria and tools to assess priorities, notably improved economic assessment of environmental issues.

Note

← 1.  It was also felt that these suggestions could have more general interest beyond the various OECD bodies – there are increasing numbers of institutions and professionals engaged in linking environment, climate and development.