Transcript Training Presentation - 2015 DOS GCCI Indicator

High Quality Outcome Indicator Reporting
Training for Recipient Agencies and Implementers
of Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) Projects
of the United States Department of State (US DOS)
Summer 2015
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction
Training Goals
Learning Objectives
Reporting Requirements – Legal Framework (Compliance)
Reporting Requirements – Who, What, Why, Where, When and How
Reporting Requirements – Lessons Learned from the DQAs
Summary of US DOS Performance Indicators and Standard Definitions FY2015
Reporting Template FY2105 for Each of the Ten Performance Indicators
Exercises:
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to
Adapt
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or
Regulations
10. Question and Answer (Q&A) Session
11. Introducing the “Reporting Aide”
2
Introduction
The Government Performance and Results (GPRA) Modernization Act
of 2010 continues the effort begun in the 1990s to focus on results
achieved by federally-funded programs instead of simply reporting on
the activities of federally-funded programs.
Recipient Agencies (RAs) and implementers must report on indicators
of Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) projects funded completely
or in part by the United States Department of State’s (DOS) Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES),
Office of Global Change (EGC), hereafter DOS/OES/EGC.
DOS/OES/EGC uses the compelling qualitative and quantitative data
reported by RAs and implementers to tell the story of the excellent
work being done to address climate change.
3
Introduction
Reporting is done semi-annually, using:
•
•
•
•
A standard set of indicators;
Collected data;
Performance indicator reference sheets (PIRSs); and
A reporting template provided by the DOS/OES/EGC
semi-annually for each reporting period.
4
Training Goals
The purpose of this training is to:
Support monitoring
building;
and
evaluation
(M&E)
capacity
and
Convey and reinforce a thorough understanding of the
current definitions of performance indicators and relevant
guidance as contained in the F Bureau’s corresponding
performance indicator reference sheets (PIRSs) to support
high quality data reporting by RAs and implementers.
5
Learning Objectives
By the end of the training workshop, each participant will be
able to:
Understand the current definitions of performance
indicators and relevant guidance as contained in the F
Bureau’s performance indicator reference sheets (PIRSs)
to support high quality data reporting;
Identify mechanisms to address and limit common data
errors; and
Identify mechanisms to improve data quality.
6
Reporting Requirements
Legal Framework (Compliance)
The Office of Global Change lies within the Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Each Bureau program or office develops a functional strategy including
a key goals, objectives and indicators.
EGC and the Global Climate Change Initiative at the Department of
State operates under the primary goal to achieve, “Concerted Action to
Achieve Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
The GCCI is organized via three programmatic pillars that include clean
energy, sustainable landscapes and adaptation.
Source: DOS/OES, EGC, “Supplemental Guidance for Outcomes/Indicator
Reporting, In Support Of the FY 2013 Performance Plan and Report.” October
2013
7
Reporting Requirements
Legal Framework (Compliance)
The Department of State and USAID, drawing on technical expertise within both agencies and from
within the development and security communities, have jointly developed standard indicators to measure
what is being accomplished with foreign assistance.
Standard foreign assistance indicators measure outputs that are directly attributable to the U.S.
Government's programs, projects, and activities (e.g., training teachers), as well as outcomes and
impacts to which the U.S. Government contributes but are not due solely to U.S. Government-funded
interventions (e.g., changes in health outcomes due to a combination of interventions by the USG, host
country and other donors).
While not the sum total of all indicators tracked by individual bureaus, offices, and missions across State
and USAID on an ongoing basis, this standard set of indicators allows for the consolidation of certain
key results to provide a picture of what is being achieved with foreign assistance resources to Congress
and the public.
Performance target and result data are collected against these indicators on an annual basis, and
reported to the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources. Indicator data, combined with expert
analysis from the field, evaluation information, and strategic policy priority considerations can be used to
inform broad-based strategic budget and planning decisions to ensure that foreign assistance resources
are focused on moving countries forward and transparently demonstrating the basis upon which
allocations are made.
Source: http://www.state.gov/f/indicators/
8
Reporting Requirements
Who, What, When, Where, Why and How
Who must report?
RAs and implementers of DOS/OES/EGC GCCI projects
What must be reported?
Reporting, using a standard set of indicators, collected data, performance
indicator reference sheets (PIRSs) and a reporting template provided by
the DOS/OES/EGC semi-annually for each reporting period
When is the reporting period, and when are reports submitted?
Semi-annually
Semi-annual report 1
1 October 20XX – 30 March 20XX – to be submitted on April 30, 20XX
Semi-annual report 2
1 April 20XX – 30 September 20XX – to be submitted on October 31, 20XX
9
Reporting Requirements
Who, What, When, Where, Why and How
Where is the data reported?
In the semi-annual reports submitted to DOS/OES/EGC
Why must this data be reported?
In compliance with reporting requirements
How is reporting done?
Utilizing the performance indicator reference sheets (PIRSs), reporting
template and guidance (examples) provided by DOS/OES/EGC for each
reporting period
10
Reporting Requirements
Lessons Learned from the DQAs
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires that Data Quality
Assessments (DQAs) be conducted every three years for data that
will be reported to the public, for example, reporting to Congress on
what is being accomplished with foreign assistance. DQAs review
data collected for validity, reliability, integrity, timeliness and precision.
DOS/OES began implementing DQAs in 2013 to comply with the
GPRA Modernization Act requirement.
In 2013 DOS/OES/EGC contracted Development & Training Services,
Inc. (dTS) to conduct DQAs of documentation and reporting of GCCI
projects, according to each of the indicators used in FY2014.
Presented below are:
• a summary of the lessons learned from each of the DQAs of the
eight indicators used in FY2014; and
• Broad suggestions for improving data quality in FY2015.
11
DQA Summary
4.8-2-6 Number of people receiving training in climate change
as a result of USG assistance
4.8-2-29 Number of person hours of training completed in
climate change as a result of USG assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
2. If a project is funded by US DOS and USAID, there is a potential for double-counting of this set of
indicators used by both USG institutions.
3. The fully-completed reporting template should be sent to US DOS. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to document and validate the training activities described in the reporting template.
4. Teach/train sub-field implementers who are responsible for collecting training indicator data. While
several RAs and implementers have provided written guidance on how to do so, some have not, which
reduces the likelihood of the consistent application of data collection methodology across projects,
particularly with regard to the assessment of completion of the course (verifying 90% attendance).
12
DQA Summary
4.8-2-6 Number of people receiving training in climate change
as a result of USG assistance
4.8-2-29 Number of person hours of training completed in
climate change as a result of USG assistance
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for these indicators?
13
DQA Summary
4.8-2-6 Number of people receiving training in climate change
as a result of USG assistance
4.8-2-29 Number of person hours of training completed in
climate change as a result of USG assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
2. If a project is funded by US DOS and USAID, there is a potential for double-counting of this set of
indicators used by both USG institutions.
3. The fully-completed reporting template should be sent to US DOS. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to document and validate the training activities described in the reporting template.
4. Teach/train sub-field implementers who are responsible for collecting training indicator data. While
several RAs and implementers have provided written guidance on how to do so, some have not, which
reduces the likelihood of the consistent application of data collection methodology across projects,
particularly with regard to the assessment of completion of the course (verifying 90% attendance).
