Read updates on the campaign activities and news from partners around the world. If you would like to receive the newsletter directly in your inbox, sign up to receive Eval4Action updates here. As an individual advocate or a partner network, if you have news or information to share with the Eval4Action community, please write to contact@eval4action.org.

By Junhua Qu and Lan Wu EvalYouth China Climate injustice is nowhere more visible than in small island states. As the canary in the coal mine of climate catastrophe, they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on the marine environment. As for the formal request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS) in December 2022, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereinafter “the Tribunal”) issued Advisory Opinion No. 31 (hereinafter “the Advisory Opinion”) on May 21, 2024. Small island states had asked the Tribunal to clarify what legal obligations countries have under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, hereinafter “the Convention”). The Advisory Opinion concluded that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can constitute pollution of the marine environment. States therefore have a stringent due-diligence obligation to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution, including ocean warming, rising sea levels, and acidification. For the first time at the international judicial level, the Tribunal addressed the intersection of climate change and the law of the sea. The evaluative method in the Advisory Opinion helped clarify basic scientific facts and ground “necessary measures” according to the best available science. It underlined that scientific uncertainty cannot justify inaction where serious or irreversible harm is at stake. Evaluation here bridges the gap, enabling courts to advance climate justice through juridical practice. The evaluative work behind “best available science” The Advisory Opinion establishes a verified causal chain more than “climate change is real”. It traces anthropogenic GHG emissions from atmospheric accumulation through ocean absorption to concrete marine harms (ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation) to determine whether such emissions qualify as “pollution” under the Convention and whether States have fulfilled their obligations. As the Tribunal deeply recognized that “the phenomenon of climate change is central to the Request and the questions contained therein necessarily have scientific aspects”,[1] an inherently evaluative approach has been adopted. By its extensive and structured engagement with scientific evidence, the Tribunal linked greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to marine harm, to determine whether such emissions constitute “pollution” under the Convention and whether states have met their obligations under Part XII. The Tribunal is a judicial body established under the Convention, to interpret and apply the Convention (Article 288(1)) and “other rules of international law not incompatible with this Convention” (Article 293).[2] It does not generate scientific knowledge itself, nor its advisory function does not qualify as an “evaluation” in the technical sense used by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) or the World Bank.[3] This is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mattered. Their assessment reports, as a systematic evaluation of global climate science, are almost universally accepted by participants in the proceedings at the Tribunal.[4] The Tribunal first summarized substantive conclusions, such as the deleterious effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions. But the Tribunal did more than repeat scientific conclusions. It paid attention to how the IPCC assesses evidence, including its use of confidence levels and likelihood language to communicate certainty and uncertainty.[5] By this epistemic evaluation, the Tribunal treated the IPCC as a factual basis for legal reasoning. “Best available science” now became more than a general reference as the Tribunal effectively evaluated whether state conduct met the standard under the Convention Article 194. The Tribunal therefore demonstrates evaluative legal reasoning, as it assesses the credibility of evidence, verifies causal links between GHG emissions and marine harm, as well as judge the significance of state conduct under the Convention.[6] In this sense, evaluation is not what the tribunal does, but it is the rational infrastructure that makes the tribunal’s climate justice reasoning possible. Scientific evidence as evaluative enabler of the five pillars of climate justice Climate justice in international law requires more than moral commitment, as well as requiring evidence. The Advisory Opinion demonstrates how scientific evaluation makes climate harm legally visible, responsibility measurable, and legal obligations adaptive. This triple evaluative function operationalizes climate justice without reducing it to the abstract principle of climate justice. The UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security identifies five key dimensions of climate justice[7]: recognitional, procedural, distributive, restorative and transformative justice. Each dimension represents a different just way in climate governance.