Alexandria, 11th of May, 2008. It is the second day of international conference on evaluating of climate change and development. The measure which was organized by Global Environment Facility together with Bibliotheca Alexandrina get together 150 evaluators, specialists and consultants from GEF, different development agencies and banks, academists and NGOs’ representatives from more than 20 countries to discuss issues and problems of present approaches and tools of evaluation of projects, program and policies.
The question even is not in the fashioned present approaches in project and policy evaluation methods as in the question of how effective these methods could be when you are evaluating projects related with climate change issues. By the way those projects related with energy, transport, biodiversity and all socially and environmentally significant activities. The practice shows that we could not be boasting of.
More sharply that problem appears if discover that even simple early calculation of carbon emissions became a huge achievement for separate state and only rich countries may permit expensive equipment and specialists to do that. So, what we could say about other Kyoto mechanisms where the terms of possible benefits exceed 30 years? The actuality of the issue is growing if we will take into consideration that until the next protocol development and ratification in 2013 such adequate tools should be developed and approbated already.
From the presentations of speakers it’s becoming obvious that current methods of evaluation that used by international development agencies and banks are incomplete and could not provide improvements for all projects which somehow related with environment. Even despite of their deep and comprehensive development. It’s social, physical and biological components implied here under the environment. The issue is not only in the evaluation methods. The preference to economical interests and analysis are giving to all development projects. Gaining profits became an overall objective and lead to unforeseen social and ecological impacts. Best provident to that are destructive hurricanes, increasing poverty and constantly growing prices for everything everywhere in the world. These lead to conflicts for the resources and dissatisfaction of poorest by the rich.
May be we should search the answers here. If we could give higher priority to environmental and social issues in the development projects, everything could stand up into their places. I do not know if the organizers of the conference understand that? Hopefully, the attempt to find new ideas and possible ways of development together with the tools of evaluations of such development became the main aim of organizers, despite of its huge costs.
S.Vorsin