A very simple bargain has characterized the last twenty
years of international environmental politics: industrialized countries have
agreed to provide significant environmental assistance in exchange for
developing country participation in global environmental agreements that
address ozone depletion, biodiversity conservation, and climate change. However,
while environmental assistance projects have
grown in number, type, and financial size, there is little systematic evidence
that these projects have substantially improved environmental outcomes in the
developing world.
When do environmentally focused assistance projects achieve
their objectives? In an article recently published in Global Environmental Politics, we used outcome ratings from 157
independent evaluations of environmentally focused World Bank projects
implemented since 1994. We found that recipient countries with strong public
sector institutions receive higher project evaluation ratings. Projects with
global environmental objectives receive lower ratings. Proactive supervision by
World Bank staff during project implementation also results in higher ratings.
To show the substantive impact of government effectiveness,
a focus on global outcomes (preventing climate change or protecting
biodiversity), and the quality of project supervision on the probability of a
project achieving different outcome ratings, we plotted our model’s predicted
probabilities over the range of data for each variable. Government effectiveness
and global outcomes approximately double or halve the probability of achieving
a successful outcome rating. Good supervision makes successful project outcomes
30 times more likely than poor supervision.
What do these results tell us about environmental project
outcomes? Our study confirms the success of assistance projects is strongly
influenced by the strength of public sector institutions, suggesting that
building the governance capacity of recipient countries is crucial for
improving environmental management. Our study also confirms that the
environmental projects that seek to advance global outcomes tend to receive
lower ratings than projects focused on local objectives. To increase the
likelihood that projects with global environmental objectives will succeed,
donors may need to focus on climate and biodiversity projects with strong local
benefits and grassroots support. Given the importance of project supervision to
outcome ratings, donor organizations must also invest in monitoring and
supervision.
Although our study does not offer the final word on the
predictors of success in environmental assistance projects, it does underline
the need for the researchers and policymakers to better understand the last two
decades of experience with environmental projects, particularly as calls for expanded
environmental assistance intensify with the creation of the Green Climate Fund.
This post was written
by Elsa Voytas (AidData Senior Research Assistant at the College of William and Mary), Brad Parks (Co-Executive Director of AidData at
the College of William & Mary), and Mark Buntaine (Assistant Professor of
Government and AidData Faculty Associate at the College of William and Mary).
For more information, find the full publication here.
