basis for an impact evaluation. Firstly, although the necessary conditions predicted
by a project’s theory of change may have been met the observed change may have
been due to factors that were independent of the project. Second, there may be some
uncertainty involved in how and when the intended impacts manifest, particularly
in the cases in which important causal relationships may be non-linear in nature.
Focusing entirely on the project’s theory of change has a risk of overstating GEF’s
role in effecting the observed change or may lead to neglect of conditions that are
impeding future progress. Furthermore, exclusive focus on the causal links proposed by a project’s theory of change can function as blinders that constraints an
evaluation in recording and assessing the unintended impacts of the project (Garcia
and Zazueta 2015). Therefore, in addition to taking into account the given project’s
theory of change, the evaluation also addressed other factors that may have a causal
relationship with the observed change but were independent of the GEF project.
The evaluation also searched for alternative explanations that could explain the
observed change and assessed their merit in contributing to the observed change
vis- a-vis a given GEF project. During the visits to the field the evaluation team
gathered information on this issue from different stakeholders such as project
implementers, beneficiaries, other agencies that were not involved in project implementation but were familiar with the project, and government officials.
Despite limitations of the theory of change approach, for the most part it remains
a useful basis for tracking a given project’s provable impact pathways. As the
general framework of GEF’s theory of change suggests, for any observed change to
be attributable to GEF project, the behaviors promoted by the project should be
adopted by the targeted actors within a market. This broader adoption in turn
creates a basis to assess the progress towards the expected long term transformations. To assess this progress, the evaluation tracked the intensity, the scale, and the
processes through which it was taking place.
Of the 18 projects in 17 instances there was evidence that broader adoption was
taking place through one or more of the following processes: sustaining project
supported activities; mainstreaming; replication; scaling up; and, market change
(Table 9.4). For each of these processes, the manner in which it was happening and
the extent to which it was linked with the GEF project was determined. In 14 cases
the evaluation was able to establish causal links between the project activities and
the progress made. This involved linking specific activities or components of the
GEF supported projects with the intended observed outcomes based on the information gathered through terminal evaluations and interviews conducted and documents accessed during field verifications. The next stage was to also assess the
effects of the other actors and factors that could account for the observed results.
Based on the qualitative assessment of the information gathered, in ten cases the
evaluation was able to discard rival theories and establish primacy of the GEF
supported project in effecting the observed change. For example, in India the
technologies and approaches promoted by projects on Photo Voltaic Systems
(PVMTI GEF 112) and Hilly Hydel (GEF 386) were scaled up at the national
level with significant link established with the underlying project. For four other
projects (India Alternative Energy, PVMTI and Energy Efficiency; Mexico
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
165
by a project’s theory of change may have been met the observed change may have
been due to factors that were independent of the project. Second, there may be some
uncertainty involved in how and when the intended impacts manifest, particularly
in the cases in which important causal relationships may be non-linear in nature.
Focusing entirely on the project’s theory of change has a risk of overstating GEF’s
role in effecting the observed change or may lead to neglect of conditions that are
impeding future progress. Furthermore, exclusive focus on the causal links proposed by a project’s theory of change can function as blinders that constraints an
evaluation in recording and assessing the unintended impacts of the project (Garcia
and Zazueta 2015). Therefore, in addition to taking into account the given project’s
theory of change, the evaluation also addressed other factors that may have a causal
relationship with the observed change but were independent of the GEF project.
The evaluation also searched for alternative explanations that could explain the
observed change and assessed their merit in contributing to the observed change
vis- a-vis a given GEF project. During the visits to the field the evaluation team
gathered information on this issue from different stakeholders such as project
implementers, beneficiaries, other agencies that were not involved in project implementation but were familiar with the project, and government officials.
Despite limitations of the theory of change approach, for the most part it remains
a useful basis for tracking a given project’s provable impact pathways. As the
general framework of GEF’s theory of change suggests, for any observed change to
be attributable to GEF project, the behaviors promoted by the project should be
adopted by the targeted actors within a market. This broader adoption in turn
creates a basis to assess the progress towards the expected long term transformations. To assess this progress, the evaluation tracked the intensity, the scale, and the
processes through which it was taking place.
Of the 18 projects in 17 instances there was evidence that broader adoption was
taking place through one or more of the following processes: sustaining project
supported activities; mainstreaming; replication; scaling up; and, market change
(Table 9.4). For each of these processes, the manner in which it was happening and
the extent to which it was linked with the GEF project was determined. In 14 cases
the evaluation was able to establish causal links between the project activities and
the progress made. This involved linking specific activities or components of the
GEF supported projects with the intended observed outcomes based on the information gathered through terminal evaluations and interviews conducted and documents accessed during field verifications. The next stage was to also assess the
effects of the other actors and factors that could account for the observed results.
Based on the qualitative assessment of the information gathered, in ten cases the
evaluation was able to discard rival theories and establish primacy of the GEF
supported project in effecting the observed change. For example, in India the
technologies and approaches promoted by projects on Photo Voltaic Systems
(PVMTI GEF 112) and Hilly Hydel (GEF 386) were scaled up at the national
level with significant link established with the underlying project. For four other
projects (India Alternative Energy, PVMTI and Energy Efficiency; Mexico
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
165