[8] These dimensions should be adopted in law with an evidentiary infrastructure instead of abstract moral aspirations. The Advisory Opinion illustrates precisely how evaluation furnishes this infrastructure: Recognitional justice: The Tribunal’s quantification of marine harm renders small island states’ vulnerability legally visible. Evaluation thus grants vulnerable actors’ epistemic authority to define climate harm on the global stage. Procedural justice: By relying on IPCC findings, the Tribunal imports evaluative norms of transparency and systematic review into the judicial sphere, reinforcing participatory and accountable climate governance. Distributive justice: IPCC metrics theoretically link emissions to marine harm, satisfying OECD-DAC and World Bank evaluative standards. Yet this does not mean that scientific attribution automatically produces legal obligation or material remedy. Evaluation here in the Advisory Opinion thus serves a dual function: measuring causal responsibility while exposing the accountability gap between scientifically established harm and politically realized reallocation. Restorative justice: The IPCC’s projections of irreversible change establish the forensic foundation required for reparation. Based on that, the Tribunal’s evaluation of damage magnitude, duration and irreversibility creates the legal predicate for restorative finance and institutional remedies. Transformative justice: By linking the obligations under the Convention to the IPCC’s iterative cycles, the Tribunal gives international law a more adaptive character. States’ climate-related duties should not remain fixed at a single point in time, compelling continuous reassessment as new risks emerge. The Convention is thereby transformed from a static treaty into an evidence-based governance framework that simultaneously advances climate action and a fairer international community. The enabling processes are shown below: Historical legal pathway: how science interacted with the international environmental law system The role of scientific evidence in climate advisory opinions did not emerge in a vacuum. International environmental law has long used assessment to act under scientific uncertainty. A useful precedent is the ozone regime. The ozone regime is remarkable as it happened to first address a long-term problem which effects are not evident for decades hence.[9] It required decisions based on probabilities, flexibility of being adapted to new sciences assessments and maximum international cooperation. The 1985 Vienna Convention created a framework for scientific cooperation, systematic observation, and information exchange. The 1987 Montreal Protocol went further by institutionalizing periodic assessment. Article 6 requires parties to review control measures based on available scientific, environmental, technical, and economic information.[10] The history shows that evaluation can be part of law-making itself as it identifies risk, justifies precautionary action, and allows legal obligations to evolve as knowledge improves. The 1990 London Amendment strengthened controls on CFCs and halons and expanded regulation to additional substances based on “the most recent scientific evidence” at that time.[11] In this sense, the Tribunal concluded that States must take all “necessary measures” to control marine pollution associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions and said that what constitutes necessary measures “should be determined objectively” taking into account, among other things, “the best available science”.[12] It now helps define the content of state obligations.[13] The Tribunal also affirmed that duties of scientific cooperation under the Convention, also apply to GHG-related marine pollution.[14] The tribunal act anticipatory as it urged States to take preventive measures even in the absence of absolute scientific certainty.[15] Conclusion: evaluation for climate justice The Advisory Opinion is not merely a legal document about the law of the sea. It reveals something far more useful for evaluators: it shows how rigorous, credible evaluation of evidence can turn abstract vulnerability into enforceable justice. For evaluators, the Advisory Opinion offers three interconnected lessons: Evaluation as a recognition tool. Just as IPCC reports made small island states visible to the court, evaluations can make differential vulnerability visible across gender, geography, age, disability, or displacement status, performing recognitional justice in the process. Process integrity builds credibility. The Tribunal trusted the IPCC not merely for its conclusions but for its transparent, peer-reviewed, multi-stakeholder procedures. This illustrates a broader principle: the legitimacy of evidence depends on the integrity of the producing process. For evaluators, the lesson is that credible evidence depends on methods suited to the purpose. Where participatory evaluation is appropriate, credibility can be further strengthened by engaging affected communities in defining indicators, interpreting findings, and validating recommendations. In that case, the process remains open to scrutiny and methodological challenge. Evaluation should remain responsive to new evidence. The Advisory Opinion clarified that the measures expected of States must reflect the best available science as it develops. It reads the Convention considering evolving science, reminding us that evaluation should not be limited to end-of-project reporting. For evaluators, the parallel is limited but useful: evaluation should create opportunities to revisit findings and assumptions when conditions change. Ultimately, the ITLOS Opinion reminds us that evaluation is not a back-office compliance exercise. When it is independent, credible, and useful, evaluation becomes part of the infrastructure of justice. The emerging hierarchy of scientific evidence in climate litigation places IPCC Assessment Reports at the top following the Advisory Opinion.[16] For future evaluation practice, the challenge is to balance scientific authority with responsiveness to emerging evidence, so that courts do not overlook fast-developing climate harms. Junhua Qu is an Energy Analyst at Pratus Group. Her professional experience spans energy modelling, climate policy analysis, carbon markets, and biodiversity protection across both NGO and private-sector contexts. With a continued interest in energy transition, climate governance, and SDG evaluation, she has participated in SDG evaluation workshops organized by EvalYouth China. Dr. Lan Wu is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Ocean University of China, where she teaches environmental and natural resources law. Her research focuses on the legal and regulatory frameworks essential to facilitating the clean energy transition amidst the global climate crisis. Dr. Wu holds a PhD from The Chinese University of Hong