Suggestions for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions. Training requires “formally
designated instructors” and “ a defined curriculum, learning objectives and outcomes.”
2. Devise a methodology/policy to deal with double counting. Use the methodology/policy consistently.
3. Study the PIRS and reporting template BEFORE writing narrative report.
4. Provide the reporting template to sub-field implementers, so that they understand the definition and
consistently apply data collection methodology.
14
DQA Summary
4.8.2-10 Amount of investment leveraged in U.S. dollars, from
private and public sources, for climate change as a result of
USG assistance
Key Lesson and Recommendation
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
15
DQA Summary
4.8.2-10 Amount of investment leveraged in U.S. dollars, from
private and public sources, for climate change as a result of
USG assistance
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for this indicator?
16
DQA Summary
4.8.2-10 Amount of investment leveraged in U.S. dollars, from
private and public sources, for climate change as a result of
USG assistance
Key Lesson and Recommendation
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
Suggestion for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
NOTE: The updated PIRS specifies investment “mobilized.” This is described later in the presentation.
17
DQA Summary
4.8.2-14 Number of institutions with improved capacity to
address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance
Key Lesson and Recommendation
1. Training and/or technical assistance can be part of capacity building, but alone do not constitute
capacity building. The necessary components of capacity building are a baseline at the start of the
reporting period and documentation of a change, namely, an improvement of capacity, during the
reporting period. This should be described in the reporting template, for the reporting period.
18
DQA Summary
4.8.2-14 Number of institutions with improved capacity to
address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for this indicator?
19
DQA Summary
4.8.2-14 Number of institutions with improved capacity to
address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance
Key Lesson and Recommendation
1. Training and/or technical assistance can be part of capacity building, but alone do not constitute
capacity building. The necessary components of capacity building are a baseline at the start of the
reporting period and documentation of a change, namely, an improvement of capacity, during the
reporting period. This should be described in the reporting template, for the reporting period.
Suggestion for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
The PIRS states: “Baseline is start year of project. An initial assessment should be
conducted or other sources used to assess institutions’ capabilities to deal with climate
change before interventions are initiated.”
Although the PIRS does not require a formal pre- and post-survey, some institutions conduct such a
survey to document improved capacity.
20
DQA Summary
4.8.2-26 Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to
adapt to the impacts of climate variability and change as a
result of USG assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. The causal effect of “as a result of USG assistance” should be described in the reporting template.
Retain back-up data filed in a database to document and validate.
2. “Increased capacity” should be described in the reporting template. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to document and validate.
21
DQA Summary
4.8.2-26 Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to
adapt to the impacts of climate variability and change as a
result of USG assistance
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for this indicator?
22
DQA Summary
4.8.2-26 Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to
adapt to the impacts of climate variability and change as a
result of USG assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. The causal effect of “as a result of USG assistance” should be described in the reporting template.
Retain back-up data filed in a database to document and validate.
2. “Increased capacity” should be described in the reporting template. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to document and validate.
Suggestions for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
The PIRS states: Counting individuals with “increased capacity to adapt” requires a
baseline measure of initial capacity to adapt, then a measure of the change relative to that
baseline that is plausibly attributable to the USG intervention.”
2.
Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
The PIRS states: “There must be an initial baseline of capacity or behavior established
before the interventions start or there is a risk of understating changes due to the
intervention.”
23
DQA Summary
4.8-2-27 Number of days of USG funded technical assistance
in climate change provided to counterparts or stakeholders
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
2. The fully-completed reporting template should be sent to US DOS. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to validate the technical assistance activities described in the reporting template.
3. Teach/train sub-field implementers who are responsible for collecting technical assistance indicator
data. While several RAs and implementers have provided written guidance on how to do so, some
have not, which reduces the likelihood of the consistent application of data collection methodology
across projects.
24
DQA Summary
4.8-2-27 Number of days of USG funded technical assistance
in climate change provided to counterparts or stakeholders
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for this indicator?
25
DQA Summary
4.8-2-27 Number of days of USG funded technical assistance
in climate change provided to counterparts or stakeholders
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
2. The fully-completed reporting template should be sent to US DOS. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to validate the technical assistance activities described in the reporting template.
3. Teach/train sub-field implementers who are responsible for collecting technical assistance indicator
data. While several RAs and implementers have provided written guidance on how to do so, some have
not, which reduces the likelihood of the consistent application of data collection methodology across
projects.
Suggestions for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
2. Study the PIRS and reporting template BEFORE writing narrative report.
3. Provide the reporting template to sub-field implementers, so that they understand the definition and
consistently apply data collection methodology.
26
DQA Summary
4.8.2-28 Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or
regulations addressing climate change (mitigation of adaptation) and/or
biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted or implemented as
a result of USG assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
2. Titles of measures, institutions implementing the measure, and/or its connection to climate change or
biodiversity conservation should be noted in the reporting template. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to document and validate reports of laws/policies/strategies/plans/regulations that have
been proposed, adopted or implemented.
3. Context is important. “Officially proposed” in the US is different from “officially proposed” in another
country. The description in the reporting template should explain the local context in order to validate
this component of the definition and note the date of each item proposed, adopted or implemented.
Verification documents, internet links, or other reference information that demonstrate the public
announcement of an “officially proposed” measure should be filed in a database.
27
DQA Summary
4.8.2-28 Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or
regulations addressing climate change (mitigation of adaptation) and/or
biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted or implemented as
a result of USG assistance
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for this indicator?
28
DQA Summary
4.8.2-28 Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements or
regulations addressing climate change (mitigation of adaptation) and/or
biodiversity conservation officially proposed, adopted or implemented as
a result of USG assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Use and/or full understanding of the definition should be consistent.
2. Titles of measures, institutions implementing the measure, and/or its connection to climate change or
biodiversity conservation should be noted in the reporting template. Retain back-up data filed in a
database to document and validate reports of laws/policies/strategies/plans/regulations that have
been proposed, adopted or implemented.
3. Context is important. “Officially proposed” in the US is different from “officially proposed” in another
country. The description in the reporting template should explain the local context in order to validate
this component of the definition and note the date of each item proposed, adopted or implemented.
Verification documents, internet links, or other reference information that demonstrate the public
announcement of an “officially proposed” measure should be filed in a database.
Suggestions for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
2. Study the PIRS and reporting template BEFORE writing narrative report.
3. Study the PIRS and reporting template to determine which verification data must be collected.
The definition states: “’Officially proposed’ means that a relevant government official or
agency with decision-making authority has proposed the measure publicly. Each piece of
legislation can be counted once as ‘proposed’ and once as ‘adopted,’ if applicable. The
29
indicator narrative should include an explanation of when each measure is counted.”
DQA Summary
4.8-7 Quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in
metric tons of CO2e, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG
assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Attribution to USG assistance; verification of project operations; baseline assumptions;
spreadsheet design and quality control; and oversight should be described in the reporting
template. Retain back-up data filed in a database to document and validate.
2. Baseline conditions, activity data collection and archiving methods and calculations methods
should be described in the reporting template. Retain back-up data inputs and sources filed in a
database to document and validate.
30
DQA Summary
4.8-7 Quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in
metric tons of CO2e, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG
assistance
Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions to improve
reporting and data quality for this indicator?
