|
|
|
Tracking Tool for GEF 6 Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency Projects |
| (At CEO Endorsement) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB:
Will need to update this
Special Notes: Projects need to report on all indicators that are included in their results framework |
Reporting on lifetime emissions avoided
Lifetime direct GHG emissions avoided: Lifetime direct GHG emissions avoided are the emissions reductions attributable to the investments made during the project's supervised implementation period, totaled over the respective lifetime of the investments.
Lifetime direct post-project emissions avoided: Lifetime direct post-project emissions avoided are the emissions reductions attributable to the investments made outside the project's supervised implementation period, but supported by financial facilities put in place by the GEF project, totaled over the respective lifetime of the investments. These financial facilities will still be operational after the project ends, such as partial credit guarantee facilities, risk mitigation facilities, or revolving funds.
Lifetime indirect GHG emissions avoided (top-down and bottom-up): indirect emissions reductions are those attributable to the long-term outcomes of the GEF activities that remove barriers, such as capacity building, innovation, catalytic action for replication.
Please refer to the following references for Calculating GHG Benefits of GEF Projects. |
| Manual for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects |
| Revised Methodology for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Benefits of GEF Energy Efficiency Projects (Version 1.0) |
| Manual for Transportation Projects |
| For LULUCF projects, the definitions of "lifetime direct and indirect" apply. Lifetime length is defined to be 20 years, unless a different number of years is deemed appropriate. For emission or removal factors (tonnes of CO2eq per hectare per year), use IPCC defaults or country specific factors. |
|
|
|
|
| Section A. General Data |
|
|
|
|
At CEO Endorsement |
|
| Project Title |
|
|
| GEF ID |
|
|
| GEF Agency |
|
|
| Agency Project ID |
|
|
| Country |
|
|
| Region |
|
|
| Date of Council/CEO Approval |
|
Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 13, 2014) |
| GEF Grant (US$) |
|
|
| Date of submission of the tracking tool |
|
Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 13, 2014) |
| Is the project consistent with the priorities identified in National Communications, Technology Needs Assessment, or other Enabling Activities (such as Technology Action Plans, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) under the UNFCCC? |
|
Yes = 1, No = 0 |
|
|
|
| Section B. Quantitative Outcome Indicators |
Target At CEO Endorsement |
|
| Indicator 1: Total Lifetime Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions Avoided (Tons CO2eq) |
|
Indentify Sectors, Sources andTechnologies. Provide disaggregated information if possible. see Special Notes above |
| Lifetime direct GHG emissions avoided |
|
|
| Lifetime indirect GHG emissions avoided |
|
|
|
|
|
| Indicator 2: Volume of investment mobilized and leveraged by GEF for low GHG development (co-financing and additional financing) of which |
|
Expected additional resources implies resources beyond co-financing committed at CEO endorsement. |
| Public |
|
|
| Private |
|
|
| Domestic |
|
|
| External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Section C. Qualitative Outcome Indicators |
|
|
|
| Indicator 3: Quality of MRV Systems |
Baseline
Rating (1-10) |
Target
Rating (1-10) |
Guidance for Ratings (1-10):
1. Very little measurement is done, reporting is partial and irregular and verification is not there
2. Measurement systems are in place but data is of poor quality and/or methodologies are not very robust; reporting is done only on request or to limited audience or partially; verification is not there
3. Measurement systems are in place for a few activities, improved data quality and methodologies, but not cost or time efficient; wider access to reporting is still limited and information is partial; verification is rudimentary/non-standardized
4. Measurement systems are strong in a limited set of activities however, analyses still needs improvement; periodic monitoring and reporting although not yet cost/time efficient; verification is only upon specific request and limited
5. Measurement systems are strong for a limited set of activities and periodically report on key GHG related indicators i.e. mainstreamed into the activity implementation; reporting is improved through few pathways but limited audience and formats; verification limited
6. Measurement systems are strong and cover a greater percentage of activities – feedback loops exist even if they are not fully functioning; reporting is available through multiple pathways and formats but may not be complete/transparent; verification is done through standard methodologies but only partially (i.e. not all data is verifiable)
7. Measurement regarding GHG is broadly done (with widely acceptable methodologies), need for more sophisticated analyses to improve policy; Reporting is periodic with improvements in transparency; verification is done through more sophisticated methods even if partially
8. Strong standardized measurements processes established for key indicators and mainstreamed into institutional policy implementation; reporting is widely available in multiple formats; verification is done for a larger set of information
9. Strong Monitoring and Reporting systems – robust methodologies, cost effective and efficient, periodic; verification done to a significant degree
10. Strong MRV systems that provide quality GHG related information in a transparent, accurate and accessible to a wide audience, with feedback of information from MRV flowing into policy design and implementation
Provide details of coverage of MRV systems - area, type of activity for which MRV is done, and of Reporting and Verification processes. Baseline indicates current status (pre-project), Target is the rating level that is expected to be achieved due to project support. For guidance for qualitative ratings (in comment) move cursor over box or right click to show comment. |
| Activity |
|
|
|
| Activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Indicator 4: Number of countries meeting Convention reporting requirements and including mitigation contributions |
|
Please specify the dates of submission for each report (for a multiple country project, please specify reports by country) |
| National Communications |
|
|
| Biennial Update Reports |
|
|
| NDC |
|
|
| Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Indicator 5: Qualitative assessment of institutional capacity for transparency-related activities |
Baseline Rating (1-4) |
Target Rating (1-4) |
Guidance for Ratings (1-4):
1. No designated transparency institution to support and coordinate the planning and implementation of transparency activities under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement exists.