Kong and previously served as an Energy and Climate Fellow at UNDP China. Her recent work includes identifying regulatory barriers and crafting innovative legal solutions to advance climate action and sustainable energy governance. She has published book chapters on related topics with De Gruyter and Palgrave Macmillan. AI Disclaimer : AI tools were used solely to bring the blog to the required length and to correct grammatical issues. The blog's content, ideas, and narrative were authored by the human writer, not generated by AI. References [1] Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024, para 46. [2] UNCLOS Article 286-288 (1), 293 and Article 16 and 21 of Annex VI. [3] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Evaluation Criteria.” Development Co-operation, Evaluation and Effectiveness, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/development-co-operation-evaluation-and-effectiveness/evaluation-criteria.html, OECD, accessed 24 May 2026; World Bank Group. World Bank Group evaluation principles. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/world-bank-group-evaluation-principles, accessed 24 May 2026. [4] Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024, para 51. [5] Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024, para 49, 50, 54-61. [6] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-based management for sustainable development (2nd ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/632da462-en-fr-es. [7] See for example,Weiss, E.B. In Fairness to Future Generations, Hotei Publishing: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1988; Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements And Political Theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–540; Schlosberg, David and Lisette B. Collins. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 (2014) 359–374; Newell, P., Srivastava, S., Naess, L. O., Torres Contreras, G. A., & Prize, R. (2021). Toward transformative climate justice: An emerging research agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(6). [8] United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security. (2025). 5 key dimensions of climate justice. https://unu.edu/ehs/article/5-key-dimensions-climate-justice, United Nations University, accessed 24 May 2026. [9] Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. (n.d.). https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/vcpol/vcpol.html [10] Laboratory, N. C. S. (n.d.). NOAA CSL: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/preface.html. [11] Cordis, C. (1992, February 25). Montreal Protocol: Amendment increases CFC/halon controls. CORDIS | European Commission. https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/748-montreal-protocol-amendment-increases-cfchalon-controls/de. [12] Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024, para 243. [13] https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2024/05/22/the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-an-introduction-into-the-joint-blog-symposium/. [14] Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024, para 312–320. [15] Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024, para 212 and 213; Torre-Schaub, M. (2024, December 19). Why climate science matters for international Law. Climate Law Blog. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2024/06/06/why-climate-science-matters-for-international-law/. [16] Walker-Crawford, N., Reyes, J. J., Petkov, N., Palazzo Corner, S., Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, & Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment. (2026). Science in the courtroom: evidentiary needs in climate litigation. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science and Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London. https://doi.org/10.21953/researchonline.lse.ac.uk.00137472. Disclaimer: The content of the blog is the responsibility of the author(s) and does not necessarily reflect the views of Eval4Action co-leaders and partners.

On 15 July 2026, in observance of World Youth Skills Day, the Future of Evaluation series launched its second season with a dialogue on the core skills young evaluators need to be future-ready. The discussion highlighted that while technical competence remains the backbone of evaluation—alongside emerging areas like AI literacy, systems thinking, and foresight—it is non-technical competencies that will set the next generation apart. Skills such as empathy, connection, sound judgement, communication, adaptability, and a commitment to continuous learning, were identified as equally vital for shaping the future of young evaluators. In case you missed the conversation, watch the recording. Seven quick takeaways from the dialogue Move from measuring the past to informing the future. Evaluation has traditionally asked what happened and whether a programme worked. The dialogue argued that tomorrow's evaluator also has to ask what could happen, whether an intervention will still be relevant in five years, what emerging risks decision makers should prepare for and how programmes should adapt. Foresight, the practice of using evidence to think through possible futures, is moving from a specialist add-on to a core evaluative competency alongside methods, systems thinking and communication. Work with AI, not for AI. AI literacy featured as one of the defining skills of the next decade. The competency required is critical AI literacy, meaning the ability to question what technology delivers, verify its outputs and know when to use a tool and when to hand the task back to human judgement. Evaluative reasoning, the work of weighing evidence and deciding what has merit, is the part of the process that must remain human. Emerging evaluators were urged to experiment with the tools, get familiar with them, and use that familiarity to shape how evaluation uses AI, rather than letting AI shape evaluation. Empathy is core evaluative practice, not a soft skill. An evaluator's primary role is to bridge conflicting belief systems, ideologies, and politics—far beyond translating technical