31
DQA Summary
4.8-7 Quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in
metric tons of CO2e, reduced or sequestered as a result of USG
assistance
Key Lessons and Recommendations
1. Attribution to USG assistance; verification of project operations; baseline assumptions; spreadsheet design and quality
control; and oversight should be described in the reporting template. Retain back-up data filed in a database to
document and validate.
2. Baseline conditions, activity data collection and archiving methods and calculations methods should be described in
the reporting template. Retain back-up data inputs and sources filed in a database to document and validate.
Suggestions for Improving Data Quality
1. Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
The PIRS states: “The choices of possible values for emission factors, carbon sequestration rates, and
other variables affect calculations. To ensure integrity, clearly and completely document GHG calculation
methods, data inputs, data sources, and assumptions.”
2.
Study the definition and use it in compliance with the instructions.
The PIRS states: “All operating units (OUs) should document tools, methods, and data sources used
for this indicator. OUs must as a first option, use USG standard calculators and methodologies
(see
Resources and Tools below). For projects that are not applicable to USG standard calculators and
methodologies, OUs should fully document alternative methodologies, data inputs, and data sources. This
deviation from standard methodologies and tools should be described in the indicator narrative.”
32
Reporting Requirements
Lessons Learned from the DQAs
Based on your experience, do you have any general
suggestions to improve reporting and data quality?
33
Reporting Requirements
Lessons Learned from the DQAs
General suggestions to improve reporting and data quality
• Refer to your agreement or grant, and familiarize yourself with the
indicators noted therein.
• RAs and implementers are highly encouraged to report on ALL
indicators relevant to the project.
• Study the definitions in the performance indicator reference sheets
(PIRSs) for FY2015 BEFORE writing narrative report.
• Study the reporting template(s) for FY2015 for all indicators your
project reports on BEFORE writing narrative report.
34
Reporting Requirements
Lessons Learned from the DQAs
General suggestions to improve reporting and data quality (continued)
• Familiarize yourself with any new indicators for the reporting
period. These are new indicators for FY2015:
4.8.2-33 Clean energy generation capacity
4.8.2-34 and -35 Projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
4.8.2-36 Sustainable landscape co-benefits.
• Familiarize yourself with any new elements of old indicators: for
example, “mobilized” instead of “leveraged” in FY2015.
• Note the difference between the two indicator types: outcome and
output.
35
Reporting Requirements
Lessons Learned from the DQAs
General suggestions to improve reporting and data quality (continued)
• Establish a baseline for the following indicators:
4.8.2-14 Institutions with improved capacity
4.8.2-26 Stakeholders with increased capacity
• Familiarize yourself with the disaggregate(s) for each indicator:
pillar, gender, domestic/international and time period. Familiarize
yourself with the specific disaggregate(s) for 4.8.2-26 Stakeholders
with increase capacity.
36
Reporting Requirements
Lessons Learned from the DQAs
General suggestions to improve reporting and data quality (continued)
• Provide the indicator template to sub-field implementers, so that
they understand the definitions, are familiar with the PIRSs and
consistently apply data collection methodology
• Devise a methodology/policy to deal with double counting of
projects funded by US DOS and USAID.
Use the
methodology/policy consistently
37
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2
4.8.2-6
and
4.8.2-29
List of PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
4.8.2
Outcome Indicators: Clean Productive Environment
Number of people receiving training in climate change supported by USG assistance –
disaggregated by men and women
and
Number of person hours of training completed in climate change as a result of USG assistance –
disaggregated by men and women and:
Clean Energy
Adaptation
Sustainable landscapes
Cross-cutting
Four key elements:
•
Training involves: “a setting for teaching; formal instructors; and a defined curriculum objectives
and outcomes”
•
USG standards recommend that participants attend at least 90% of total course hours
•
Disaggregates by men/women and by pillar as well as cross-cutting.
•
Instruction hours of x Number of people = Person hours
38
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-10
Amount of investment mobilized in U.S. dollars, from private and public sources, for climate
change as a result of USG assistance – disaggregated by:
Clean energy public, domestic funds
Clean energy public, international funds
Clean energy private, domestic funds
Clean energy private, international funds
Adaptation public, domestic funds
Adaptation public, international funds
Adaptation private, domestic funds
Adaptation private, international funds
Sustainable landscapes public, domestic funds
Sustainable landscapes public, international funds
Sustainable landscapes private, domestic funds
Sustainable landscapes private, international funds
The term mobilized is new and there is a new corresponding definition. Mobilized is a
broader umbrella and all results previously reported under leveraged should continue to be
reported plus additional results that are included under the new definition.
Disaggregates circled in blue are NEW
39
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-10
Amount of investment mobilized in U.S. dollars, from private and public sources, for climate
change as a result of USG assistance – disaggregated by:
Clean energy public, domestic funds
Clean energy public, international funds
Clean energy private, domestic funds
Clean energy private, international funds
Adaptation public, domestic funds
Adaptation public, international funds
Adaptation private, domestic funds
Adaptation private, international funds
Sustainable landscapes public, domestic funds
Sustainable landscapes public, international funds
Sustainable landscapes private, domestic funds
Sustainable landscapes private, international funds
Five key elements:
•
Finance mobilized for actions et al that avoid, reduce, or sequester GHGs or that increase
capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate variability and change
•
A variety of instruments and vehicles including common funding instruments, parallel investments
or in-kind.
•
List of examples
•
Documentation how USG support has mobilized additional resources
40
•
Disaggregates by pillar and public/private and domestic/international
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator
Definition
4.8.2-10 Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for climate change as supported by
USG assistance
This indicator includes finance mobilized (or leveraged), enabled by USG assistance, for
actions, activities, projects or programs that avoid, reduce, or sequester GHGs, or that support
actions, activities, projects or programs that increase capacity to adapt to the impacts of
climate variability and change. Finance may be mobilized from the public sector (e.g. other
governments or public multilateral entities) or private sector (e.g. corporate investments) and
should help to advance the objectives established by the USG-supported program.
Finance can be mobilized through a variety of instruments and vehicles, including common
funding instruments, parallel investments, or in-kind support as a result of USG support.
Examples of the types of U.S. assistance that could mobilize finance include:
Finance interventions, such as:





Grants (or in-kind support) for technical assistance;
Loans;
Equity or investment shares;
Support for development and structuring of other financial instruments such as Green
Bonds or Real Estate Investment Trusts
Political, regulatory, or credit risk insurance and guarantees.
41
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator
Definition
(continued)
4.8.2-10 Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for climate change as supported by
USG assistance
Investments made possible by policy interventions and technical assistance interventions, such
as:

Market assessments, financier credit product development, project incubation and
preparation;

Market commercialization improvements such as grid code and access laws, transparent
and fair permitting and approvals, competitive procurement platforms (e.g. - reverse
auctions);

Regulatory policy support for the creation or implementation of feed-in-tariffs, renewables
purchase obligations, land-use planning;

Fiscal policy support to develop preferential tax treatment for climate-friendly
technologies and environmentally related taxes; and

Information or data-based interventions such as setting up technology centers of
excellence, labeling schemes, wind speed or solar radiation mapping.
