Evaluering af Miljøstøtte til Arktis for årene 1993 - 2003

Evaluering af Miljøstøtte til Arktis for årene 1993 - 2003

Summary and conclusions

Purpose of the evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the environmental assistance to the Arctic from 1994 to 2003. Kvistgaard Consult undertakes the evaluation.

The overall objective of the evaluation is to carry out an analysis of the environmental assistance to the Arctic and the administration of the support. This will include an assessment of:

- To assess the appropriateness of the programme administration and adjustments hereof.

Conclusions of the evaluation

Based on a crosscutting assessment of the applied evaluation criteria, it is considered that the programme for the Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic (DANCEA) is fulfilled.

The Dancea programme as a whole is assessed to be relevant, due to the fact that Denmark, through her environmental assistance to the Arctic, fulfils her international agreements and obligations concerning environment and indigenous peoples. The four sub-programmes are principally considered to be relevant, however, the coherence between the sub-programmes does not always seem obvious. On the contrary, the sub strategy from 1994 does not explicitly require coherence of the programme, whereas the sub-programmes contribute to the achievement of a common overall objective. It is, though, assessed that a coherent programme makes it possible to achieve a higher degree of additionality than a programme existing of four non-coherent sub-programmes.

A certain degree of internal coherence can be identified in some of the sub-programmes – particularly AEPS/AMAP and AMP-V. In these programmes, several projects are building upon previous projects or project results. Likewise, additionality between the sub-programmes – particularly AEPS/AMAP and AMP-V – can be identified. A corresponding additionality cannot in the same way be identified between for example AMP-V and the sub-programme for indigenous peoples.

In terms of fulfilling the objectives, it can be established that it will be present at programme level, however, the present formulation of the overall objective is considered to be too broad. Accordingly, an assessment of the achieved objectives concerning the entire programme will be inexact as well.

It is,though, assessed that the effects of the entire programme are less satisfactory, even though a few more or less well-documented effects of the effort can be pointed out, but generally the documentation of the effects of the programme so far seems to be a problem. The same can be said concerning the assessment of the efficiency of the programme. Finally, the results of the programme in relation to sustainability are assessed as being satisfying.

The accumulated utility value of the scientific research is assessed to have been large for Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Denmark. Likewise, due to the fact that most projects have been approved, it is assessed that the size of the funds allocated since the outset of the programme has been sufficient. In the latest rounds of applications, there has been more focus on the Arctic environmental assistance funds and, accordingly, a greater number of applications have been submitted. This is among other things due to a redefinition of priorities in other areas.

Concerning the general outlines, the objectives of the programme do not seem to be defined and formulated in a sufficiently clear way. There seems to be a need for strengthening the objective hierarchies for each of the sub-programmes as well as to define objective hierarchies and indicators for the specific projects, in order to ensure that the overall objective of the programme is being fulfilled.

Due to the present design of the programme, the greater part of the funds are allocated to projects in Greenland, while the Faroe Islands and the Arctic part of Russia are receiving less assistance through the Dancea programme.

Each of the four sub-programmes – Obligations related to the AEPS (The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, including AMAP), The Arctic Environmental Programme – Knowledge building (AMP-V), The Arctic Environmental Programme – Concrete Actions (AMP-K) and Support to Indigenous Peoples – are assessed to be relevant in relation to the problems and requirements, which it is the aim of the Arctic nvironmental assistanceto address. Likewise, it is assessed that in general the coherence between the sub-programmes is relatively high. However, this coherence is assessed to be ambiguous concerning AMP-K and the relations to other sub-programmes of this sub-programme.

Likewise, the evaluation consludes that the objectives at project level as well as at sub-programmes level have been achieved. The achievement of objectives is e.g. expressed in reports and articles (quantitatively), as well as in the scientific standards (qualitatively) by which the projects have been carried out at. Contrary to these general tendencies, actual analysis and assessments of the 'effects' of environmental influence under AEPS/AMAP have been less in focus. Accordingly, it is assessed that in this respect the fulfilment of objectives is less than 100 percent.