jargon or data platforms. As global divisions increasingly center on how data is interpreted rather than what it shows, the ability to hold multiple perspectives and build common ground between data creators and users has become an indispensable evaluative skill. Stay close to the work, and give back to the ecosystem. Evaluators who understand how programmes actually run on the ground make better judgements. That means spending time with programme designers, communities and frontline staff, rather than working only from reports and data at a desk. It also means giving back through sharing findings, methods and lessons across evaluations, and through building communities of practice, so that each evaluation builds on the ones before it, rather than repeating work already done in the same context by another organisation. Evaluation cannot grow what it cannot see. Evaluation's biggest risk is often described as a lack of future-ready evaluators. A fundamental gap is that evaluation as a profession does not know its own ecosystem. Basic questions such as how many evaluators work in a given country, where they are trained and what pathways lead them into leadership have no clear answer. The next generation cannot be grown into a system that has not been mapped. Undertaking this mapping, and understanding the supply and demand for evaluators in each region is an overdue exercise. Beyond methods and models, human qualities set the next generation of evaluators apart. In addition to methods and frameworks, young evaluators must hone skills like adaptability, influence, curiosity, judgment, entrepreneurial thinking, connection, and empathy. While rarely listed in a standard job description, these competencies are what turn technical proficiency into evaluations that drive real action. They are what separate a proficient evaluator from a future-ready one. Lessons from the Youth in Evaluation champion. A new feature of Season 2 is a dedicated segment in every dialogue where a Youth in Evaluation champion shares their experiences alongside the panel. In this session, the champion—speaking from an academic perspective—turned the focus toward higher education. They proposed five core competencies for a modernized curriculum: systems thinking, digital and AI literacy, foresight, communication, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The takeaway was clear: universities can no longer update a curriculum every five years and expect it to remain relevant. What matters now is a living curriculum—supported by faculty who learn alongside their students. The Eval4Action Future of Evaluation dialogues are a series of forward-looking discussions that explore innovative and adaptive approaches to evaluation. Designed to make evaluation more influential in a rapidly changing and complex world, these dialogues bring together a diverse range of voices—from experts to young evaluators—to share knowledge and highlight ways to future-proof the field of evaluation. Each monthly dialogue is aligned with an international action day, ensuring the conversations are timely and relevant to a global discourse. This was the first dialogue of Season 2. The second dialogue will take place on 19 August 2026 in observance of World Humanitarian Day. Register. This article was written with AI support with human authors in the lead.

Future of Evaluation dialogue brings together leading experts and newcomers in the community to explore how evaluation can become more influential by innovating and adapting to evolving external environments. The Future of Evaluation dialogue brings together leading evaluation experts and leaders, young and emerging evaluators and new voices in the evaluation community and beyond, to explore how innovative approaches and adaptations can make evaluation more influential given the evolving global landscape. By fostering dynamic knowledge exchange, these dialogues seek to enhance evaluation's relevance, ensuring it remains vital for informed decision-making and sustainable development, today and in the future. Building on the momentum from the Summit for the Future of Evaluation , and aligning with the #EvalTorch relay , the Future of Evaluation dialogue provides a platform for collaborative learning to future-proof evaluation. Each monthly session will be strategically linked to key international days, ensuring thematic relevance and amplified outreach by aligning with global observances. This dialogue series is a cornerstone of the #Eval4Action 2.0 launch, brought to life in partnership with EvalPartners Global Evaluation Agenda 2.0 and the 3 Horizons initiative led by the International Evaluation Academy. Schedule 15 July 2026 , World Youth Skills Day What future-fit skills are essential for young evaluators to lead tomorrow's dynamic evaluation landscape? Catch up 19 August 2026 , World Humanitarian Day How can evaluation innovate to accelerate learning in humanitarian action amidst escalating crises? Learn more Catch up on Season 1 23 September 2025 , International Day of Peace How can evaluation be a force for peace and resilience amidst global instability? Catch up 23 October 2025 , UN Day (80th anniversary) How can evaluation shape a future-fit United Nations? Catch up 25 November 2025 , International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Is evaluation our compass to a future free from gender-based violence? Catch up 10 December 2025 , Human Rights Day Is evaluation key to realizing universal human rights? Catch up 22 January 2026 , International Day of Education Are we educating evaluators of every generation, for the future? Catch up 19 February 2026 , World Day of Social Justice Is evaluation fulfilling its potential to advance global social justice? Catch up 10 March 2026 , International Women's Day How can evaluation accelerate rights, justice, action, for all women and girls? Catch up 21 April 2026 , World Creativity and Innovation Day Will the future of evaluation be shaped by its creativity and innovation in facing emergent challenges? Catch up More information on each session will be available shortly.