Examples of what mobilized funds may support include improving the enabling environment
for adaptation or mitigation actions, funding the costs of climate change activities advanced by
the program, monitoring climate change progress or outcomes, or sensitizing stakeholders to
climate risks, energy and land use issues and opportunities addressed through the program.
42
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Linkage to
Long-Term
Outcome or
Impact
USG funds are intended to be catalytic and to have sustainable benefits. Depending on the
intended objectives of a given program, the mobilization of additional financial resources can be
an important indicator for assessing the success of a program in catalyzing resources needed for
transformational change. This indicator can also help to provide a baseline of data needed to test
hypotheses as to the most effective strategies, techniques, or necessary capacities for mobilizing
the funds required to address climate change, leading to lessons learning over time.
Indicator Type
Output
Unit of Measure
U.S. dollars (USD)
Use of Indicator
As appropriate, aggregated mobilization data can be used to assess the impact of the GCCI
portfolio for both domestic and international audiences as well as for the basis of tracking
progress to international commitments and goals, such as those under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Data Source and
Reporting
Frequency
Reporting is on a fiscal year basis, unless otherwise specified.
To report observed mobilization, project implementers will gather data about the amount of
finance mobilized in the past fiscal year and report through standard reporting procedures.
Documentation should include a rationale for how U.S. support has facilitated the mobilization
of additional resources and include information such as: source of funds by project name, type of
project, and use of funds.
43
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Known Data
Limitations
Integrity: U.S. support for an observed mobilization of climate finance may involve an assumed
causal or catalytic contribution of the U.S. assistance.
Precision: Measuring mobilized finance is not intended to indicate the magnitude of impact or
results achieved. Confidentiality restrictions related to precision: Some organizations providing
funding may consider some information on their funding support to be proprietary and limit the
extent to which it can be publicly reported. In these instances, it may be necessary to report
mobilization at an appropriate level of aggregation.
Baseline
Timeframe
Disaggregate(s)
Baseline is zero at the start of the project.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adaptation public, domestic funds
Adaptation public, international funds
Adaptation private, domestic funds
Adaptation private, international funds
Clean energy public, domestic funds
Clean energy public, international funds
Clean energy private, domestic funds
Clean energy private, international funds
Sustainable landscapes public, domestic funds
Sustainable landscapes public, international funds
Sustainable landscapes private, domestic funds
Sustainable landscapes private, international funds
44
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-14
Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of
USG assistance – disaggregated by:
Sustainable Landscapes (e.g., REDD+ capabilities)
Clean energy capabilities
Adaptation capabilities
Cross-cutting
Four key elements:
•
New or increased ability to use new or different approaches, processes, strategies or
methodologies to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change
•
Government, private sector, local civil society organizations and trade unions, et al
•
Qualitative initial baseline and post-intervention assessment
•
Document what has changed in institutional capacity to address climate change issues relative
to the baseline
45
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-26
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate variability
and change as a result of USG assistance – disaggregated by:
Implementing risk-reducing practices/actions to improve resilience to climate change
Using climate information in their decision making
With increased knowledge of climate change impacts and response options
Five key elements:
•
Ability to adjust to climate change by either coping with negative effects or taking advantage of
positive climate change opportunities – individuals
•
Indicate the climate change vulnerability being addressed
•
Qualitative initial baseline and post-intervention assessment
•
Document what has changed relative to the baseline
•
Three unique disaggregates
46
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-27
Number of days of USG funded technical assistance in climate change provided to counterparts
or stakeholders (no disaggregation required)
Three key elements:
•
Provision of goods or services to developing countries in direct support of a development
objective
•
Technical assistance supports institutional capacity building, a key goal for long term sustainability
•
Unit of Measure is number of days of technical assistance provided in each reporting period
47
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-28
Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements, or regulations addressing climate
change (mitigation or adaptation) officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of
USG assistance – disaggregated by:
Sustainable Landscapes related measure
Clean Energy related measure
Adaptation related measure
Cross-cutting
Three key elements:
•
Officially proposed, adopted or implemented measures developed to address climate change
and/or biodiversity conservation issue
•
Title of measure; stage; implementing and/or enforcing institution(s); and how the measure
contributes to climate change mitigation and/or adaptation, and/or biodiversity conservation.
•
Four disaggregates – three pillars and cross-cutting and national and sub-national
48
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-33
Clean energy generation capacity supported by USG assistance that has achieved financial
closure
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Geothermal
Biomass and biofuels
Flared gas
Other
Indicator 4.8.2-33 is NEW
Six key elements:
•
Renewable energy technologies and end-use energy efficiency technologies
•
Financial closure is when the contract or agreement being signed by all relevant parties.
•
Unit of Measure is Megawatts (MW) - total planned capacity of the system
•
Baseline is zero at the start of the reporting period.
•
Document methods used from year to year and make efforts to use consistent methods.
•
Seven disaggregates – six types of clean energy and other
49
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator
Definition
Linkage to LongTerm Outcome or
Impact
Indicator Type
Unit of Measure
4.8.2-33 Clean energy generation capacity supported by USG assistance that has achieved
financial closure
Clean energy under this indicator is defined as renewable energy technologies and end-use
energy efficiency technologies. Some examples of renewable energy sources that are included in
clean energy generation capacity are solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, waste biomass, and
biofuel energy sources.
Clean energy generation does not include nuclear power, gas, coal and oil production,
transmission, distribution, or the generation of electricity with these sources.
This indicator is measured in Megawatts (MW). This represents the total planned capacity of
the system, not the actual amount of electricity generated (MWh). Financial closure is when the
contract or agreement is signed by all relevant parties.
Renewable technologies offset current or future generation of energy from non-clean energy
sources, such as traditional fossil sources. This offset results in a net decrease in greenhouse gas
emissions. In addition, clean energy technologies provide additional energy access as well as
domestic energy security and broader benefits.
Outcome
Megawatts (MW)
This indicator reports power generation capacity, not annual electricity generation. Energy or
power output capacity that is not measured in MW at the activity level, such as kW, must be
converted to MW for indicator reporting. (1 kW=.001 MW)
50
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Use of Indicator
This indicator is used to track potential clean energy capacity resulting from USG assistance.
Data Source and
Reporting
Frequency
Reporting is on a fiscal year basis, unless otherwise specified.
For USAID ACTIVITIES:
Tools, guidance, and information on estimating GHG emissions and other energy related
outputs, such as the USAID Clean Energy Emission Reduction (CLEER) Protocol, can be
found at: https://pages.usaid.gov/E3/GCC/gcc-indicators Data provided by USAID
implementers as part of standard reporting procedures through, for example, quarterly and
annual reports. Estimated capacity should be provided by project developers during closing.
Potential links to other4.8.2 standard indicators:
• 4.8.2-32: Once the project is installed, it may be reported under 4.8.2-32. The same
project (MWs) can be reported under both indicators, where and when applicable, as
they represent distinct stages in project implementation.
• 4.8.2-10: The value of projects that reach financial closure can also be reported under
4.8.2-10 in USD.
51
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Known Data
Limitations
Reliability: Recipients should document methods used from year to year and make efforts to
utilize consistent methods.
Precision: Variation in reporting methodologies and data collection methods by implementing
partners may result in an anticipated and acceptable level of imprecision.
Baseline
Timeframe
Baseline is zero at the start of the reporting period.
