Greening Development Co-operation

Annex B. Visit to Sweden: 21-25 January 2019

Background

The OECD has undertaken a peer-learning exercise on environment mainstreaming to support OECD members who face challenges in this critical dimension of development co-operation. The key areas for learning were: how and why environment issues (including biodiversity, climate adaptation and mitigation, and pollution) are integrated across programmes; what has worked and why; what challenges remain and are emerging; and how these challenges can best be addressed.

This peer-learning exercise involved consultation with Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members, three country visits by peers, and independent facilitation by the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED). It began with a survey of mainstreaming progress and challenges among members of the DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET) in February 2018. This informed an inception workshop that was conducted in May 2018 to allow ENVIRONET members to share their experiences, and resulted in an analytical framework prepared by facilitators from IIED. That framework guides the peer-learning visits.

The first peer-learning visit was of the European Union (EU) institutions (the European Commission and the European Investment Bank) in Brussels, from 24-28 September 2018 (see Annex A). Peer visits also occurred in Sweden in January 2019 and Canada in April 2019 (Annex C). This report shares impressions, challenges, lessons and ideas that were identified and discussed in the peer-learning visit to Sweden, from 21-25 January 2019, by a team comprising the EC, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Canada, facilitated by the OECD’s Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD) and IIED. Following a further reflection at ENVIRONET in late April 2019, a final report will be drafted by IIED in May 2019 and presented to the DAC. It is expected that the results may inform future formal DAC peer reviews, which are carried out regularly of DAC members, as well as providing a basis for sharing among ENVIRONET members interested in enhancing their mainstreaming of environment and climate change.

The peer-learning exercise was successful, energising the peers and revealing lessons that could be of wider value to DAC members as well as to Swedish agencies. The peers were very grateful to Swedish colleagues for the opportunity and the excellent organisation. Their overall impressions of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency’s (Sida) effectiveness and challenges, as well as lessons of wider applicability and suggestions on meeting these challenges, are summarised below.

Effectiveness in environment and climate mainstreaming

Over at least three decades Sida has evolved a comprehensive framework for environment action, which emphasises integration of environment and climate in all forms of development and humanitarian action. The framework includes a legally-mandated Environmental Management System, an Environmental Policy (2017), an Environment Action Plan (2017-2020) with quantitative targets for environment and climate integration, a Multi-Dimensional Poverty Analysis framework and a ‘green toolbox’ including concise and incisive guidance (much of which is available to partners on Sida’s website), a system of regular environmental reporting and annual environmental audits. It is supported by skilled environment and climate advisors placed strategically across the organisation. In addition, a wider Sida Environment and Climate Network, a co-ordinating ‘hub’ mechanism that links environment leads across the organisation, and a responsive Environment and Climate Helpdesk engage other players in Sida. This has enabled Sida to integrate environment in its three major roles as financier, analyst and dialogue partner.

These initiatives have been supported by consistent leadership and commitment from the highest levels of government. In line with a cross-government Swedish policy on global development, programmatic directions have been broadly coherent with other government departments. In pursuit of its core mandate of poverty reduction, Sida works closely with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (which has a normative role) and embassies (which have in-country strategic roles). However, Sida has a good degree of flexibility to interpret how development co-operation will proceed in each case. Importantly for environment and climate, on which people living in poverty are particularly dependent, Sida is also well respected for collaborative working with civil society organisations.

The peers observed a high level of environmental consciousness among staff throughout the organisation. They are open to, and curious about, environmental issues and committed to doing something about them. Indeed, there were many individual environmental champions who promote environment in different departments and embassies. There is also a very significant portfolio of programmes and projects with an environment focus, which have good potential to inform Sida’s case-making and activities in support of environmental integration.

At the same time, Sida also has a progressive perspective on ‘mainstreaming’ several other important cross-cutting issues. Indeed, Sida is well-known for its work on these, notably gender integration. Sida requires five ‘perspectives’ to be assessed in all activities, one of which is environment and climate. This means that not only are environment and climate usually well considered in developing activities in many sectors, but (in a reciprocal manner) environment-focused projects may also be conceived in ways which are supportive of gender, rights and other ‘mainstreaming’ concerns.

Challenges in environment and climate mainstreaming

Sida’s achievements are impressive and place it in a promising position for the future. But there is more to do to ensure the elements of Sida’s environment integration framework work more effectively in more instances. Most of these challenges were familiar to peers, as most DAC members face them:

• Environmental integration still depends too much on individual environment experts and ‘champions’, rather than on collective institutional responsibility.

• In practice, it concentrates more on the assessment and planning stages than the whole ‘messy’ business of implementation, and is not routinely included in monitoring and reporting.

• While there is interest in learning about environmental integration, and acknowledgement that adaptive approaches are needed, this learning is not systematised and regular within Sida – and is lacking at the portfolio level (i.e. across different kinds of projects).

