Agriculture) although causal links were established for some of the changes, these
could not be established for others and rival theories were also difficult to discard.
In the remaining four cases, for two projects no link or very tenuous link could
be established between the GEF project and the changes observed. In Russia Boilers
project (GEF ID 292) although there was some evidence of scale-up it was not
linked to the activities supported by the project. Similarly in the case of the Wind
project in Mexico, at project end important regulatory changes had be undertaken
by the Mexican government, while the project design included such reforms as an
important intended outcome, the evaluation found that other factors accounted for
such reforms, and that the contributions to these changes by GEF supported
activities were marginal. In the two remaining cases (china FCB I and II) the
evaluation did not have enough evidence to assess the causal links of the project
with the changes observed.
9.9 Assessing What Would Have Happened If GEF
Support Had Not Taken Place
The work presented so far in this paper assesses the extent to which market change
took place, whether there is a causal link between GEF support and the changes and
whether there are alternative explanations for the observed changes. However,
projects take place through partnerships which include governments, other donors
and civil society organizations. While linked to GEF support, changes can also be a
result of other factors and conditions, some which might not be readily apparent. To
assess GEF contribution more fully, understanding GEF role within the change
process is also important. Thus, the evaluation also needs to assess the extent to
which the given project (or a comparable activity) would have taken place without
GEF support. For each of the 18 projects the evaluation carried out an inquiry to
assess the extent to which other factors (projects, activities, events) could have
bring about or contributed to the observed changes. This was done through interviews with key informants, including people whom had been part of the process and
other third parties in the countries, as well as through analysis of publications, gray
literature and other relevant reports. The findings are summarized in Table 9.5.
The analysis shows that of the 18 projects, 8 were assessed to be very unlikely or
not likely to have taken place without GEF support and 9 projects were very likely
or likely to have taken place without GEF support. However, the likelihood that a
project would have taken place without GEF support does not mean that the support
did not bring additional value.
Of the nine projects that were very likely or likely to have taken place without
GEF support, in seven instances the GEF support was assessed to have accelerated
the process of the project (or comparable activity) being implemented. In two
instances it was assessed that the GEF support to the project allowed its design
and implementation to be of a higher quality than would have otherwise been
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
167
could not be established for others and rival theories were also difficult to discard.
In the remaining four cases, for two projects no link or very tenuous link could
be established between the GEF project and the changes observed. In Russia Boilers
project (GEF ID 292) although there was some evidence of scale-up it was not
linked to the activities supported by the project. Similarly in the case of the Wind
project in Mexico, at project end important regulatory changes had be undertaken
by the Mexican government, while the project design included such reforms as an
important intended outcome, the evaluation found that other factors accounted for
such reforms, and that the contributions to these changes by GEF supported
activities were marginal. In the two remaining cases (china FCB I and II) the
evaluation did not have enough evidence to assess the causal links of the project
with the changes observed.
9.9 Assessing What Would Have Happened If GEF
Support Had Not Taken Place
The work presented so far in this paper assesses the extent to which market change
took place, whether there is a causal link between GEF support and the changes and
whether there are alternative explanations for the observed changes. However,
projects take place through partnerships which include governments, other donors
and civil society organizations. While linked to GEF support, changes can also be a
result of other factors and conditions, some which might not be readily apparent. To
assess GEF contribution more fully, understanding GEF role within the change
process is also important. Thus, the evaluation also needs to assess the extent to
which the given project (or a comparable activity) would have taken place without
GEF support. For each of the 18 projects the evaluation carried out an inquiry to
assess the extent to which other factors (projects, activities, events) could have
bring about or contributed to the observed changes. This was done through interviews with key informants, including people whom had been part of the process and
other third parties in the countries, as well as through analysis of publications, gray
literature and other relevant reports. The findings are summarized in Table 9.5.
The analysis shows that of the 18 projects, 8 were assessed to be very unlikely or
not likely to have taken place without GEF support and 9 projects were very likely
or likely to have taken place without GEF support. However, the likelihood that a
project would have taken place without GEF support does not mean that the support
did not bring additional value.
Of the nine projects that were very likely or likely to have taken place without
GEF support, in seven instances the GEF support was assessed to have accelerated
the process of the project (or comparable activity) being implemented. In two
instances it was assessed that the GEF support to the project allowed its design
and implementation to be of a higher quality than would have otherwise been
9 Methodological Approach of the GEF IEO’s Climate Change Mitigation. . .
167