Moreover, the effects of AMP-V can be divided into local as well as international effects. The local effects have resulted in a change of behaviour among the populations in Greenland and the Faroe Islands, while the international effects relate to the utilization of results in international fora. It is assessed that the identified international effects under AMP-V are supporting the achieved effects under AEPS/AMAP concerning the continued monitoring activities. Considerable 'soft' effects in terms of knowledge and capacity building in Danish and Greenlandic institutions have been achieved through both AMP-K and AMP-V. Furthermore, the environmental assistance to the Arctic has required a range of physical effects in the form of e.g. five waste incineration plants in Greenland.

The primary effects of the sub-programme for indigenous peoples is the supporting function, which the Indigenous Peoples' Secretariat (IPS) and other secretariats have managed in relation to encouragement of the participation of indigenous peoples in political initiatives concerning the environment. This has for example been expressed in relation to the negotiations concerning the POP Convention (Persistent Organic Pollutants) carried out in Stockholm.

The cost effectiveness of the four sub-programmes can only be assessed with difficulty and great uncertainties. However, on a wide range of issues this assessment will not be relevant. The cause of this is for instance the range of 'soft' effects resulting particularly from AMP-V, AMP-K, and the sub-programme for indigenous peoples. However, an assessment of the cost effectiveness does not give any evidence that the completed AEPS/AMAP projects could have been carried out in a more cost-effective way. On the contrary, it cannot be excluded that due to accumulated knowledge and investments in equipment etc. future projects can be completed with the use of less resources.

In general, the results of the AEPS/AMAP sub-programme are considered to be sustainable in two senses. Firstly, the produced monitoring results are useful also in relation to future measurements; secondly, professionally it will be possible to carry out the future monitoring activities within the institutions that are responsible for the monitoring of certain areas. Contrary to this, it is assessed that the main component in the sub-programme for indigenous peoples (IPS) will not be sustainable without financial support. The same applies to some of the AMP-K initiatives. The assessment of the sustainability of the results from AMP-V is positive, because knowledge has been gathered among institutions and persons.

The evaluation of the administration of the Dancea programme shows that in general the respondents have a positive attitude towards the way in which the Danish Environmental Protection Agency is handling the administration of the programme. In relation to this, the evaluation shows that a more simple administrative procedure without direct involvement of the Danish Polar Centre seems appropriate. Likewise, the evaluation shows that it will be advantageous to try to cut down the time for assessing applications, and there seems to be a need for improving the quality assessment of the applications. Moreover, at this point, it could be considered to redefine the role of the Advisory Committee for the Arctic..

Recommendations

In relation to the future design of and appropriateness of the environmental assistance to the Arctic, the following recommendations are underlined:

It would be appropriate to define the overall objectives for the programme more clearly,, regardless of the future design of the programme;
It could be considered to change the present construction of the programme as well as to try to innovate in the field of new areas derived from the Danish international obligations concerning the Arctic environment and the two home rule areas;
The objectives of the programme could be made more operational than is the case today. This includes defining indicators for measurements of effects;
It should be considered to change the composition of the Advisory Committee, including defining new terms of reference e.g. a more consultative role at programme level rather than at project level;
Alternatively or as a supplement, it should be considered to what degree and how Greenland and the Faroe Islands could be involved in the project selection process, e.g. it could considered to establish a committee composed of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the Greenland Home Rule, the Faroe Islands, and the Danish Forest and Nature Agency;
It is recommended to apply tender procedures more, as well as to define clear project selection criteria, and to increase the information level hereof;
If the recommendation concerning the redesign of the programme in order to comply only with international agreements and obligations is followed, it is recommended that the professional support in the collaboration with the Faroe Islands be prioritised; and
Moreover, it is recommended that the assistance to indigenous peoples in Russia be closed down, due to the fact that Denmark does not have any international obligations in this area.