application. To determine the level of GHG emissions, assumptions made by the
project proponents on the benefit stream of the technologies promoted by a given
project including the estimated duration of the benefit stream were recorded; and,
the expected GHG emission reduction – including the changes in the measurements
of the underlying indicators for calculating emission reduction – expected at the
project start, realized during project implementation period, and revised estimates
at the point the evaluation was conducted, were noted. This information, along with
information provided in the terminal evaluations of the completed projects and
that was gathered through interviews and documents accessed during field verification, formed a basis to prepare revised estimates of the GHG emission benefits.
The evaluation found that although most of the GEF projects covered by the
evaluation tracked direct and indirect emission reduction and/or avoidance, in most
instances regular monitoring of the emissions related benefits stopped at project
completion. Moreover, the information on the indicators specified in the project
M&E plan was not being gathered and analyzed regularly. Methodological
approaches used by different project proponents to track emission reduction
and/or avoidance were often inconsistent. Table 9.3 lists the type of errors that
were encountered. To address these errors, the evaluation team recalculated the
emission reduction benefits using the available information. Although results for
individual projects differed from what had been calculated by the project proponents, the overall figure at the portfolio level were similar.
The evaluation found that of 18 projects, 16 resulted in direct GHG emission
reduction. Aggregate direct emission reduction is estimated to be about 6 million
tons of CO2 equivalent per year. However, of the 16 projects that were assessed to
have had direct GHG emission reduction impact, for two projects the extent of
GHG emission reduction could not be ascertained. Of the 16, for three projects
actual GHG emission reduction exceeded expectations at the start of the project.
For the remainder actual achievement was lower than the expectations. Among the
projects, the China TVE II (GEF 622) alone contributed a third of the direct
emission reductions achieved by the 18 projects covered by the evaluation. It was
found that the key determinants of the scale of the direct GHG emission reduction
achieved included market size, maturity of the promoted technology, and the
emission factor for the country, which were positively correlated to the scale of
direct emission reduction achieved. Projects that tend to address the prevalent
market barriers more comprehensively tended to achieve emission reduction at a
higher scale. Overly optimistic projection of the expected benefits – which probably
also makes project more attractive during appraisal – was also a reason why several
projects had lower than expected direct emission reduction benefits.
Of the 18 projects, 14 led to indirect GHG emission reduction. Of these, in
11 instances quantitative assessment of the indirect GHG emission reduction was
possible – for the other three projects, the information required to carry out this
analysis was not available. Overall, the indirect emission reduction was assessed to
be ten times more than direct reductions.
162
A. Zazueta and N.K. Negi
project proponents on the benefit stream of the technologies promoted by a given
project including the estimated duration of the benefit stream were recorded; and,
the expected GHG emission reduction – including the changes in the measurements
of the underlying indicators for calculating emission reduction – expected at the
project start, realized during project implementation period, and revised estimates
at the point the evaluation was conducted, were noted. This information, along with
information provided in the terminal evaluations of the completed projects and
that was gathered through interviews and documents accessed during field verification, formed a basis to prepare revised estimates of the GHG emission benefits.
The evaluation found that although most of the GEF projects covered by the
evaluation tracked direct and indirect emission reduction and/or avoidance, in most
instances regular monitoring of the emissions related benefits stopped at project
completion. Moreover, the information on the indicators specified in the project
M&E plan was not being gathered and analyzed regularly. Methodological
approaches used by different project proponents to track emission reduction
and/or avoidance were often inconsistent. Table 9.3 lists the type of errors that
were encountered. To address these errors, the evaluation team recalculated the
emission reduction benefits using the available information. Although results for
individual projects differed from what had been calculated by the project proponents, the overall figure at the portfolio level were similar.
The evaluation found that of 18 projects, 16 resulted in direct GHG emission
reduction. Aggregate direct emission reduction is estimated to be about 6 million
tons of CO2 equivalent per year. However, of the 16 projects that were assessed to
have had direct GHG emission reduction impact, for two projects the extent of
GHG emission reduction could not be ascertained. Of the 16, for three projects
actual GHG emission reduction exceeded expectations at the start of the project.
For the remainder actual achievement was lower than the expectations. Among the
projects, the China TVE II (GEF 622) alone contributed a third of the direct
emission reductions achieved by the 18 projects covered by the evaluation. It was
found that the key determinants of the scale of the direct GHG emission reduction
achieved included market size, maturity of the promoted technology, and the
emission factor for the country, which were positively correlated to the scale of
direct emission reduction achieved. Projects that tend to address the prevalent
market barriers more comprehensively tended to achieve emission reduction at a
higher scale. Overly optimistic projection of the expected benefits – which probably
also makes project more attractive during appraisal – was also a reason why several
projects had lower than expected direct emission reduction benefits.
Of the 18 projects, 14 led to indirect GHG emission reduction. Of these, in
11 instances quantitative assessment of the indirect GHG emission reduction was
possible – for the other three projects, the information required to carry out this
analysis was not available. Overall, the indirect emission reduction was assessed to
be ten times more than direct reductions.
162
A. Zazueta and N.K. Negi