• In addition to learning not being systematised, much of the environment knowledge management is outsourced to the Helpdesk, and so it does not routinely inform policy and practice reviews. The Helpdesk tends to have more engagement from environmental experts and champions than other staff. It lacks a proactive mandate to promote, nurture, mentor and critique environment actors and actions.

• There is not yet a focus on environmental integration in country policy dialogue processes held by Sida and embassies in developing countries, or in country capacity assessment and support.

• In spite of political and policy priorities to integrate environment and climate, between 2010 and 2016 there was a declining trend in integration. Recent system improvements have begun to reverse this trend, but staff still lack time and resources: some feel a sense of inadequacy to meet many organisational demands and or/suffer ‘mainstreaming fatigue’.

• The policy that staff should spend 10% of their time working in a theme hub (such as the Environment and Climate Hub) also needs resourcing – but would have many benefits.

Lessons from Sweden’s experience of environment and climate mainstreaming

Nine broad lessons emerged from the peers’ engagement with Sida that have wider applicability across DAC members:

1. Strong institutional foundations – constitutional mandate, vision, policy framework, and management systems – are critical to enable the consistent promotion and integration of environment in development co-operation, both within the agency and with its partners. They need to be well-communicated.

2. A robust and diverse set of tools and mechanisms is needed to drive environmental integration throughout the activity cycle. They should be part of the core institutional machinery, helping to identify environment and climate priorities, and actively updated and streamlined to meet user needs and desired outcomes.

3. The specific outcomes and benefits of environmental mainstreaming – intended and actual – need to be clear and increasingly visible in each case; only then will staff be motivated to act, feeling less ‘mainstreaming fatigue’ but instead ready to pursue environment priorities.

4. A focus on implementation is needed – environmental integration tends to concentrate on assessment and planning stages, but needs to extend across the activity cycle; this can reveal a wide range of ‘mainstream’ stakeholders who should be engaged.

5. Humanitarian support has a special, and as yet often unrealised, potential to integrate environmental issues – and thus ensure sustainable outcomes where people’s dependence on environmental assets and vulnerability to environmental risk is high.

6. Environmental expertise across the organisation and well-networked outside it, enabled by good leadership and supported by ‘champions’, can drive staff environmental attitudes and competences. However, it is not a substitute for collective institutional responsibility for environment, which is essential but tough to achieve.

7. Investing in capacity for integrating environment is critical and much can be achieved through training in interdisciplinary skills; attention must be given to partner countries’ and agencies’ capacity as well as those of development co-operation agencies.

8. Monitoring and learning systems need attention – environmental integration is necessarily an adaptive approach, yet it too often lacks extensive feedback and well-organised learning about progress and results.

9. Dialogue and engagement are drivers of the mainstreaming process – from the outset in opening up issues with partners, through to discussing results and raising ambitions; civil society is important to mobilise social demand, as well as decision makers.

Peer suggestions for consideration by Sweden and DAC members

Discussions during the peer visit raised several ideas to pursue. Many of these are noted throughout the report. There was particular discussion of working with DAC members jointly on some of them:

• Influencing international players: Sweden is well-respected internationally as a pioneer in sustainable development. As a credible and transparent partner, it is well-placed to challenge and support international partners to raise their environment ambitions: notably multilateral organisations, the EU and Member States.

• Enhancing country policy dialogue: more can be done to integrate environment and climate through (a) highlighting politically hot opportunities like green/circular economy and green enterprise; (b) influencing regular core policy and planning processes such as national planning; and/or (c) promoting stronger co-ordination and coherence among DAC members.

• Sharing and joint work to further strengthen elements of its environmental integration frameworks: Sida would benefit from working with other ENVIRONET members on:

  • priority-setting guidance – in part to reduce ‘fatigue’ from the perceived need to tackle the full ‘A to Z’ of environment and climate issues

  • environment and climate integration in humanitarian work

  • green office management and its influence on development work

  • hub and network structure and functioning, and linking with wider/regional networks

  • understanding how environment integration happens in key sector implementation (perhaps in sectors like energy, agriculture and health)

  • ways to analyse and promote the economic, social and environmental benefits of mainstreaming, and sharing ‘case’ materials

  • improving interdisciplinary tools and skills in staff and partner capacity development

  • learning and knowledge management – ‘catalogues’ of what works

  • sharing country assessments such as strategic environmental assessments and capacity assessments

  • country capacity development in environment and climate integration.

• Paradigm shifts to deepen the transformation to sustainable development: peers felt that it is time to challenge development thinking, and go beyond just ‘doing things right’ for the environment, i.e. following safeguards, to also ‘doing the right things’ in strategic ways, i.e. promoting and actively pursuing outcomes such as investing only in renewables and not supporting fossil fuel investments. Ultimately this is a transformational policy and institutional agenda that contrasts quite starkly with the incremental agenda of existing mainstreaming work. It needs a dialogue towards a common narrative (which the OECD can help to shape) and commitment from the highest levels (where Sweden’s leadership is well-placed).