Upholding Youth in Evaluation standards Theme Upholding Youth in Evaluation standards Sub-themes 1. Leadership and accountability 2. Practice 3. Advocacy and capacity building 4. Knowledge management and communication 5. Human resources 6. Financial resources 8 July 2024 | Day 1 9 July 10 July 11 July 12 July Global events Full programme Sub-themes 1-6 English Global inauguration & Youth in Evaluation champion awards Eval4Action 8 July 2024 | 9 am ET Virtual event Details Sub-theme 1 English | French Youth leadership and accountability in evaluation AfrEA YEE Network and EvalYouth 8 July 2024 | 5 pm EAT Virtual event Register Sub-theme 2 English Training on digitalisation tools in monitoring and evaluation Cameroon Society of English Speaking Evaluators 8 July 2024 | 10 am CAT Virtual event Register Sub-theme 3 English Advocating for youth training in evaluation and incorporating evaluation in projects LOVE UNION 8 July 2024 | 10 am CAT In-person (Cameroon) Contact Sub-theme 3 English Young and emerging evaluators in advocacy spaces EvalYouth North America 8 July 2024 | 12 pm CST Virtual event Recording Sub-theme 1, 2, 3 English Engaging young practitioners in enhancing evaluation ecosystem in India Community of Evaluators South Asia and Sambodhi Research and Communications 8 July 2024 | 4 pm IST Virtual event Register Sub-theme 4 French From the state of confusion to the lessons learned from an emerging evaluator SenEval (Association Sénégalaise d'Evaluation) 8 July 2024 | 1 pm GMT Virtual event Recording 9 July 2024

The Future of Evaluation dialogue brings together leading evaluation experts and leaders, young and emerging evaluators and new voices in the evaluation community and beyond, to explore how innovative approaches and adaptations can make evaluation more influential given the evolving global landscape. Wednesday, 19 August 2026 8:00 am - 9:15 am ET Register How can evaluation innovate to accelerate learning in humanitarian action amidst escalating crises? While humanitarian crises are becoming more frequent, complex, and interconnected due to conflict, climate change, displacement, pandemics, and economic instability, the funding landscape for humanitarian action has drastically shifted in recent years. What does this mean for the evaluation of humanitarian action? How can evaluative evidence be used for change by humanitarian actors in the present context? This Future of Evaluation dialogue explores how evaluation can innovate to accelerate learning and improve decision-making in humanitarian action. The discussion will examine emerging approaches such as real-time and adaptive evaluation, complexity-aware methods, artificial intelligence, remote data collection, and evaluative foresight to generate evidence that is responsive to rapidly evolving contexts. It will also consider how participatory and locally led evaluation can strengthen accountability to affected populations while fostering continuous learning and adaptation. By bringing together humanitarian practitioners, evaluators, and thought leaders, the dialogue aims to identify the future-ready evaluation approaches and capabilities needed to support more effective, equitable, and resilient humanitarian responses in an era of escalating crises. Moderator Khaled Rajab is Country Director of Anera in Palestine and an international governance, humanitarian, and evaluation expert with over 20 years of experience. He has led and evaluated programmes across more than 15 countries for USAID, the World Bank, UN agencies, and other multilateral and bilateral donors, specializing in governance, humanitarian action, institutional reform, and organizational learning. Panelists Sarah Gharbi is a Research Fellow at ALNAP with 20 years of experience in the humanitarian and development sectors. She has worked with several international agencies as an evaluation advisor, researcher, and evaluator. She is the co-author of the ALNAP evaluation guide on adapting the OECD criteria to humanitarian contexts. Nur Abdelkhaliq Zamora is Principal Consultant at IOD PARC, an employee-owned monitoring and evaluation company based in the UK. She has over 18 years of research and consulting experience and has worked on assignments with organisations including UNRWA, UNHCR, WFP, IOM, Danish Red Cross, the European Commission and GIZ. She holds a PhD in Politics and International Relations from the University of Edinburgh. Eddah Kanini is a monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), organizational development, and gender specialist with over fifteen years of professional experience advancing transformative evaluation practice across Sub-Saharan Africa and globally. Eddah has played active leadership roles in national, continental and global evaluation bodies such as the Monitoring and Evaluation Professionals Association of Kenya (MEPAK), African Evaluation Association (AfrEA), AGDEN, IDEAS, and EvalPartners initiatives. Camilla Buch von Schroeder is a Humanitarian Evaluation Specialist at the UNFPA Independent Evaluation Office. She brings over two decades of experience in programme and people management, evaluation and operational research in humanitarian and development contexts across Africa. Her core expertise spans sexual and reproductive health and gender-based-violence in emergencies, youth and adolescent programming, social and behaviour change, and humanitarian-peace-development nexus programming. Future of Evaluation dialogue