acknowledging that processes affecting climate change take place in various
interlinked scales, it is important to identify the relevant system boundaries pertinent to the evaluation. For this evaluation the targeted market/technology was the
unit of the analysis and the system boundaries were set at the national scale.
Attention was given to identifying various components, and to the interactions
among these components or segments of the market targeted by the project. Special
attention was given to identifying market barriers to change and how these barriers
affect the functioning of the system and the systems likely emergent properties.
W€ orlen (2014) and W€ orlen and Consults (n.d.), have analyzed changes in the status
of market barriers addressed by climate change mitigation projects, including those
supported by the GEF. The evaluation built on their work to assess changes in
targeted market barriers and factors contributing to change.
Subsequent steps focused on assessing the extent and the way in which specific
elements of the intervention’s theory of change interacted with elements of the
system (Mayne 2008). The focus of enquiry was on how the intervention became
part of the system and the changes (intended or unintended) which this brought
about (Garcia and Zazueta 2015). This perspective seeks to emphasize the interconnectedness of the intervention and elements of the system unlike other contextual perspectives that emphasize the effects of context on the intervention (Pawson
et al. 2004; Blamey and Mackenzie 2007). This approach was woven into the
instruments, which were designed to gather information on the GEF activities and
on the links of these activities to support provided by other actors that were relevant
to the targeted market. The instruments also took into account the extent the
activities undertaken by the other actors were influenced by the GEF support and
vice-versa.
The decision to restrict the system boundaries at the national scale was
influenced by the fact that flow of information and learning is easier, and policy
framework more consistent, within the national boundaries. Similarly, barriers
related to suppliers, finance and expertise are more consistent within a country
than among countries. GEF projects too are generally geared towards influencing
the targeted markets at the national scale (Eberhard and Tokle 2004). This, however, does not mean that the systems at the national scale are insular and may not be
affected by factors that have origins in other countries. The evaluation itself
documented three instances – ILUMEX (GEF 575), BRT (GEF 1155) and Landfill
(GEF 784) in Mexico which had been replicated/scaled up in other Latin-American
countries.
9.6 Measurement of Emission Reduction Benefits
The direct and indirect tons of CO2 emission reductions for each project, were
small when compared to global emissions needed to have any effect on climate
change mitigation. However, this analysis is important to assess the extent to which
GEF supported approaches work and to determine if there is a potential for wider
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
161
interlinked scales, it is important to identify the relevant system boundaries pertinent to the evaluation. For this evaluation the targeted market/technology was the
unit of the analysis and the system boundaries were set at the national scale.
Attention was given to identifying various components, and to the interactions
among these components or segments of the market targeted by the project. Special
attention was given to identifying market barriers to change and how these barriers
affect the functioning of the system and the systems likely emergent properties.
W€ orlen (2014) and W€ orlen and Consults (n.d.), have analyzed changes in the status
of market barriers addressed by climate change mitigation projects, including those
supported by the GEF. The evaluation built on their work to assess changes in
targeted market barriers and factors contributing to change.
Subsequent steps focused on assessing the extent and the way in which specific
elements of the intervention’s theory of change interacted with elements of the
system (Mayne 2008). The focus of enquiry was on how the intervention became
part of the system and the changes (intended or unintended) which this brought
about (Garcia and Zazueta 2015). This perspective seeks to emphasize the interconnectedness of the intervention and elements of the system unlike other contextual perspectives that emphasize the effects of context on the intervention (Pawson
et al. 2004; Blamey and Mackenzie 2007). This approach was woven into the
instruments, which were designed to gather information on the GEF activities and
on the links of these activities to support provided by other actors that were relevant
to the targeted market. The instruments also took into account the extent the
activities undertaken by the other actors were influenced by the GEF support and
vice-versa.
The decision to restrict the system boundaries at the national scale was
influenced by the fact that flow of information and learning is easier, and policy
framework more consistent, within the national boundaries. Similarly, barriers
related to suppliers, finance and expertise are more consistent within a country
than among countries. GEF projects too are generally geared towards influencing
the targeted markets at the national scale (Eberhard and Tokle 2004). This, however, does not mean that the systems at the national scale are insular and may not be
affected by factors that have origins in other countries. The evaluation itself
documented three instances – ILUMEX (GEF 575), BRT (GEF 1155) and Landfill
(GEF 784) in Mexico which had been replicated/scaled up in other Latin-American
countries.
9.6 Measurement of Emission Reduction Benefits
The direct and indirect tons of CO2 emission reductions for each project, were
small when compared to global emissions needed to have any effect on climate
change mitigation. However, this analysis is important to assess the extent to which
GEF supported approaches work and to determine if there is a potential for wider
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
161