2. Designated transparency institution exists, but with limited staff and capacity to support and coordinate implementation of transparency activities under Article 13 of Paris Agreement. Institution lacks authority or mandate to coordinate transparency activities under Article 13.
3. Designated transparency institution has an organizational unit with standing staff with some capacity to coordinate and implement transparency activities under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Institution has authority or mandate to coordinate
transparency activities under Article 13. Activities are not integrated into national planning or budgeting activities.
4. Designated transparency institution(s) has an organizational unit with standing staff with some capacity to coordinate and implement transparency activities. Institution(s) has clear mandate or authority to coordinate activities under Article 13
of the Paris Agreement, and activities are integrated into national planning and budgeting activities.
CBIT projects will monitor an additional indicator for qualitative assessment of institutional capacity built for transparency-related activities under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Baseline indicates current status (pre-project), Target is the rating level that is expected to be achieved due to project support. For guidance for qualitative ratings (in comment) move cursor over box or right click to show comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tracking Tool for GEF 6 Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency Projects |
| (At Mid-Term) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB:
Will need to update this
Special Notes: Projects need to report on all indicators that are included in their results framework |
Reporting on lifetime emissions avoided
Lifetime direct GHG emissions avoided: Lifetime direct GHG emissions avoided are the emissions reductions attributable to the investments made during the project's supervised implementation period, totaled over the respective lifetime of the investments.
Lifetime direct post-project emissions avoided: Lifetime direct post-project emissions avoided are the emissions reductions attributable to the investments made outside the project's supervised implementation period, but supported by financial facilities put in place by the GEF project, totaled over the respective lifetime of the investments. These financial facilities will still be operational after the project ends, such as partial credit guarantee facilities, risk mitigation facilities, or revolving funds.
Lifetime indirect GHG emissions avoided (top-down and bottom-up): indirect emissions reductions are those attributable to the long-term outcomes of the GEF activities that remove barriers, such as capacity building, innovation, catalytic action for replication.
