Mid-Term Review of the UNDP-UNEP-GEF project: Global Support for Preparation of National Communications and Biennial Up-date Reports of Non-Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC 2015-2020

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2021, RBEC
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
01/2019
Completion Date:
09/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document UNDP-GEF-MTR_TOR_GSP_Dec 5_2017_long version.docx tor English 80.67 KB Posted 65
Download document UNDP-UNEP GSP MTR final report.pdf report English 1964.06 KB Posted 87
Title Mid-Term Review of the UNDP-UNEP-GEF project: Global Support for Preparation of National Communications and Biennial Up-date Reports of Non-Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC 2015-2020
Atlas Project Number: 00088409
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2021, RBEC
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2018
Planned End Date: 01/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.4.1 Gender-responsive legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions strengthened, and solutions adopted, to address conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing of natural resources, in line with international conventions and national legislation
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG Target
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
  • 13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
  • 13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Project
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 24,731
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Kris Prasada Rao kpr@pem.dk
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Global Support for Preparation of National Communications and Biennial Up-date Reports of Non-Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC 2015-2020
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5141
PIMS Number: 5164
Key Stakeholders: UN Environment, UNDP
Lessons
1.

As described in Chapter 3.1, GSP is supporting Non-Annex I Parties in meeting their reporting requirements under UNFCCC. As such, it is not directly leading to impact in relation to greenhouse gas emissions or climate resilience, nor is it directly leading to country level outcomes in terms of improved policy frameworks, reporting, or climate data collections. Rather, GSP is making an indirect contribution towards such results, by enhancing the capacities and knowledge of countries in terms of UNFCCC reporting requirements, how to set up appropriate institutional and technical arrangements, and how to ensure that the right technical knowledge is available for quality data collection, analysis and reporting. This is sought through a range of capacity development and knowledge management activities for Non-Annex I Parties, arranged mainly at the regional and national levels, but also at global level. In turn, having these capacities in place will not only enable countries to set up systems for the submission of quality reports in timely manner to UNFCCC, but it will also contribute to enabling countries to make evidence-based policy and strategic decisions and prioritisations and enhancing their ability to attract climate-financing. However, the extent to which GSP will lead to the intended results in terms of improved reporting and especially improved institutional setups and engagement of different sectoral ministries and institutions (mainstreaming) hinges on a number of factors at the national level (including at the policy/decision-making level), which GSP has little control over and limited capacity to engage in more deeply – unlike programmes with a more direct and continuous in-country presence over a specific time. Nonetheless, albeit outside GSP, UNDP and UN Environment are also directly supporting the Non-Annex I Parties in the elaboration of their National Communications and BURs through national-level “enabling activities” projects, also funded by GEF[1].

Given the global nature of GSP and that it in principle supports the highly diverse group of 154 Non-Annex I Parties, it is unfeasible for the project design to respond specifically to the national priorities and development plans of all of these countries. But GSP is directly addressing a major constraint for Non-Annex I Parties in terms of meeting the evolving and increasing report requirements under UNFCCC, which in turn will also help them access climate financing. The project design also appears to be well in line with stakeholder interests and no stakeholders expressed major reservations about the project design. The global nature of GSP also made unfeasible to include national stakeholders directly in the design process, but an inception workshop was held in 2015 as a side event to COP21, thereby providing countries with an opportunity to getting acquainted with GSP and presenting their views and interests. The workshop had more than 60 attendants from developing and developed countries, international organisations, NGOs and academia.

As described in the CEO endorsement and UNDP ProDoc, GSP builds on the previous global GEF National Communications Support Programme (NCSP), which also provided support for the preparation of National Communications; the GSP design thus drew on the NCSP lessons captured in a lessons learned report from 2013. NCSP was managed by UNDP, but UNEP was also part of the execution of the programme. GSP to a certain extent is a continuation of NCSP, but UN Environment was brought in as an implementing partner with its own fund allocation directly from GEF, since both agencies are GEF executing agencies for country-level enabling activities.

An important global development after GSP was designed is the decision to establish the Paris Committee on Capacity-building (PCCB). PCCB is intended to engage in the coordination and guidance of capacity development for countries vis-à-vis implementation of UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement and the related reporting requirements, and foster cooperation global, regional and national levels. Hence, the further development of the PCCB could well have bearings on GSP.

Similarly, the new GEF-funded Capacity Building for Transparency (CBIT) initiative, which is also implemented by UNDP and UN Environment among others, is focusing on building national capacities on transparency, which ultimately links to the national reporting and GHG inventories, thus with scope for synergies with GSP. CBIT operates mainly by providing grant support to countries, like the enabling activities, and there is thus scope for synergies with GSP (and a potential risk of duplication). The future evolution of CBIT could thus well have bearings on GSP. In UNDP, the synergy and coordination are facilitated by having GSP and CBIT managed by the same team. This is not the case in UN Environment, so here synergies depend on in-house coordination between different teams.

Results framework: The overall rationale and the expected outcomes and types of outputs and activities of GSP are clear and logical. Nonetheless, there are a number of inconsistencies in the results framework. Annex 11 provides a “faithful” Theory of Change diagram based on the results framework as it is presented in the CEO endorsement, the UNDP ProDoc, and elsewhere. Annex 10 provides a “reconstructed” Theory of Change, where the relationship of the different elements of the results framework has been analysed.

The four outcomes of GSP are not results at the same level. Outcome 1.1 (institutional arrangements) and Outcome 2.1 (enhanced capacities) are in reality lower level results feeding into Outcome 1.2 (NC and BUR data analyses available). Moreover, Outcome 3.1 (increased networking) is not truly an outcome in its own right, but very similar to Output 3.1.1 (regional exchange) and Output 3.1.3 (South-South cooperation) – activities, which are intended to feed into the national level outcomes of institutional arrangements (Outcome 1.1) and enhanced capacities (Outcome 2.1).

However, a more fundamental challenge for GSP is that it is well beyond the scope and mandate to ensure that the intended objective and outcomes as described in the results framework are achieved, since the achievement of these is mainly determined by processes and decisions at the country level; and by nature, GSP can only engage at the national level to a modest degree, and only in a limited number of countries. The only outcome that GSP has some level of control over is Outcome 2.1 (enhanced capacities – “Countries are equipped with the understanding, technical basis and information….”), but even for this outcome, GSP will only be one contributing factor among a number of factors.

At the output level, a project is normally expected to directly control and deliver the outputs in its results framework, in other words, the project activities are expected to directly lead to the expected outputs. However, some of the outputs in GSP’s results framework are beyond the control of GSP. Particularly evident examples of this are Output 1.1.2 (National climate change reporting systems and procedures established…) and Output 1.2.1 (Involve a greater number of Ministries and stakeholders in compiling NCs and BURs). To a lesser extent, this is also a challenge vis-à-vis Output 2.1.3 and Output 2.1.4, which aim at training national teams, whereas GSP in many cases only has trained selected members of national teams (e.g. in global workshops and online courses); the exception being the national level training workshops, which can reach more people in a given country.

  1. In a context where GSP has little direct control over the achievement of its objectives, outcomes and even some of the outputs, the whole delivery hinges on major assumptions about processes at the national level. However, while this is to a good extent reflected in the risks identified in the results framework, the assumptions do not adequately capture this fundamental point. No risks or assumptions are identified at the objective level. Several risks are identified at outcome and output levels. However, no assumptions are identified at the outcome level and only a few assumptions are identified at the output level. Assumptions about the influence of different national contexts and of other programmes supporting readiness, incl. UNDP and UN Environment programmes could be added at the outcome and objective levels. Moreover, there are some issues with some of the risks identified:
    • The risks for Outcome 2.1 are in reality risks at the output level
    • The risk identified for Outcome 3.1 is neither phrased as a risk nor as an assumption
    • Some of the risks identified are not truly risks, as they are either things, which GSP can fully control, or statements related to GSP’s approach: This is the case for Outputs 1.1.1, 1.2.1 (second risk), 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 3.1.1, and 3.1.2.

The CEO endorsement, UNDP ProDoc, UNEP’s Annexes to CEO Endorsement Document, and results framework do not provide any indicators, baselines or targets at the Objective level, but such were introduced in the 1st PIR report; these are measurable and measured, but the targets also contain unnecessary and somewhat lengthy narrative descriptions.

The outcome indicators and intended baselines outlined in the results framework are difficult or even unfeasible to quantitatively (and in some cases even qualitatively) measure and report on. No baselines have been established at the outcome level; the CEO endorsement, UNDP ProDoc and results framework indicates that a sample of ten countries will be identified and specified parameters will be assessed (during the inception phase), but that sample was never established, and such a sample would also not be convincing, given the ad-hoc and request-based nature of support with little possibility of predicting the countries engaged in given activities. It is thus not surprising that the reporting in the PIRs on the progress on the outcomes are narrative descriptions mainly of related GSP activities and outputs rather than measurements of the progress on the indicators.

However, it is important to acknowledge that establishing a results framework with outcomes for which the contribution can be measured is inevitably very difficult, considering that GSP has no pre-selected programme countries or in-country presence, and that its support by nature is demand-driven, request based, ad-hoc, and short-term.


[1] UNDP is supporting 65 countries and UN Environment is supporting 89 countries.


Findings
1.

Relevance: While the 154 Non-Annex I Parties are highly diverse and face different challenges, GSP is addressing a shared challenge for most of the countries; the challenges with establishing solid systems for GHG inventories and with preparing and timely submitting quality NCs and BURs. These challenges are important to tackle for the countries, for the following reasons:

  • Countries are obliged to submit NCs and BURs under the UNFCCC framework, and reporting requirements are likely to be further increased in the future
  • The availability of solid climate change-related data will enable countries to make policy and planning decisions and prioritisations on an informed basis, thereby enabling them to tackle GHG emissions and climate vulnerability more effectively
  • The availability of NC and BUR can facilitate the mobilisation of international climate financing

The fact that 84% of all Non-Annex I Parties, 94% of all LDCs, and 74% of all SIDS have participated in GSP activities is a testimony to the fact that GSP is meeting a genuine demand.

Moreover, GSP has an added relevance as a link between global processes and national implementation and challenges. The proximity to the GEF enabling activities implemented at country level and direct communication with technical level staff in the countries combined with the strategic partnership with the UNFCCC Secretariat, means that GSP on the one hand provides the UNFCCC Secretariat with access to knowledge about the technical challenges at the national level (whereas UNFCCC’s official National Focal Points are at the policy level). On the other hand, this linkage enables GSP to communicate technical requirements emanating from the global UNFCCC process to the countries.

Effectiveness and impact: GSP has had a surprisingly wide outreach and engaged almost three-quarters of all Non-Annex I Parties in its activities. Moreover, while GSP has had few activities specifically targeting LDCs and SIDS; GSP has still also managed to involve representatives from almost three quarters of these. GSP has engaged countries in a range of capacity-development and advisory activities; the main ones being regional workshops, country-specific workshops, reviewing written products for countries (mainly GHG inventories, NCs, and ToRs for technical experts), webinars/online training, translating key sections of UNFCCC and IPCC related guidelines, elaborating country cases studies, facilitating access to resources through the GSP website, and more recently establishing regional peer-to-peer learning networks.

GSP has strategically used partnerships and joint activities to enhance its effectiveness and outreach. The most central partnership is with the UNFCCC Secretariat and CGE, where GSP with financial support and collaborative preparation of workshops and other activities has significantly augmented the delivery of the capacity-building work plans of the UNFCCC Secretariat and CGE. GSP has through this partnership, as well as through its other activities actively promoted that countries switch from the 1996 to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for GHG inventories. GSP is also collecting survey data from countries, which are useful for both GSP and the UNFCCC Secretariat in the tracking of progress and identification of the key challenges that the Non-Annex I Parties are facing. Moreover, the establishment of regional networks for the related promotion of regional South-South cooperation and peer learning, is done in partnership with international agencies and proactive Non-Annex I Parties. GSP has plans to support the establishment of more of such regional networks.

The general responsiveness of GSP is widely appreciated by both countries and international partners. Stakeholders uniformly express an appreciation of the GSP managed/supported workshops and trainings, in terms of relevance, quality, and utility. Countries are also appreciating the value-added of having GSP reviewing their reports and inventories. However, the most valued contribution of GSP is arguably the regional, South-South, peer-to-peer learning opportunities, which has inspired countries to make tangible improvements, (see chapter 4.2 for specific examples). Anecdotal evidence and examples provided by interviewed stakeholders suggest that GSP has indeed enhanced their capacities and anecdotal evidence is confirming that the participating countries have been able to make tangible improvements at the technical level and in the NCs/BURs prepared. GSP has also contributed to an enhanced awareness of the gender dimension in MRV and transparency; an area which has otherwise received limited attention.

However, the extent to which the mainly short-term and ad-hoc support provided by GSP is fully leading to the intended results in terms of improved reporting, institutional setups, and engagement of different sectoral ministries and institutions is unclear. The achievement of such results hinges on a number of factors at the national level, over which GSP has little control. As such, GSP is not directly leading to country level outcomes in terms of improved policy frameworks, reporting, or climate data collection. Rather, GSP is making an indirect contribution towards such results, by enhancing the capacities and knowledge of countries. It should also be kept in mind that GSP is not working in isolation; a number of other initiatives at both global and national levels are also supporting Non-Annex 1 Parties. Moreover, given the large diversity of countries, the intended objective and outcomes of GSP may be achieved in some countries, but not in others – and success, or failure, in achieving them, cannot be attributed to GSP. Hence, the assessments of the likeliness of achieving the intended outcomes at the country level presented in this report do not necessarily say much about GSP’s performance.

Efficiency: The de-facto start of GSP implementation was significantly delayed due to delays in the recruitment of GSP staff in both agencies due to lengthy recruitment procedures. For UNDP, the initial delay was four months, whereas for UN Environment it was ten months. Implementation has since picked up, but the spending is still below target for both agencies, even when factoring in the initial delays. Part of the explanation is that the initial annual budget was approximately the same for each year, not factoring in that typical project spending is exponential with low initial spending which increases as the project matures. Taking this into account, as well as the planned expansion of regional South-South network activities, spending can be expected to pick up in the remaining implementation period, but the ability to fully spend the GSP budget before the closing date remains a concern.

A positive factor contributing to the lower than expected spending is the cost-effectiveness of GSP, e.g. achieved through the mobilisation of co-financing (in-kind and cash) from partners and even from countries themselves (e.g. for national-level activities), thereby reducing the costs for GSP. The use of partnerships has enabled GSP to engage in a large number of activities compared to its budget. GSP has been good at engaging both international partner agencies and Non-Annex I Parties in the planning and implementation of activities, in particular through a combination of a) partnerships and joint implementation, and b) responsiveness to requests coming from Non-Annex I partners.

UN Environment’s overall level of activity delivery in terms of workshops and trainings has been somewhat low, with more emphasis given to review of NCs and revision of ToRs for experts. UN Environment has relied mainly on inhouse technical resources rather than consultants and partners for delivering technical inputs.

UNDP and UN Environment each have their unique strengths and there is thus a potential for synergy and mutual reinforcement, but the current set-up, with separate teams in different locations, separate budgets, and to a large extent separate activities, has not been conducive for capitalising on such synergies, and an opportunity has thus largely been lost. Indeed, GSP is largely functioning as two separate projects – albeit two projects that do coordinate their work and cooperate on certain activities.

As mentioned above, GSP carries out useful monitoring at the objective level, mapping the progress and challenges countries face sand thereby informing the planning of activities. However, at the project level, monitoring is largely limited to the reporting on activities and inadequately capturing GSP outcomes and results, due shortcomings in the outcomes and indicators defined. Risk monitoring is also rudimentary, since the risks identified in the risk log are of little direct relevance for GSP.

Sustainability: At the national level, the sustainability of the results achieved by GSP and the countries vis-à-vis improving GHG inventories, institutional arrangements, and reporting depends on domestic political, institutional and financial factors, which are outside the control of GSP. At the regional level, the consolidation and sustainability of the regional networks established depends on the access to financial resources, continued support for some more years, and over time the ability of countries to assume full leadership. Similarly, the global functions currently carried out by GSP beyond 2020 depends on whether the two agencies can mobilise further funding, e.g. from the GEF.


Recommendations
1

Revise the indicators, targets, assumptions and risks in the results framework – to make them relevant and attributable to GSP delivery and feasible to measure

2

Establish and implement an outcome/results and risk monitoring system

3

Change the project management setup to ensure that the project becomes a joint effort by UNDP and UN Environment and fully capitalises on potential synergies and the comparative strengths of both agencies

4

Build upon, and further enhance, GSP’s partnership model and takeholder engagement for effective and efficient delivery

5

Further enhance the targeting of GSP delivery on key challenges for Non-Annex I Parties, peer learning, and the specific needs of LDCs and SIDS

1. Recommendation:

Revise the indicators, targets, assumptions and risks in the results framework – to make them relevant and attributable to GSP delivery and feasible to measure

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/07/19]

UNDP and UNEP accept this recommendation. UNDP GSP will take action on all three actions

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise Outcome and output indicators (making them SMART and manageable in number), Targets, Assumptions and Risks (Revise risk log, align it with key risks)
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/11/29]
UNDP 2020/01 Initiated UNDP submitted proposal on July 24rd, a revised version was provided by UNEP on October 14th. The two agencies met on November 26 and 27 to discuss the proposals and it has been agreed that some additional work is needed. It was agreed that the project needs a final revision by December 19, to be presented at the PAC happening on February 2020 History
Engage UNDP and UN Environment monitoring units for advice on how to revise of the results framework and quality assurance in accordance with best practice
[Added: 2019/10/02]
UNEP 2019/08 Completed UNEP introduced the M&E expert to GSP, even if limited support was provided.
Revise risk log, align it with the key risks identified in the results framework
[Added: 2019/10/02]
UNDP 2019/08 Completed
2. Recommendation:

Establish and implement an outcome/results and risk monitoring system

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/07/19]

UNDP and UNEP accept this recommendation. The issue of analysis and monitoring of impact on MRV is an area that still lacks solid methodologies, but the GSP fully agrees on the need for enhanced understanding of results and increased accountability

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engage regional platforms in results monitoring, and for getting feedback on the utility of trainings and the use of knowledge and skills obtained
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP 2019/11 Overdue-Not Initiated UNDP to develop a survey to be presented to the networks, by October 11th. Once agreed, the survey will be sent to the Networks in order to have feedbacks by November 22nd
Establish pragmatic tools/methods for risk monitoring – including mapping the extent to which countries are nominating/sending the right people to workshops
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP 2019/05 Completed GSP has sent invitations to NC/BUR coordinators or to the proper experts engaged in targeted area
3. Recommendation:

Change the project management setup to ensure that the project becomes a joint effort by UNDP and UN Environment and fully capitalises on potential synergies and the comparative strengths of both agencies

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/19]

UNDP partially accepts this recommendation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Select the most appropriate model for joint implementation
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/10/02]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/12 Initiated History
Identify, analyse and consider possible management modalities conducive for joint implementation and obtaining synergies, e.g.: • A joint UNDP-UN Environment GSP Team with staff from both agencies, co-managing both budgets and based in the same location • A single joint inter-agency GSP-CBIT team • Outsourcing procurement to UNOPS, to benefit from their flexible procedures and facilitating coordinated execution of both UNDP and UN Environment budgets
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/10/02]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/12 Initiated History
4. Recommendation:

Build upon, and further enhance, GSP’s partnership model and takeholder engagement for effective and efficient delivery

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/19]

UNDP partially accepts the recommendation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Include an elected representative of the regional networks on a rotating basis in the PAC – to enhance the involvement of Non-Annex I Parties and project beneficiaries in the project steering and oversight
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/05 Completed While we recognize that the recommendation calls for the representation of network members, both UNDP and UNEP believe that by having country representatives as being the CGE chair and rapporteur in the PAC, the feedback from the country beneficiaries will be gathered. An additional input that can respond to this recommendation is that the GSP would ask for a one-pager summary of key network activities and issues that can be part of an agenda item in the PAC meetings.
Analyse the results and lessons learned from the existing regional MRV networks, as an input to the establishment of new networks
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/11 Overdue-Not Initiated GSP to write down results and lessons learned to be analyzed in the next planning meeting in November 2019, as inputs both for the last year of the GSP and for the second phase.
As the regional networks mature, use them as an extended, regional presence of GSP, e.g. when appropriate by replicating the West African MRV model with UNV facilitation
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/10/02]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/12 Initiated History
Further prioritise the use of regional networks as the backbone for the delivery of GSP’s regional and national level activities and more strategic, longer-term engagement
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2020/12 Initiated As regional networks are being established, more strategic activities and peer to peer collaborations are being channeled through them. Networks will elaborate 2020 work plans, to be implemented under the GSP.
Pursue the establishment of one or more regional network in Asia, e.g. in cooperation with Singapore or ASEAN
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/12 Initiated History
Consider recruiting a UNV (e.g. to be posted in the RCC in Bangkok) to strengthen the engagement in Asia
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/12 Initiated GSP is focusing on strengthening network support in Asia, but further analysis is underway before deciding the proper profile to be hired in the region
Further strengthen the linkage to the GEF enabling activities and make it more structured, e.g. by involving GSP in the design of enabling activities
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/10/02]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/12 Initiated History
Analyse the potential implications and opportunities for GSP presented by PCCB, and assess the scope for, and potential benefits of, coordinating and establishing a partnership with PCCB
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/10/02]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/09 Completed An agreement to hold a joint transparency day at COP 25 with PCCB was established in September 2019. History
5. Recommendation:

Further enhance the targeting of GSP delivery on key challenges for Non-Annex I Parties, peer learning, and the specific needs of LDCs and SIDS

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/19]

UNDP partially accepts the recommendation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Provide, in close collaboration with the UNFCCC Secretariat Adaptation Programme, training and guidance on the tracking of, and reporting on: a) adaptation measures, and b) political/policy actions vis-à- vis GHG emissions
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2020/12 Initiated Since the evaluation, the GSP has increased its work on V&A. GSP suggested CGE to enhance V&A guides available, but CGE/UNFCCC finally decided not to update them. GSP further collaborated with PATPA in organizing M&E adaptation regional workshops, in Cameroon (2018) and Uganda (2019). GSP will continue to work with UNFCCC and CGE to identify further ways of collaboration on V&A.
Consider using SBSTA meetings and COPs as opportunities to raise the political awareness about the socio-economic benefits of using GHG inventories as domestic policy and planning tools across sectors, e.g. through side events and informal discussions
[Added: 2019/07/19]
UNDP and UNEP 2020/12 Initiated GSP attends SBSTA and COP meetings to enhance its visibility and to raise political awareness on transparency with others, through own and joint side events. It will continue to do so in 2019 and 2020.
Develop a strategy and specific activities for piloting a more systematic engagement with selected LDCs and SIDS
[Added: 2019/07/19] [Last Updated: 2019/10/02]
UNDP and UNEP 2019/09 Completed A short strategy was conceived together by September 2019. Further, several activities have already taken place: GSP has hired a UNV to provide further support to SIDS in the Pacific region. An MRV network in the Caribbean has also been established. Further, GSP has also launched in April 2019 the following workbook “GHG inventory guidance note” targeting in particular SIDS and LDC History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org