9.3 Defining the Scope of the Evaluation
Among the four selected countries the extent of coverage was based on substantive
and operational considerations. Completed projects that addressed concerns that
were still relevant for GEF and likely to receive funding in future were considered
(Table 9.2). In India and Mexico all completed full size projects were included. In
Russia two of the three completed projects were included.
8 However, in China
where the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio was the largest, only some of
the completed full size projects were selected so as to keep the cost of the evaluation
manageable. In selecting projects in China, it was ensured that the major targeted
Table 9.1 GEF CCM portfolio in the countries considered in this evaluation (in US $ million)
Country
Small grants
programme
a
Enabling
activities
b
Medium-size
projects
c
Full-size
projects
d
All
modalities
Brazil
0.0
5.7
0
78.0 (9)
83.8
China
0.0
8.6 (2)
1.8 (2)
502.1 (38)
512.5
India
1.8
3.5 (2)
3.8 (5)
199.4 (20)
208.5
Mexico
0.2
0.3 (1)
1.0 (1)
159.0 (14)
160.5
Russia
0.0
0.0 (0)
2.7 (3)
111.5 (13)
114.2
South Africa 0.2
0.3 (1)
3.8 (5)
27.2 (5)
31.5
Number of projects in parentheses, except for Small Grant Programme (SGP). Note: the assessment was conducted in 2012 and it takes into account data up to August 2011. Source: Climate
Change Mitigation Impact Evaluation, GEF IEO. The number in the parantheses signify the
number of projects
a
The GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF SGP) is a corporate programme of the GEF. The
Programme provides financial and technical support to communities and civil society organizations (CSOs) to address environmental concerns including climate change mitigation through
community-based initiatives and actions
b
Enabling Activities are short duration projects that generally receive up to US $ 1.0 million in
GEF grant. These are means of fulfilling essential communication requirements to Conventions,
provide a basic level of information to enable policy and strategic decisions to be made, or
assisting planning that identifies priority activities within a country
c
Medium Size Projects (MSPs) are projects with up to US $2 million in GEF funding. Expedited
procedures are followed for approval of MSPs so that they can be designed and executed more
quickly and efficiently
d
Full Size Projects (FSPs) are projects that involve GEF funding of more than US $ 2 million. An
overwhelming majority of GEF funding is provided through FSPs
8 The project that was excluded from the coverage through the evaluation was “Removing Barriers
to Coal Mine Methane Recovery and Utilization” (GEF ID 1162, UNDP, Russia). The GEF IEO
assessed the project to have been completed after “satisfactory” achievement of its expected
outcomes. The project was excluded because it pertain to coal bed methane recovery, a line of
investment that had been discontinued. Nonetheless, a coal bed methane recovery project was
covered in India, where all the completed projects were already being covered as part of a Country
Portfolio Evaluation being undertaken concurrently by the GEF IEO. Although the evaluation
team could have excluded the Coal Bed Methane project (GEF ID 325, India) as well from the
evaluation, it chose to include is because it found that the overall findings of the evaluation were
not sensitive to inclusion or exclusion of this project.
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
157
Among the four selected countries the extent of coverage was based on substantive
and operational considerations. Completed projects that addressed concerns that
were still relevant for GEF and likely to receive funding in future were considered
(Table 9.2). In India and Mexico all completed full size projects were included. In
Russia two of the three completed projects were included.
8 However, in China
where the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio was the largest, only some of
the completed full size projects were selected so as to keep the cost of the evaluation
manageable. In selecting projects in China, it was ensured that the major targeted
Table 9.1 GEF CCM portfolio in the countries considered in this evaluation (in US $ million)
Country
Small grants
programme
a
Enabling
activities
b
Medium-size
projects
c
Full-size
projects
d
All
modalities
Brazil
0.0
5.7
0
78.0 (9)
83.8
China
0.0
8.6 (2)
1.8 (2)
502.1 (38)
512.5
India
1.8
3.5 (2)
3.8 (5)
199.4 (20)
208.5
Mexico
0.2
0.3 (1)
1.0 (1)
159.0 (14)
160.5
Russia
0.0
0.0 (0)
2.7 (3)
111.5 (13)
114.2
South Africa 0.2
0.3 (1)
3.8 (5)
27.2 (5)
31.5
Number of projects in parentheses, except for Small Grant Programme (SGP). Note: the assessment was conducted in 2012 and it takes into account data up to August 2011. Source: Climate
Change Mitigation Impact Evaluation, GEF IEO. The number in the parantheses signify the
number of projects
a
The GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF SGP) is a corporate programme of the GEF. The
Programme provides financial and technical support to communities and civil society organizations (CSOs) to address environmental concerns including climate change mitigation through
community-based initiatives and actions
b
Enabling Activities are short duration projects that generally receive up to US $ 1.0 million in
GEF grant. These are means of fulfilling essential communication requirements to Conventions,
provide a basic level of information to enable policy and strategic decisions to be made, or
assisting planning that identifies priority activities within a country
c
Medium Size Projects (MSPs) are projects with up to US $2 million in GEF funding. Expedited
procedures are followed for approval of MSPs so that they can be designed and executed more
quickly and efficiently
d
Full Size Projects (FSPs) are projects that involve GEF funding of more than US $ 2 million. An
overwhelming majority of GEF funding is provided through FSPs
8 The project that was excluded from the coverage through the evaluation was “Removing Barriers
to Coal Mine Methane Recovery and Utilization” (GEF ID 1162, UNDP, Russia). The GEF IEO
assessed the project to have been completed after “satisfactory” achievement of its expected
outcomes. The project was excluded because it pertain to coal bed methane recovery, a line of
investment that had been discontinued. Nonetheless, a coal bed methane recovery project was
covered in India, where all the completed projects were already being covered as part of a Country
Portfolio Evaluation being undertaken concurrently by the GEF IEO. Although the evaluation
team could have excluded the Coal Bed Methane project (GEF ID 325, India) as well from the
evaluation, it chose to include is because it found that the overall findings of the evaluation were
not sensitive to inclusion or exclusion of this project.
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
157