* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 2015 DOS GCCI Indicator Training
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
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