Using intermediate indicators: lessons for climate policy

Abstract

What roles can metrics, particularly intermediate indicators, play in informing the design and implementation of policies and actions with climate co-benefits? While the precise definition of indicators differs across sectors and strands of the literature, performance metrics typically measure not only the final outcomes, but also inputs, processes, and output measurements of actions. Indicators frameworks have become a widespread feature of policy and project monitoring across both affluent and lower-income economies for reporting, learning and, in some cases, target- or incentive-based management. Indicators play an important and positive role in project management and policy making, even where they are not tied to explicit targets or incentive mechanisms. In particular, the use of intermediate indicators can provide early and timely reporting of progress and setbacks, allowing for policy learning and discussion of best practice across projects or programmes. Policy relevance: A successful transition to low-carbon growth trajectories depends on the ability of governments to implement actions and policies to initiate and guide low-carbon development. The experience from public and private actors in other sectors shows that suitable indicators are necessary to provide the information to manage policy implementation. In contrast, the UNFCCC framework only requires reporting on CO2 emissions (final outcomes). This raises the question of whether additional indicators are required to support policy design, implementation of domestic action and best-practice learning. It further raises questions concerning the extent to which such reporting can be generic or should be associated with specific actions, and which reporting can be harmonized internationally or needs to be country-specific.