Page - (000178) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

application. To determine the level of GHG emissions, assumptionsmade by the project proponents on the benefit streamof the technologies promoted by a given project including the estimated duration of the benefit streamwere recorded; and, theexpectedGHGemissionreduction–including thechanges in themeasurements of the underlying indicators for calculating emission reduction – expected at the project start, realized during project implementation period, and revised estimates at thepoint theevaluationwasconducted,werenoted.This information,alongwith information provided in the terminal evaluations of the completed projects and that was gathered through interviews and documents accessed during field verifi- cation, formed abasis to prepare revised estimates of theGHGemissionbenefits. The evaluation found that althoughmost of the GEF projects covered by the evaluation trackeddirectand indirectemissionreductionand/oravoidance, inmost 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 pro- ponents, the overall figure at the portfolio levelwere similar. The evaluation found that of 18 projects, 16 resulted in direct GHG emission reduction.Aggregate direct emission reduction is estimated to be about 6million tonsofCO2equivalent peryear.However, of the16projects thatwereassessed 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 achievementwas lower than theexpectations.Among the projects, the China TVE II (GEF 622) alone contributed a third of the direct emission reductions achieved by the 18projects covered by the evaluation. Itwas found that the keydeterminants of the scale of the directGHGemission 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 barriersmore comprehensively tended to achieve emission reduction at a higherscale.Overlyoptimisticprojectionof theexpectedbenefits–whichprobably alsomakesprojectmoreattractiveduringappraisal–wasalsoareasonwhyseveral projects had lower than expecteddirect emission reductionbenefits. Of the 18 projects, 14 led to indirect GHG emission reduction. Of these, in 11 instances quantitative assessment of the indirectGHGemission reductionwas possible – for the other three projects, the information required to carry out this analysiswasnotavailable.Overall, the indirect emission reductionwasassessed to be ten timesmore thandirect reductions. 162 A.Zazueta andN.K.Negi