Evaluation of the Green Infrastructure Fund
Long Text Descriptions of Figures

Figure 1: Reasons for which GIF applications were rejected

Figure 1 illustrates that:

30.3% of applications rejected were linked to the following: "insufficient public benefits"
21.8% of applications rejected were linked to the following: "not an eligible category"
21.8 % of applications rejected were linked to the following: "not regional / national in scale"
9.0% of applications rejected were linked to the following: "exceeded the 25% limit for wastewater projects"
5.9% of applications rejected were linked to the following: "ineligible costs"
5.3% of applications rejected were linked to the following: "demonstration project"
5.9% of applications rejected were linked to the following: "other"

Figure 2 Illustrates the following:

Infrastructure funding prior to the GIF for the period covering 2002-2008 indicates that 86% of projects at INFC were non-green projects and 14% were other green projects related to wastewater, green energy and solid waste management.
Infrastructure funding following the launch of the GIF for the period covering 2009-2015 indicates that 80% of projects were non-green projects, 14% were other green projects related to wastewater, green energy and solid waste management and 6% were GIF projects.

Figure 3 illustrates the following:

88% of funding for green energy projects can be attributed to GIF and 12% of funding can be attributed to other INFC programs.
86% of funding for solid waste management projects can be attributed to GIF and 14% of funding can be attributed to other INFC programs.
14% of funding for wastewater projects, can be attributed to GIF and 86% of funding can be attributed to other INFC programs.