Page - (000172) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

These are: (1)What have been theGEFcontributions toGHGemission reduction and avoidance? (2)What has been the progressmadebyGEF supported activities towards transformingmarkets forclimatechangemitigation?And(3)Whatare the impact pathways and factors affecting further progress towards market transformation? The composition and trends of theGEFmitigation portfolio were analyzed to identify the typesof projects thatGEFhasbeen supporting andwhere this support wasmore concentrated.Thenext stepwas to identify a set of projects fromwhich relevant lessons could be derived in addressing climate change mitigation while simultaneously assessing the results ofGEF support. Based on consultationswith the stakeholders, a decisionwasmade to focus on themajor emerging economies basedon their respectivesharewithin theGEFclimatechangemitigationportfolio, the potential for climate change mitigation, and their continued importance for future GEF support in this area. Due to budget and time considerations, it was difficult to covermore than four countries. Selection of these countrieswas based on an iterative process of portfolio analysis and consultations with key stake- holders. Firstly, the GEF climate changemitigation portfolio in all the emerging economieswas compared. Based on criteria of overall size of the climate change mitigation portfolio, share in the climate change mitigation portfolio approved before 2002, share in the technology transfer portfolio; and, share in STAR6 allocation for climate changemitigation, six countries were identified for further consideration. Thesewere Brazil, China, India,Mexico, Russia and SouthAfrica (Table9.1).Furtheranalysis showedthatGEFclimatechangemitigationportfolios inChina, IndiaandMexicostandoutbothin termsof totalcumulativeGEFfunding and total GEF funding in projects that were approved before 2002. Among the remainder,GEFIEOhadcompletedaCountryPortfolioEvaluation7 inBrazilwhen the preparation for the Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) impact evaluation started. Therefore, to avoid evaluation fatigue, Brazil was dropped. In South Africa the GEF climate change mitigation portfolio was relatively small compared toothermajor emerging economies both in termsof completedprojects andprojects thatwereunder implementation.Therefore, it toowasdropped.Russia, where the portfolio of completed projects was also relatively small, was selected because a sizable amount of investmentwas under implementation and it also had the third largest allocation for climate changemitigation for GEF-5 (2010–2014) period. 6SystemforTransparentAllocationofResources (STAR) isGEF’sperformancebasedallocation framework for the recipient countries. 7CountryPortfolioEvaluationsanalyze thetotalityofGEFsupportacrossGEFAgencies,projects, and programs in a given country, with the aim of reviewing the performance and results of GEF-supported activities and assessing how those activities align with country strategies and priorities aswell aswithGEF’s priorities for global environmental benefits. https://www.thegef. org/gef/CPEaccessed onMarch10th2016. 156 A.Zazueta andN.K.Negi