possible. Overall it was assessed that GEF support did add value in addressing
concerns related to eight of these targeted markets. In one of these nine cases the
evaluation was not able to determine if GEF support added value. In summary in
16 of the cases GEF support contributed to the desired change.
9.10 The Critical Role of Indicators in Impact Evaluation
Determining the extent to which expected long term impacts have taken place
requires that relevant impact indicators are being tracked. Often there are severe
gaps in base line information (Tokle and Uitto 2009), the results of the project may
not be monitored consistently – especially after project completion – and/or the
methods used to track changes may not be appropriate. The evaluation found that
projects were generally tracking too many indicators and often not tracking them
well. Even though projections of GHG emission reduction benefits extended over
the post project completion period, often projects made no provisions for gathering
data after project completion. Furthermore there are inconsistencies in calculating
GHG emission reduction benefits and calculations of these varied considerably
across projects. A major recommendation of the evaluation was that GEF should
improve its methodology of GHG emission reduction calculations, which was
accepted by the GEF Council in its November 2013 meeting. As a follow up to
the Council decision, GEF Secretariat has developed new (and updated) methodologies for GHG emission reduction calculation.
Table 9.5 Added value of GEF financing
Question
Classification based on assessment
How likely is it that the project
(or comparable activity) would have taken
place without the GEF support?
Very unlikely or not likely: 8 projects
Very likely or likely: 9 projects;
Unable to assess: 1 project
For 9 projects that were assessed to be “very
likely or likely” to take place without GEF
support:
• If the project would have taken place any
way, what was the added value of GEF
financing?
• Would have taken place more slowly:
6 projects (6/9) (enhanced speed)
• Would have not been implemented as per
international standards: 1 project
(1/9) (enhanced quality)
• Would have taken place more slowly and
would have not been implemented as per
the international standards: 1 project
(2/9) (enhanced speed and quality)
• Added value difficult to determine: 1 project
(1/9)
Source: Climate Change Mitigation Impact Evaluation, GEF IEO
168
A. Zazueta and N.K. Negi
concerns related to eight of these targeted markets. In one of these nine cases the
evaluation was not able to determine if GEF support added value. In summary in
16 of the cases GEF support contributed to the desired change.
9.10 The Critical Role of Indicators in Impact Evaluation
Determining the extent to which expected long term impacts have taken place
requires that relevant impact indicators are being tracked. Often there are severe
gaps in base line information (Tokle and Uitto 2009), the results of the project may
not be monitored consistently – especially after project completion – and/or the
methods used to track changes may not be appropriate. The evaluation found that
projects were generally tracking too many indicators and often not tracking them
well. Even though projections of GHG emission reduction benefits extended over
the post project completion period, often projects made no provisions for gathering
data after project completion. Furthermore there are inconsistencies in calculating
GHG emission reduction benefits and calculations of these varied considerably
across projects. A major recommendation of the evaluation was that GEF should
improve its methodology of GHG emission reduction calculations, which was
accepted by the GEF Council in its November 2013 meeting. As a follow up to
the Council decision, GEF Secretariat has developed new (and updated) methodologies for GHG emission reduction calculation.
Table 9.5 Added value of GEF financing
Question
Classification based on assessment
How likely is it that the project
(or comparable activity) would have taken
place without the GEF support?
Very unlikely or not likely: 8 projects
Very likely or likely: 9 projects;
Unable to assess: 1 project
For 9 projects that were assessed to be “very
likely or likely” to take place without GEF
support:
• If the project would have taken place any
way, what was the added value of GEF
financing?
• Would have taken place more slowly:
6 projects (6/9) (enhanced speed)
• Would have not been implemented as per
international standards: 1 project
(1/9) (enhanced quality)
• Would have taken place more slowly and
would have not been implemented as per
the international standards: 1 project
(2/9) (enhanced speed and quality)
• Added value difficult to determine: 1 project
(1/9)
Source: Climate Change Mitigation Impact Evaluation, GEF IEO
168
A. Zazueta and N.K. Negi