To what extent have DFAT program priorities been All Evidence of alignment in policy and Policy/strategic planning aligned with NAPs on climate change? Program practice at Department, Program and documents, and interviews To what extent is there congruence between Australia’s Investment levels. with CC leads (Department, bilateral programming priorities and Australia’s Evidence of partner government Program and Investment level). approach to working with relevant regional commitment to delivery of NAP Country Cases, but particularly organisations? priorities and to DFAT delivery the regional case. through partner systems as far as possible. Is there evidence to suggest consideration of climate Investment and Interesting cases at investment or Assessment of KEQ1 at change in the investment has enhanced sustainability? Program Level program level where it is possible to investment and program level, Are there any examples of particularly good practice identify the factors that have Assessment of levels of where it is possible to identify what systems were put supported sustainability to be sustainability (KEQ4, in place/approaches taken to enhance sustainability? enhanced. subquestions 1–2), interviews. What methods are in place to determine that investing All See Annex 3 - M&E/Reporting See Annex 3B. in climate change is good value for money? systems. Assess in terms of: do they exist at each level: yes/no/unclear What is the credibility of these methods to demonstrate value for money: Robust (methodical, well considered and informed) 5. How credible are the Adequate (some consideration) methods or approaches the Weak/Unclear (lack basis). Department uses to establish Have investment managers made delivery choices that Investment & Evidence that investment managers Program: AIPs, APPR, Program Value for Money? demonstrate climate change impact and value for Program have considered different types of interviews money (return on investment) have been sensibly investment, modes of delivery, levels Investment: Design balanced? of safeguard to deliver the same documents, Design Appraisals, Are there any examples of particularly good balanced outcomes (mitigation and/or annual reports, AQCs, assessments, that provide insight into how this was adaptation). Evidence that the evaluations, investment level done, or missed opportunities which had unintended benefits of the investment outweigh interviews impacts/costs? the costs.
To what extent have DFAT program priorities been aligned with NAPs on climate change? To what extent is there congruence between Australia’s bilateral programming priorities and Australia’s approach to working with relevant regional organisations? All Program Evidence of alignment in policy and practice at Department, Program and Investment levels. Evidence of partner government commitment to delivery of NAP priorities and to DFAT delivery through partner systems as far as possible. Policy/strategic planning documents, and interviews with CC leads (Department, Program and Investment level). Country Cases, but particularly the regional case. Is there evidence to suggest consideration of climate change in the investment has enhanced sustainability? Are there any examples of particularly good practice where it is possible to identify what systems were put in place/approaches taken to enhance sustainability? Investment and Program Level Interesting cases at investment or program level where it is possible to identify the factors that have supported sustainability to be enhanced. Assessment of KEQ1 at investment and program level, Assessment of levels of sustainability (KEQ4, subquestions 1–2), interviews. 5. How credible are the methods or approaches the Department uses to establish Value for Money? What methods are in place to determine that investing in climate change is good value for money? Assess in terms of: do they exist at each level: yes/no/unclear What is the credibility of these methods to demonstrate value for money: Robust (methodical, well considered and informed) Adequate (some consideration) Weak/Unclear (lack basis). All See Annex 3 - M&E/Reporting systems. See Annex 3B. Have investment managers made delivery choices that demonstrate climate change impact and value for money (return on investment) have been sensibly balanced? Are there any examples of particularly good balanced assessments, that provide insight into how this was done, or missed opportunities which had unintended impacts/costs? Investment & Program Evidence that investment managers have considered different types of investment, modes of delivery, levels of safeguard to deliver the same outcomes (mitigation and/or adaptation). Evidence that the benefits of the investment outweigh the costs. Program: AIPs, APPR, Program interviews Investment: Design documents, Design Appraisals, annual reports, AQCs, evaluations, investment level interviews
evaluation-of-australias-climate-change-assistance.docx