Disaggregate(s)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Geothermal
Biomass and biofuels
Flared gas
Other
52
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8-7
Quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in metric tons of CO2e, reduced or
sequestered as a result of USG assistance (no disaggregation required)
Five key elements:
•
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2-equivalent, reduced,
sequestered, and /or avoided, as a result of USG activities
•
Baseline is “business-as-usual” reference for GHG emissions that would have occurred during
the reporting period if there had been no USG intervention
•
Calculated estimate
•
GHG emissions reduced, sequestered and/or avoided, for the reporting period, not project
lifetime.
•
Six-month semi-annual estimate, not cumulative
53
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.234
Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided through 2030 from adopted laws,
policies, regulations, or technologies related to clean energy as supported by USG assistance
Year of adoption through 2020
2021 through 2025
2026 through 2030
4.8.235
Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided through 2030 from adopted laws,
policies, regulations, or technologies related to sustainable landscapes as supported by USG
assistance
Year of adoption through 2020
2021 through 2025
2026 through 2030
Indicators 4.8.2-34 and 4.8.2-35 are NEW. While these indicators are under
different numbers in the F system, they are virtually the same indicator and
will be reported under the same tab of the indicator template.
54
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.234
4.8.235
Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided through 2030 from adopted laws,
policies, regulations, or technologies related to clean energy as supported by USG assistance
Year of adoption through 2020
2021 through 2025
2026 through 2030
Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided through 2030 from adopted laws,
policies, regulations, or technologies related to sustainable landscapes as supported by USG
assistance
Year of adoption through 2020
2021 through 2025
2026 through 2030
Indicators 4.8.2-34 and 4.8.2-35 are NEW.
Five key elements:
•
Indicator 4.8.2-34 - all types of clean energy policies and actions
•
Indicator 4.8.2-35 - all types of sustainable landscapes policies and actions
•
Cumulative projected GHG emissions reduced, avoided and/or sequestered through 2030 from the time the
policy took effect or action was taken, through 2030
•
Report on this indicator only once per adopted policy or action - in the year the policy was adopted or the year the
action was taken or implemented.
•
Assessments of previously supported policies and actions, adopted since 2010, can be reported under this
indicator. In such cases, they may involve both ex post and ex ante estimates.
55
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator
Definition
Linkage to LongTerm Outcome or
Impact
4.8.2-34 Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided through 2030 from
adopted laws, policies, regulations, or technologies related to clean energy as supported
by USG assistance
This indicator measures the cumulative projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced,
avoided and/or sequestered through 2030, in metric tons of CO 2-equivalent, from the time the
policy took effect or action was taken, through 2030. It is acceptable to calculate the projected
emissions reductions from a combination of adopted policies and/or actions to which USG
assistance contributed. Policies and actions adopted since 2010 that have not been previously
reported, may be included.
Clean energy programming aims to enable countries to accelerate their transition to lowemissions development through investments in clean energy. This indicator is applicable to all
types of clean energy policies and actions, including but not limited to nationally appropriate
mitigation actions (NAMAs), energy efficiency or renewable energy policies, regulations and
standards, GHG reporting programs, emissions-trading programs, and deployment of
technologies that result in emission reductions.
Developing a GHG projection is a key step towards developing effective GHG reduction
strategies and effectively reducing emissions. Assessments of policies and actions are useful
for providing a quantitative basis for policy development and enable policymakers and
stakeholders to assess the impact of various potential policies and actions on GHG emissions.
56
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator Type
Unit of Measure
Use of Indicator
Outcome
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e)
This indicator is used to inform programming and for reporting on the scope of
projected impact of programs.
57
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Data Source and
Reporting Frequency
Implementers may report on this indicator only once per adopted policy or action. Reporting may occur in the year
the policy was adopted, or the year the action was taken or implemented. Assessments of previously supported
policies and actions, adopted since 2010, can be reported under this indicator. In such cases, they may involve both
ex post and ex ante estimates.
OUs may utilize projections developed by governments or organizations for a variety of reasons such as reporting to
the UNFCCC or as part of a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform decision-making or design of the policy or action.
Documentation for the results estimated under this indicator should include estimates by the time frame disaggregates
for this indicator and may include year-by-year projections, as applicable, the type of action U.S. assistance
supported, key assumptions, and the calculation methodology applied to estimate the GHG result.
FOR USAID ACTIVITIES:
OUs can refer to the WRI 2014 Policy and Action Standard for guidance on how to generate a 10 year projection
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/policy-and-action-standard. However, this is a significant exercise, and is not
standardized across all programs.
USAID OUs can contact USAID/Washington for additional technical assistance on developing a projection of
emission reductions. Standardized calculations for reporting under this indicator for certain types of policies and
technologies are under development as part of the CLEER Protocol and CLEER Tool.
This indicator may be used in conjunction with 4.8-7 GHG emission reductions, as this indicator represents projected
emission reductions, and 4.8.2-34 measures ex-post emission reductions. Activities that use this indicator may also
report on 4.8.2-28 Laws and policies, and 4.8.2-32 and 4.8.2-33 Megawatts (MWs) of CE capacity.
58
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Known Data
Limitations
Validity: GHG projections may exhibit a wide range of results due to variation in relevant project
based assumptions, use of standardized or agency-specific tools, the aggregation of results across
calculation methods, and project-specific factors across U.S. foreign assistance programs.
Precision: The variety of acceptable methodologies used to calculate GHG estimates will result
in expected variation in the level of precision which is to be expected and acceptable due to the
wide range of activities being aggregated under this indicator. Documented estimates of the
potential impact of U.S. assistance are not intended to be investment-quality estimates.
Integrity: There is the limited possibility of double-counting within a country if there is overlap
between multiple laws or policies that are reported under this indicator. If applicable, reporting
on aggregated results from one country should be caveated accordingly.
Baseline
Timeframe
Disaggregate(s)
Reliability: Implementer expertise informs the use of acceptable methodologies for calculating
GHG projections.
Baseline each year is zero.
•
•
•
Year of adoption through 2020
2021 through 2025
2026 through 2030
59
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator
Definition
Linkage to LongTerm Outcome or
Impact
4.8.2-35 Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided through 2030 from
adopted laws, policies, regulations, or technologies related to sustainable landscapes as
supported by USG assistance
This indicator measures the cumulative projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced,
avoided and/or sequestered through 2030, in metric tons of CO 2-equivalent, from the time
the policy took effect or action was taken, through 2030. It is acceptable to calculate the
projected emissions reductions from a combination of adopted policies and/or actions to
which USG assistance contributed. Policies and actions adopted since 2010 that have not
been previously reported, may be included.
Sustainable landscapes programming aims to slow, halt, and reverse emissions from land
use, including forests and agricultural ecosystems. This indicator is applicable to all types of
sustainable landscapes policies and actions, including, but not limited to, nationally
appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), improved logging regulations, deforestation laws,
payments for ecosystem services, improved agricultural practices, and deployment of
technologies or programs that result in emission reductions.
Developing a GHG projection is a key step towards developing effective GHG reduction
strategies and effectively reducing emissions. Assessments of policies and actions are useful
for providing a quantitative basis for policy development and enable policymakers and
stakeholders to assess the impact of various potential policies and actions on GHG
emissions.
60
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator Type
Outcome
Unit of Measure
Metric tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e)
Use of Indicator
This indicator is used to inform programming and for reporting on the scope of
projected impact of programs.
61
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Data Source and
Reporting Frequency
Implementers may report on this indicator only once per adopted policy or action. Reporting may occur in the
year the policy was adopted, or the year the action was taken or implemented. Assessments of previously
supported policies and actions, adopted since 2010, can be reported under this indicator. In such cases, they
may involve both ex post and ex ante estimates.
OUs may utilize projections developed by governments or organizations for a variety of reasons such as
reporting to the UNFCCC or as part of a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform decision-making or design of
the policy or action.
Documentation for the results estimated under this indicator should include estimates by the time frame
disaggregates for this indicator and may include year-by-year projections if applicable; the type of action U.S.
assistance supported, key assumptions, and the calculation methodology applied to estimate the GHG result.
FOR USAID ACTIVITIES:
OUs can refer to the WRI 2014 Policy and Action Standard for guidance on how to generate a 10 year
projection http://www.ghgprotocol.org/policy-and-action-standard. However, this is a significant exercise, and
is not standardized across all programs.
USAID OUs can contact USAID/Washington for additional technical assistance on developing a projection of
emission reductions. The USAID AFOLU Carbon Calculator can be used to generate GHG projections for a
variety of sustainable landscapes activities http://www.afolucarbon.org/.
This indicator may be used in conjunction with 4.8-7 GHG emission reductions, as this indicator represents
projected emission reductions, and 4.8.2-35 measures ex-post emission reductions.
62
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Known Data
Limitations
Validity: GHG projections may exhibit a wide range of results due to variation in relevant project
based assumptions, use of standardized or agency-specific tools, the aggregation of results across
calculation methods, and project-specific factors across U.S. foreign assistance programs.
Precision: The variety of acceptable methodologies used to calculate GHG estimates will result
in expected variation in the level of precision which is to be expected and acceptable due to the
wide range of activities being aggregated under this indicator. Documented estimates of the
potential impact of U.S. assistance are not intended to be investment-quality estimates.
Integrity: There is the limited possibility of double-counting within a country if there is overlap
between multiple laws or policies that are reported under this indicator. If applicable, reporting
on aggregated results from one country should be caveated accordingly.
Baseline
Timeframe
Disaggregate(s)
Reliability: Implementer expertise informs the use of acceptable methodologies for calculating
GHG projections.
Baseline each year is zero.
•
•
•
Year of adoption through 2020
2021 through 2025
2026 through 2030
63
Summary of US DOS
Performance Indicators FY2015
4.8.2-36
Number of people receiving livelihood co-benefits (monetary or non-monetary) associated with
the implementation of USG sustainable landscapes activities
Male
Female
Indicator 4.8.2-36 is NEW
Five key elements:
•
Number of people in countries where sustainable landscape activities are implemented who
have received a documented livelihood co-benefit associated with these activities
•
Examples of monetary benefits - tax benefits, access to loans. payments for avoided emissions
or carbon sequestration, payment for services that achieve climate change mitigation results
•
Examples of non-monetary benefits - access to programs, services, or education
•
Unit of Measure is number of people
•
Count an individual once per fiscal year
64
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Indicator
4.8.2-36 Number of people receiving livelihood co-benefits (monetary or non-monetary) associated with the
implementation of USG sustainable landscapes activities
Definition
The implementation of sustainable landscapes strategies, programs or actions (including Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS) generates a
range of benefits for stakeholders.
This indicator identifies the number of people in countries where sustainable landscapes activities are implemented
who have received livelihood co-benefits associated with these activities. People included in the metric should be
part of populations or households identified by a project with a documented relationship to the project.
Beneficiaries should be reasonably assumed to have received a documented benefit or service enabled by USG
assistance.
Beneficiaries may include, but are not limited to: members of a household with an increased income or a newly
secured land title, children attending a school renovated with payments for ecosystem services, or members of a
cooperative who have increased sales due to increased market access.
Examples of monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: increased income due to government policies
related to climate change mitigation such as tax benefits or access to loans, payments for avoided emissions or
carbon sequestration, payment by local governments for other ecosystem services that also achieve climate change
mitigation results (e.g. implementation of a specific activity).
Examples of non-monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: access to programs, services, or education;
infrastructure development; access to markets; preferential investment or finance terms; land titling or registration;
increased access to environmental services; newly defined rights or authorities; protection of traditional livelihoods
and customary rights; environmental and other benefits from avoided deforestation and degradation, improved
afforestation, or increased productivity from climate-smart agricultural practices.
65
Summary of US DOS
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Linkage to LongTerm Outcome or
Impact
Indicator Type
Unit of Measure
Use of Indicator
Data Source and
Reporting
Frequency
Known Data
Limitations
Baseline
Timeframe
Disaggregate(s)
The realization of benefits, whether monetary or non-monetary, from lower emissions land use
strategies will create incentives to maintain and scale up these strategies. The realization of
benefits is a key component in sustaining results.
Outcome
Number of people
This indicator is used to track the benefits accruing to people because of the implementation of
sustainable landscapes strategies, programs, or actions.
Reporting is on a fiscal year basis, unless otherwise specified.
Individuals receiving benefits from more than one sustainable landscapes activity, or receiving
multiple benefits from a single activity, should be counted once per fiscal year.
Precision: This indicator is not intended to capture the quality of co-benefits received or the
degree to which livelihoods are improved.
Validity: OUs may endeavor to incorporate performance and other relevant assumptions into their
calculations if desired. These assumptions should be documented.
The baseline is zero at the start of a program.


Male
Female
66
Performance Indicators and
Standard Indicator Definitions FY2015
Each RA and implementer who registered for this training received
electronically the performance indicator reference sheets (PIRSs)
and reporting template for FY2015.
Reporting reminders will be sent out a few weeks before the due
date of the next semi-annual report. For this reporting period, use
the PIRS and reporting template for FY2015.
Updated performance indicators and standard indicator definitions
for FY2016 will be sent out in due course.
Always use the most recent PIRS and reporting template provided
by DOS/OES/ECG.
67
Reporting Template FY2015
for Each of the Ten Indicators
68
Reporting Template FY2015
for Each of the Ten Indicators
69
Reporting Template FY2015
for Each of the Ten Indicators
Note: At this time, there are not examples for all new indicators. These will come at a
later reporting period, when real implementer examples can be added to showcase
complete and full data entries based on real data.
70
Exercises
The Data Quality Assessments (DQAs) documented that
RAs and implementers experienced more challenges with
these three indicators than with other indicators:
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations.
Thus, this training and the “reporting aide” include exercises
to assist in reporting on these indicators.
71
Exercise
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
The Energy and Resources Institute (ERI) – Project Report
In mid-April 2015, World Bank experts and trainers from the ERI conducted a five-day
training program. The training program prepared the Solar Lighting Laboratory to conduct
the Lighting Global Quality Testing Method (QTM) on off-grid lighting products. Prior to the
training program, the Solar Lighting Laboratory did not have the necessary institutional
capacity to conduct the QTM.
Training materials were jointly developed and delivered by the ERI, SolarOne and the
World Bank. The Lighting Africa program, a project of the World Bank, paid for the logistical
arrangements of the training program, which cost $4,000.
The Lighting Global QTM test methods are identical to the forthcoming methods from the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for testing LED-based off-grid lighting
products.
Several practice tests were conducted in May and June 2015. As a result of this initiative,
in July 2015 the Solar Lighting Laboratory began to evaluate products using the Lighting
Global QTM test methods, which are equivalent to IEC methods.
72
Exercise
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
The Energy and Resources Institute (ERI) – Project Report
Questions:
1. Which data points and reporting information have you identified that should be
reported?
2. In which semi-annual report should these activities be reported?
3. Do you see any potential challenges in reporting these data?
73
Exercise
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
The Energy and Resources Institute (ERI) – Project Report
In mid-April 2015, World Bank experts and trainers from the ERI conducted a five-day
training program. The training program prepared the Solar Lighting Laboratory to conduct
the Lighting Global Quality Testing Method (QTM) on off-grid lighting products. Prior to the
training program, the Solar Lighting Laboratory did not have the necessary institutional
capacity to conduct the QTM.
Training materials were jointly developed and delivered by the ERI, SolarOne and the
World Bank. The Lighting Africa program, a project of the World Bank, paid for the logistical
arrangements of the training program, which cost $4,000.
The Lighting Global QTM test methods are identical to the forthcoming methods from the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for testing LED-based off-grid lighting
products.
Several practice tests were conducted in May and June 2015. As a result of this initiative,
in July 2015 the Solar Lighting Laboratory began to evaluate products using the Lighting
Global QTM test methods, which are equivalent to IEC methods.
74
Exercise
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
The Energy and Resources Institute (ERI) – Project Report
Answers:
1. Which data points and reporting information have you identified that should be
reported?
2. In which semi-annual report should these activities be reported?
75
Exercise
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
The Energy and Resources Institute (ERI) – Project Report
Answers (continued):
3. Do you see any potential challenges in reporting these data?
NOTE: Relevant information should be entered in the indicator reporting template.
76
Exercise
4.8.2-14 Number of Institutions with Improved Capacity
Indicator #3: 4.8.2-14
Institutions w/ Improved Capacity
#
Name(s) of institutions
Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues
as a result of USG assistance
Description of project intervention:
Baseline Assessment:
What activities were used to increase
What was the baseline
capacity? (Expand upon how the
capacity of the targeted
range and series of activities goes
institution or
beyond training and/or technical
organization?
assistance)
Results:
What are the
indications that
capacity was
increased?
Topic/Sector Semi-Annual
Choose one: Period and
Clean Energy, Narrative
Adaptation, or Report Page #
Sustainable where the result
Landscapes is described
77
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Project IslandZ - Report
In the previous reporting period, three Village Steering Committees were established to serve as local
partners in the implementation of project activities.
A joint team from the Project and the Ministry of Agriculture was created to undertake vulnerability
assessments between April 25 and May 10, 2015. The vulnerability assessments were conducted
using the Community-based Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment approach, which assesses
community vulnerabilities (such as increased drought and flooding, natural disasters such as
landslides, or outbreaks of disease) and adaptive capacity, as based on community perception and
evidence. The community based vulnerability analysis documented that in the target communities, the
food production environment and food security are highly vulnerable to climate change.
In July and August 2015, the Project provided training and technical assistance (TA) to the three Village
Steering Committees to address the identified vulnerabilities. The training covered identifying soil
erosion and introduction of techniques to conserve soil, among other issues. The TA explained how
and where to obtain information on climate change impacts. As a result of these activities, a total of 14
farmers in the three villages employed soil conservation measures; 12 farmers began to practice
intercropping systems that include fruit trees; and in one village nurseries were established in a primary
and a middle school. A survey was conducted to document the adoption and use of these new
practices. The survey included interviews and photo evidence.
78
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Project IslandZ – Report
Questions:
1. Which data points and reporting information have you identified that should be
reported?
2. In which semi-annual report should these activities be reported?
3. Do you see any potential challenges in reporting these data?
79
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Project IslandZ - Report
In the previous reporting period, three Village Steering Committees were established to serve as local
partners in the implementation of project activities.
A joint team from the Project and the Ministry of Agriculture was created to undertake vulnerability
assessments between April 25 and May 10, 2015. The vulnerability assessments were conducted
using the Community-based Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment approach, which assesses
community vulnerabilities (such as increased drought and flooding, natural disasters such as
landslides, or outbreaks of disease) and adaptive capacity, as based on community perception and
evidence. The community based vulnerability analysis documented that in the target communities, the
food production environment and food security are highly vulnerable to climate change.
In July and August 2015, the Project provided training and technical assistance (TA) to the three Village
Steering Committees to address the identified vulnerabilities. The training covered identifying soil
erosion and introduction of techniques to conserve soil, among other issues. The TA explained how
and where to obtain information on climate change impacts. As a result of these activities, a total of 14
farmers in the three villages employed soil conservation measures; 12 farmers began to practice
intercropping systems that include fruit trees; and in one village nurseries were established in a primary
and a middle school. A survey was conducted to document the adoption and use of these new
practices. The survey included interviews and photo evidence.
80
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Project IslandZ – Report
Answers:
1. Which data points and reporting information have you identified that should be
recorded?
2. In which semi-annual report should these activities be reported?
81
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Project IslandZ – Report
Answers (continued):
3. Do you see any potential challenges in reporting these data?
82
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Indicator #4: 4.8.2-26
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of
climate variability and change as a result of USG assistance
Description of project
intervention:
What activities were used to
Name: Retain Name(s)
increase the capacity of the
of individual persons in
What was the baseline of stakeholder to adapt?
# of
project files (if affiliated
the targeted capacity to
(Expand upon how the range
individual
with an organization(s),
adapt?
and series of activities goes
persons
list the organization(s)
beyond training and/or
here)
technical assistance)
Implementing risk-reducing practices/actions to improve resilience to climate change
Stakeholders
Baseline Assessment:
Results
Semi-Annual
Period and
What are the
Narrative Report
indications that
Page # where the
capacity to adapt
result is described
was increased?
Using climate information in their decision-making
With increased knowledge of climate change impacts and response options
*Please place results under the relevant category
(highlighted in yellow)
83
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Indicator #4: 4.8.2-26
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of
climate variability and change as a result of USG assistance
Baseline
Stakeholders
Description of project intervention:
Results
Semi-Annual
Assessment:
Period and
Narrative
Name: Retain Name(s) of What was the What activities were used to increase the
What are the
Report Page
individual persons in baseline of the capacity of the stakeholder to adapt?
indications that
# of individual
# where the
project files (if affiliated targeted
(Expand upon how the range and series
capacity to adapt
persons
result is
with an organization(s), list capacity to
of activities goes beyond training and/or
was increased?
described
the organization(s) here) adapt?
technical assistance)
Implementing risk-reducing practices/actions to improve resilience to climate change
84
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Indicator #4: 4.8.2-26
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of
climate variability and change as a result of USG assistance
Baseline
Stakeholders
Description of project intervention:
Results
Semi-Annual
Assessment:
Period and
Narrative
Name: Retain Name(s) of What was the What activities were used to increase the
What are the
Report Page
individual persons in baseline of the capacity of the stakeholder to adapt?
