Page - (000183) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

Agriculture) althoughcausal linkswere established for someof the changes, these couldnot be established for others and rival theorieswere alsodifficult to discard. In the remaining four cases, for twoprojects no link or very tenuous link could beestablishedbetweentheGEFprojectandthechangesobserved.InRussiaBoilers 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 theWind project inMexico, at project end important regulatory changes had be undertaken by theMexican government,while the project design included such reforms as an important intendedoutcome, 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 AssessingWhatWouldHaveHappened IfGEF SupportHadNotTakenPlace Theworkpresented so far in thispaper assesses theextent towhichmarket change tookplace,whether there isacausal linkbetweenGEFsupportandthechangesand whether there are alternative explanations for the observed changes. However, projects take place throughpartnershipswhich include governments, other donors andcivil societyorganizations.While linked toGEFsupport, changescanalsobea resultofotherfactorsandconditions, somewhichmightnotbereadilyapparent.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 thegivenproject (or a comparable activity)wouldhave takenplacewithout 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. Thiswas done through inter- viewswithkeyinformants, includingpeoplewhomhadbeenpartof theprocessand other thirdparties in thecountries, aswell as throughanalysisofpublications,gray literature andother relevant reports. Thefindings are summarized inTable 9.5. Theanalysisshowsthatof the18projects,8wereassessed tobeveryunlikelyor not likely tohave takenplacewithoutGEFsupport and9projectswerevery likely or likely to have taken placewithoutGEF support.However, the likelihood that a projectwouldhavetakenplacewithoutGEFsupportdoesnotmeanthat thesupport did not bring additional value. Of the nine projects thatwere very likely or likely to have taken placewithout GEFsupport, in seven instances theGEFsupportwasassessed tohaveaccelerated 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 MethodologicalApproachof theGEF IEO’sClimateChangeMitigation. . . 167