International Support for Domestic Climate Policies

The document examines the role of intermediate indicators—metrics that measure activity or service provision as a step toward a final outcome—as tools for policy learning and performance benchmarking. By reviewing case studies from sustainable development, agri-environmental policy, science and technology, construction, and overseas development assistance, the author argues that intermediate indicators offer more timely and actionable feedback than long-term outcome indicators. The paper suggests that applying these lessons to climate policy, such as through the quantification of sustainable development policies and measures (SD-PAMs), could enhance transparency and international cooperation, though it notes that data availability and measurement costs in developing countries remain significant barriers.

• Intermediate indicators are defined as measures of activity or service provision that contribute to an overarching final outcome, serving as a tool for policy implementation, performance benchmarking, and internal strategy learning.
• Lead indicators provide a shorter-term time frame for measuring success, which helps maintain political and financial support for programs with long investment cycles and allows for more frequent policy adjustments.
• The use of composite indicators can lead to perverse spending priorities, as governments may focus on narrowly defined, easily quantified objectives at the expense of less quantifiable but essential infrastructure or system spending.
• In the EU's Agri-Environmental Indicators (AEIs), a lack of compulsory monitoring and the use of indicators not tied to explicit targets created a 'patchwork' of national approaches and missed opportunities for agricultural de-intensification.
• Experience in the UK construction industry shows that voluntary participation in metric sharing and the formation of 'clubs' for benchmarking can effectively facilitate the transfer of best practices between firms.
• In the context of the European Commission’s Special Programme for Africa, the cost and ease of measurement are primary constraints; for example, a demographic and health survey is estimated to cost twice as much as measuring budgetary efficiency.
• Current UNFCCC reporting for Non-Annex I parties is often limited by a lack of activity data and inconsistent standards, which restricts the ability to compare efforts across different countries.
• The author argues that shifting toward the reporting of intermediate indicators for sustainable development policies and measures (SD-PAMs) would improve the effectiveness of domestic action and international cooperation, provided that Annex I countries provide technical and financial assistance to overcome resource barriers in developing countries.

APA

Cust, J. (2008). International Support for Domestic Climate Policies. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cust-251108-final.pdf

Chicago

Cust, James. International Support for Domestic Climate Policies. Climate Strategies, 2008. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cust-251108-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cust |first1=James |title=International Support for Domestic Climate Policies |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=25 November 2008 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cust-251108-final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cust2008international, author = {Cust, James}, title = {{International Support for Domestic Climate Policies}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2008}, month = nov, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cust-251108-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }