For internationally supported Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) or other forms of mitigation action, there is no agreed methodological guidance. In general, it is expected that quantification methodologies will be consistent with guidance from the IPCC and other organizations. International climate funds (e.g., GEF, GCF) and international financial institutions are likely to be among the main financial supporters of mitigation actions in many developing countries. In recent years, these institutions have been developing their internal policies and procedures to account for GHG emissions and emission reductions from projects they support. These policies and procedures, including agreements among a number of financial institutions to harmonize their GHG accounting policies.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is one of the main financing vehicles for climate action under the UNFCCC, has issued documents specifying performance indicators for projects and programs funded by the GCF, but further guidance on baseline setting and performance measurement is still to be developed (see the box below).
| MRV requirements of selected climate finance sources |
|---|
| The NAMA Facility: The NAMA Facility, a fund originally established by the UK and German governments, provides finance for the implementation of NAMA Support Projects (NSP). These are projects that have a catalytic role in the implementation of a NAMA objective of a developing country. Within the NAMA Facility, M&E serves two main functions: (a) promoting accountability for results, including GHG effects, and (b) supporting learning and knowledge sharing as a basis for decision-making. The NAMA Facility has a system for M&E of the facility itself, and M&E is a mandatory component of all NSPs financed by the facility, with project-level M&E contributing to performance monitoring and evaluation of the facility itself. The NAMA Facility was designed with a theory of change (or logical framework) that specifies 6 outputs. Two of these outputs (‘establishment of the Facility’ and ‘preparation of project pipeline’) are the responsibility of the management unit. The other four outputs (leverage of finance, good practice examples, national capacities and development co-benefits) are delivered through NSPs. Therefore, at the project level, there are 5 mandatory monitoring indicators that all NSPs must monitor and report on: ● M1: Reduced GHG emissions ● M2: Number of people directly benefitting from NSPs ● M3: Degree to which the supported activities catalyze impact beyond the NSP ● M4: Volume of public finance mobilized for low-carbon investment ● M5: Volume of private finance mobilized for low-carbon investment Each NSP must report on these indicators but is also required to develop its own indicators and system to monitor project-specific indicators at the output and/or outcome levels in order to describe the results and effects of the project. These indicators can include indicators of implementation progress, direct outputs or outcomes attributed to project implementation, such as sustainable development benefits of the NSP. In some cases, M&E of NSPs will contribute to building national systems for MRV of low carbon development. The Green Climate Fund (GCF): The Board of the GCF had approved performance measurement frameworks for support to mitigation and adaptation projects in different sectors. In general, mitigation projects that also generate adaptation results should report on adaptation indicators, and vice-versa. Gender disaggregation should be applied for data where possible. Performance indicators are divided into core indicators, which shall be measured for all supported projects, and other indicators that shall be reported on according to their relevance to a project. For mitigation, the Fund’s core indicators are tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) reduced, to be estimated ex-ante and verified ex-post; cost per tCO2e decreased, and volume of finance leveraged. Core indicators are then set for each sector. Core indicators set for forestry and land use (tCO2ee reduced or avoided from forestry and land use activities and total area of land under improved management) are aligned with UNFCCC decisions on MRV for REDD+, and may not be suitable for all projects focusing on the livestock sector. For adaptation, core indicators include the “total number of direct and indirect beneficiaries” and “percentage of beneficiaries relative to total population.” Other indicators are then set for adaptation effects on livelihoods, health, ecosystems and infrastructure. Perhaps the most relevant to livestock is “percentage of population (and relative disaggregation of women and men) adopting climate-resilient livelihood practices/options by sector (fisheries, agriculture, tourism, etc.).” Further technical guidance on performance monitoring is still under development. Accredited entities of the GCF will submit annual performance reports in order to report on progress made towards targets of the core indicators and any additional indicators identified at the project level. On the basis of these annual performance reports, the GCF will then be able to produce an annual portfolio performance report. Sources: NAMA-Facility and GCF |