These are: (1) What have been the GEF contributions to GHG emission reduction
and avoidance? (2) What has been the progress made by GEF supported activities
towards transforming markets for climate change mitigation? And (3) What are the
impact pathways and factors affecting further progress towards market
transformation?
The composition and trends of the GEF mitigation portfolio were analyzed to
identify the types of projects that GEF has been supporting and where this support
was more concentrated. The next step was to identify a set of projects from which
relevant lessons could be derived in addressing climate change mitigation while
simultaneously assessing the results of GEF support. Based on consultations with
the stakeholders, a decision was made to focus on the major emerging economies
based on their respective share within the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio,
the potential for climate change mitigation, and their continued importance for
future GEF support in this area. Due to budget and time considerations, it was
difficult to cover more than four countries. Selection of these countries was based
on an iterative process of portfolio analysis and consultations with key stakeholders. Firstly, the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio in all the emerging
economies was compared. Based on criteria of overall size of the climate change
mitigation portfolio, share in the climate change mitigation portfolio approved
before 2002, share in the technology transfer portfolio; and, share in STAR
6
allocation for climate change mitigation, six countries were identified for further
consideration. These were Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa
(Table 9.1). Further analysis showed that GEF climate change mitigation portfolios
in China, India and Mexico stand out both in terms of total cumulative GEF funding
and total GEF funding in projects that were approved before 2002. Among the
remainder, GEF IEO had completed a Country Portfolio Evaluation
7 in Brazil when
the preparation for the Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) impact evaluation
started. Therefore, to avoid evaluation fatigue, Brazil was dropped. In
South Africa the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio was relatively small
compared to other major emerging economies both in terms of completed projects
and projects that were under implementation. Therefore, it too was dropped. Russia,
where the portfolio of completed projects was also relatively small, was selected
because a sizable amount of investment was under implementation and it also had
the third largest allocation for climate change mitigation for GEF-5 (2010–2014)
period.
6 System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) is GEF’s performance based allocation
framework for the recipient countries.
7 Country Portfolio Evaluations analyze the totality of GEF support across GEF Agencies, projects,
and programs in a given country, with the aim of reviewing the performance and results of
GEF-supported activities and assessing how those activities align with country strategies and
priorities as well as with GEF’s priorities for global environmental benefits. https://www.thegef.
org/gef/CPE accessed on March 10th 2016.
156
A. Zazueta and N.K. Negi
and avoidance? (2) What has been the progress made by GEF supported activities
towards transforming markets for climate change mitigation? And (3) What are the
impact pathways and factors affecting further progress towards market
transformation?
The composition and trends of the GEF mitigation portfolio were analyzed to
identify the types of projects that GEF has been supporting and where this support
was more concentrated. The next step was to identify a set of projects from which
relevant lessons could be derived in addressing climate change mitigation while
simultaneously assessing the results of GEF support. Based on consultations with
the stakeholders, a decision was made to focus on the major emerging economies
based on their respective share within the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio,
the potential for climate change mitigation, and their continued importance for
future GEF support in this area. Due to budget and time considerations, it was
difficult to cover more than four countries. Selection of these countries was based
on an iterative process of portfolio analysis and consultations with key stakeholders. Firstly, the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio in all the emerging
economies was compared. Based on criteria of overall size of the climate change
mitigation portfolio, share in the climate change mitigation portfolio approved
before 2002, share in the technology transfer portfolio; and, share in STAR
6
allocation for climate change mitigation, six countries were identified for further
consideration. These were Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa
(Table 9.1). Further analysis showed that GEF climate change mitigation portfolios
in China, India and Mexico stand out both in terms of total cumulative GEF funding
and total GEF funding in projects that were approved before 2002. Among the
remainder, GEF IEO had completed a Country Portfolio Evaluation
7 in Brazil when
the preparation for the Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) impact evaluation
started. Therefore, to avoid evaluation fatigue, Brazil was dropped. In
South Africa the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio was relatively small
compared to other major emerging economies both in terms of completed projects
and projects that were under implementation. Therefore, it too was dropped. Russia,
where the portfolio of completed projects was also relatively small, was selected
because a sizable amount of investment was under implementation and it also had
the third largest allocation for climate change mitigation for GEF-5 (2010–2014)
period.
6 System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) is GEF’s performance based allocation
framework for the recipient countries.
7 Country Portfolio Evaluations analyze the totality of GEF support across GEF Agencies, projects,
and programs in a given country, with the aim of reviewing the performance and results of
GEF-supported activities and assessing how those activities align with country strategies and
priorities as well as with GEF’s priorities for global environmental benefits. https://www.thegef.
org/gef/CPE accessed on March 10th 2016.
156
A. Zazueta and N.K. Negi