indications that
# of individual
# where the
project files (if affiliated targeted
(Expand upon how the range and series
capacity to adapt
persons
result is
with an organization(s), list capacity to
of activities goes beyond training and/or
was increased?
described
the organization(s) here) adapt?
technical assistance)
Using climate information in their decision-making
85
Exercise
4.8.2-26 Number of Stakeholders with Increased Capacity to Adapt
Indicator #4: 4.8.2-26
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of
climate variability and change as a result of USG assistance
Baseline
Stakeholders
Description of project intervention:
Results
Semi-Annual
Assessment:
Period and
Narrative
Name: Retain Name(s) of What was the What activities were used to increase the
What are the
Report Page
individual persons in baseline of the capacity of the stakeholder to adapt?
indications that
# of individual
# where the
project files (if affiliated targeted
(Expand upon how the range and series
capacity to adapt
persons
result is
with an organization(s), list capacity to
of activities goes beyond training and/or
was increased?
described
the organization(s) here) adapt?
technical assistance)
With increased knowledge of climate change impacts and response options
86
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
EcoIsland: Community-Based Resource Management Plan Development
In the beginning of the EcoIsland (EI) project, a tender was put out for a consultant with experience in ecosystems to
undertake a biodiversity and ecosystem service assessment and lead the formulation of a Community-Based Resource
Management (CBRM) Plan for the Maengara River catchment and the associated coastal environment. Building on the
previous USAID/EI Scoping Assessment for Maengara Ridge-to-Reef Management Planning output, this tender proposed the
following activities:
•
An initial consultative meeting report with clear guidance of the next steps for the protection of Maengara watershed and
river catchment;
•
A CBRM Plan submitted to EI with a spatial analysis of all environmental, socio-economic patterns and land use zones;
and
•
A initial agreement from landowners and communities for the protection of Maengara river ecosystem signed on April
31, 2014.
In April 2015, a joint EI/ADB team carried out consultations in two villages working towards community managed fisheries.
Consultations revealed a decline in inshore fisheries and ecosystem health in these places. Climate change impacts will add
more pressure on these resources. Currently, the fisheries suffer from a lack of community management. Three CBRM
fishery management plans evolved out of the community consultations and follow up efforts to support governance
arrangements to better manage this resource; these were submitted to the National Water Commission on April 15, 2015.
Some of the proposed actions included trial of Fish Aggregating Devices for communities to target pelagic species (tuna,
mackerel, etc.) for protein needs combined with protection of reef areas to help these key species recover.
In June 2015, training was conducted to increase competency of villages in land and resource management planning, with a
particular focus on drafting protected area plans.
One of the three CBRM fishery management plans was approved by the National Water Commission on August 1, 2015,
whereas the other two plans were not approved.
87
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
EcoIsland: Community-Based Resource Management Plan Development
Questions:
1. Which data points and reporting information have you identified that should be
recorded?
2. In which semi-annual report should these activities be reported?
3. Do you see any potential challenges in reporting these data?
88
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
EcoIsland: Community-Based Resource Management Plan Development
In the beginning of the EcoIsland (EI) project, a tender was put out for a consultant with experience in ecosystems to
undertake a biodiversity and ecosystem service assessment and lead the formulation of a Community-Based Resource
Management (CBRM) Plan for the Maengara River catchment and the associated coastal environment. Building on the
previous USAID/EI Scoping Assessment for Maengara Ridge-to-Reef Management Planning output, this tender proposed the
following activities:
•
An initial consultative meeting report with clear guidance of the next steps for the protection of Maengara watershed and
river catchment;
•
A CBRM Plan submitted to EI with a spatial analysis of all environmental, socio-economic patterns and land use zones;
and
•
A initial agreement from landowners and communities for the protection of Maengara river ecosystem signed on April
31, 2014.
In April 2015, a joint EI/ADB team carried out consultations in two villages working towards community managed fisheries.
Consultations revealed a decline in inshore fisheries and ecosystem health in these places. Climate change impacts will add
more pressure on these resources. Currently, the fisheries suffer from a lack of community management. Three CBRM
fishery management plans evolved out of the community consultations and follow up efforts to support governance
arrangements to better manage this resource; these were submitted to the National Water Commission on April 15, 2015.
Some of the proposed actions included trial of Fish Aggregating Devices for communities to target pelagic species (tuna,
mackerel, etc.) for protein needs combined with protection of reef areas to help these key species recover.
In June 2015, training was conducted to increase competency of villages in land and resource management planning, with a
particular focus on drafting protected area plans.
One of the three CBRM fishery management plans was approved by the National Water Commission on August 1, 2015,
whereas the other two plans were not approved.
89
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
EcoIsland: Community-Based Resource Management Plan Development
Answers:
1. Which data points and reporting information have you identified that need to be
recorded?
2. In which semi-annual report should these activities be reported?
90
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
EcoIsland: Community-Based Resource Management Plan Development
Answers (continued):
3. Do you see any potential challenges in reporting these data?
91
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
Indicator #6:
4.8.2-37
#
Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements, or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation)
officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance
Type Status of
Choose Action:
one: law, Choose
policy,
one:
strategy, Proposed,
plan,
Adopted,
agreement,
or
or
Implement
regulation
ed
Title
Semi-Annual
Scale:
Topic/Sector What is the title
How did USG assistance
Implementer:
Period and
Choose
Choose one:
of the
Who will be
support the proposal, Purpose of the measure: Narrative
one:
Clean Energy, law/policy/plan/
implementing/
adoption, or
How will this measure Report Page #
National
Adaptation, or
strategy/
enforcing the
implementation of this address climate change? where the
or SubSustainable regulation/agre
measure?
measure?
result is
national
Landscapes
ement?
described
92
Exercise
4.8.2-28 Number of Laws, Policies, Strategies, Plans or Regulations
Indicator #6:
4.8.2-37
#
Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements, or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation)
officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance
Type Status of
Choose Action:
one: law, Choose
policy,
one:
strategy, Proposed,
plan,
Adopted,
agreement,
or
or
Implement
regulation
ed
Title
Semi-Annual
Scale:
Topic/Sector What is the title
How did USG assistance
Implementer:
Period and
Choose
Choose one:
of the
Who will be
support the proposal, Purpose of the measure: Narrative
one:
Clean Energy, law/policy/plan/
implementing/
adoption, or
How will this measure Report Page #
National
Adaptation, or
strategy/
enforcing the
implementation of this address climate change? where the
or SubSustainable regulation/agre
measure?
measure?
result is
national
Landscapes
ement?
described
93
Question and Answer (Q&A) Session
Please ask any questions.
94
Introducing the “Reporting Aide”
The training materials include three exercises, but it will not be possible
to cover all three exercises during each training session. The pretraining survey polled participants on which of the three indicators is
most relevant to them. At the start of each session, the instructor will
share the results of the pre-training survey for that session and inform
participants which exercise will be covered during the session.
After the five training sessions are conducted, each participant will
receive an updated set of training materials, including:
 This PowerPoint Presentation with answers to all three exercises;
 Q&As from all five sessions; and
 List of Performance Indicators and Standard Indicator Definitions.
These materials can serve as a “Reporting Aide” to support high quality
outcome indicator reporting by RAs and implementers.
95