Please refer to the following references for Calculating GHG Benefits of GEF Projects. |
| Manual for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects |
| Revised Methodology for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Benefits of GEF Energy Efficiency Projects (Version 1.0) |
| Manual for Transportation Projects |
| For LULUCF projects, the definitions of "lifetime direct and indirect" apply. Lifetime length is defined to be 20 years, unless a different number of years is deemed appropriate. For emission or removal factors (tonnes of CO2eq per hectare per year), use IPCC defaults or country specific factors. |
|
|
|
|
| Section A. General Data |
|
|
|
|
At Mid-Term |
|
| Project Title |
|
|
| GEF ID |
|
|
| GEF Agency |
|
|
| Agency Project ID |
|
|
| Country |
|
|
| Region |
|
|
| Date of Council/CEO Approval |
|
Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 13, 2014) |
| GEF Grant (US$) |
|
|
| Date of submission of the tracking tool |
|
Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 13, 2014) |
| Is the project consistent with the priorities identified in National Communications, Technology Needs Assessment, or other Enabling Activities (such as Technology Action Plans, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) under the UNFCCC? |
|
Yes = 1, No = 0 |
|
|
|
| Section B. Quantitative Outcome Indicators |
Mid-Term Results |
|
| Indicator 1: Total Lifetime Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions Avoided (Tons CO2eq) |
|
Indentify Sectors, Sources andTechnologies. Provide disaggregated information if possible. see Special Notes above |
| Lifetime direct GHG emissions avoided |
|
|
| Lifetime indirect GHG emissions avoided |
|
|
|
|
|
| Indicator 2: Volume of investment mobilized and leveraged by GEF for low GHG development (co-financing and additional financing) of which |
|
Expected additional resources implies resources beyond co-financing committed at CEO endorsement. |
| Public |
|
|
| Private |
|
|
| Domestic |
|
|
| External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Section C. Qualitative Outcome Indicators |
|
|
|
| Indicator 3: Quality of MRV Systems |
Baseline
Rating (1-10) |
Target
Rating (1-10) |
Guidance for Ratings (1-10):
1. Very little measurement is done, reporting is partial and irregular and verification is not there
2. Measurement systems are in place but data is of poor quality and/or methodologies are not very robust; reporting is done only on request or to limited audience or partially; verification is not there
3. Measurement systems are in place for a few activities, improved data quality and methodologies, but not cost or time efficient; wider access to reporting is still limited and information is partial; verification is rudimentary/non-standardized
4. Measurement systems are strong in a limited set of activities however, analyses still needs improvement; periodic monitoring and reporting although not yet cost/time efficient; verification is only upon specific request and limited
5. Measurement systems are strong for a limited set of activities and periodically report on key GHG related indicators i.e. mainstreamed into the activity implementation; reporting is improved through few pathways but limited audience and formats; verification limited
6. Measurement systems are strong and cover a greater percentage of activities – feedback loops exist even if they are not fully functioning; reporting is available through multiple pathways and formats but may not be complete/transparent; verification is done through standard methodologies but only partially (i.e. not all data is verifiable)
7. Measurement regarding GHG is broadly done (with widely acceptable methodologies), need for more sophisticated analyses to improve policy; Reporting is periodic with improvements in transparency; verification is done through more sophisticated methods even if partially
8. Strong standardized measurements processes established for key indicators and mainstreamed into institutional policy implementation; reporting is widely available in multiple formats; verification is done for a larger set of information
9. Strong Monitoring and Reporting systems – robust methodologies, cost effective and efficient, periodic; verification done to a significant degree
10. Strong MRV systems that provide quality GHG related information in a transparent, accurate and accessible to a wide audience, with feedback of information from MRV flowing into policy design and implementation
Provide details of coverage of MRV systems - area, type of activity for which MRV is done, and of Reporting and Verification processes. Baseline indicates current status (pre-project), Target is the rating level that is expected to be achieved due to project support. For guidance for qualitative ratings (in comment) move cursor over box or right click to show comment. |
| Activity |
|
|
|
| Activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Indicator 4: Number of countries meeting Convention reporting requirements and including mitigation contributions |
|
Please specify the dates of submission for each report (for a multiple country project, please specify reports by country) |
| National Communications |
|
|
| Biennial Update Reports |
|
|
| NDC |
|
|
| Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Indicator 5: Qualitative assessment of institutional capacity for transparency-related activities |
Baseline Rating (1-4) |
Target Rating (1-4) |
Guidance for Ratings (1-4):
1. No designated transparency institution to support and coordinate the planning and implementation of transparency activities under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement exists.
2. Designated transparency institution exists, but with limited staff and capacity to support and coordinate implementation of transparency activities under Article 13 of Paris Agreement. Institution lacks authority or mandate to coordinate transparency activities under Article 13.
3. Designated transparency institution has an organizational unit with standing staff with some capacity to coordinate and implement transparency activities under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Institution has authority or mandate to coordinate
transparency activities under Article 13. Activities are not integrated into national planning or budgeting activities.
4. Designated transparency institution(s) has an organizational unit with standing staff with some capacity to coordinate and implement transparency activities. Institution(s) has clear mandate or authority to coordinate activities under Article 13
of the Paris Agreement, and activities are integrated into national planning and budgeting activities.
CBIT projects will monitor an additional indicator for qualitative assessment of institutional capacity built for transparency-related activities under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Baseline indicates current status (pre-project), Target is the rating level that is expected to be achieved due to project support. For guidance for qualitative ratings (in comment) move cursor over box or right click to show comment. |
|
|
|
|
Filetype Excel XLSX | Posted on 16 Aug 2022 | 3 years ago
