January 2015 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Amit Bando, Channa Gunawardena, Moho Chaturvedi and Raji Dhital in collaboration with the QED Group, LLC. Mid-Term Evaluation of the Low Emissions Asian Development Program i MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE LOW EMISSIONS ASIAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM January 16, 2015 Evaluation Mechanism Number: GS-10F-0405M; Task Order Number AID-486-M-14-00003 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii CONTENTS Mid-Term Evaluation of the Low Emissions Asian Development Program .......................................................... i Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Program Elements and Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................. 8 2. LEAD Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 United States Government Policy Context .......................................................................................................... 10 LEAD Objectives, Results, and Tasks ..................................................................................................................... 12 3. Evaluation Methods & Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 14 Evaluation Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Data Collection Methods and Sample Size ........................................................................................................... 15 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Evaluation Limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 18 4. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 20 Evaluation Question 1: Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 20 Evaluation Question 2: Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 43 Evaluation Question 3: Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 46 Evaluation Question 4: Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 53 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work .................................................................................................................... 61 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations .......................................................................................................... 69 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments ..................................................................................................................... 82 Annex IV: Sources of Information ............................................................................................................................... 96 Annex V: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ................................................................................................. 112 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all of the stakeholders consulted, spanning across 11 countries. We appreciated USAID/RDMA’s guidance and rigor in collaborating on the research and in their reviews. We were welcomed by many representatives from governments, donors, NGOs and other private entities who shared their thoughts and opinions, as well as their time, very generously. We appreciate that time and effort spent across several time zones, making this evaluation a round-the-clock effort for many weeks. Cover photo credit to USAID/Vietnam as public domain in covering USAID’s support of International Day of Biological Diversity in Hanoi. iv ACRONYMS ADB AFOLU APEC ASEAN ADS AGMC AIT ALP BRT BUR I CCC CCDS CDKN CIFOR DAC DO Asian Development Bank Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Association of Southeast Asian Nations Automated Directives System Asian Greenhouse Gas Management Center Asian Institute of Technology Asia LEDS Partnership Bus Rapid Transit First Biennial Update Report Climate Change Coordinator Climate Change and Development Strategy Climate and Development Knowledge Network Center for International Forestry Research Development Assistance Committee Development Objective EC-LEDS EPU ESG E3 FACET FGD GAP-CC Enhancing Capacity for Low Emissions Development Strategy Economic Planning Unit Environment, social and governance USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment Finance for Access to Clean Energy Technologies Focus Group Discussion German-ASEAN Programme on Climate Change GCC GEF GGGI GHG GIZ GOV Global climate change Global Environmental Facility Global Green Growth Institute Greenhouse gas German Society for International Cooperation Government Agencies v GsT ICED IFC INT IP IPCC IPPI IR ISC JICA KfW KII KL LDC LEAD LEAF LEAP LEDS LEDS-GP LEDS-SAT LMI LOE MCA MoEST MoNRE MRV MTE NAMA NC3 NGO NREL OECD ONEP GeoSpatial Toolkit Indonesia Clean Energy Development International Finance Corporation International Organizations such as NGOs and other Donors Implementing Partner International Panel on Climate Change Inventory Project Performance Indicator Intermediate Result Institute for Sustainable Communities Japan International Cooperation Agency Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Key Informant Interview Kuala Lumpur Least Developed Country Low Emissions Asian Development Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System Low Emissions Development Strategy Low Emissions Development Strategy Global Partnership LEDS-Self Assessment Tool Lower Mekong Initiative Level of Effort multi-criteria analysis Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment measurement, reporting, and verification Mid-term performance evaluation Nationally Appropriate. Mitigation Actions Third National Communication Non-governmental Organization National Renewable Energy Laboratory Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning vi PACE-D PMP PMR PNG PVT RDMA READI REO SAARC SCP SEA Partnership to Advance Clean Energy-Deployment Performance Management Plan Partnership for Market Readiness Papua New Guinea Private Sector Entities Regional Development Mission for Asia Regional EU ASEAN Dialogue Instrument Regional Environment Office South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Sustainable Consumption and Production Southeast Asia SOW SPSS SWAMP TBL TCR TGO TRN UNDP UNEP UNFCCC Statement of Work Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program Triple bottom line The Climate Registry Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization Trainees United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID USDA USDOE USDOS USEPA USFS USG USP V-ETS WWF U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of State U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Forestry Service United States Government Unique selling proposition Voluntary, pre-emission trading scheme World Wildlife Fund 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is committed to helping developing countries pursue sustainable economic development and improving living standards worldwide. The USAID Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program is a regional activity that supports Asian countries in achieving sustainable development and climate-resilient economic growth while reducing the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This five year program is being implemented in 11 countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purposes of the mid-term performance evaluation (MTE) of the USAID LEAD program are to: 1. Determine how successful the LEAD program has been in meeting and/or completing its Scope of Work (SOW) and Work Plan objectives, implementation requirements and deliverables, and overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative and the U.S. Government’s Enhancing Capacity for Low Emissions Development Strategy (EC-LEDS); 2. Identify implementation challenges and instances where the program failed to meet objectives; 3. Recommend corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and implementation, and progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the program period; and 4. Recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level and further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program. USAID’s Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) determined the evaluation purposes, as well as, key evaluation questions that are outlined in Chapter 1 of the MTE. This evaluation aims to answer the following evaluation questions posed by RDMA that aim to understand results achieved, constraints encountered and potential solutions going forward: 1. To what extent has implementation of activities related to the key program elements been effective in achieving expected results? 2. How has the timeliness of the implementation of LEAD activities affected the results of the program to date in terms of the key program elements? 3. What specific factors have helped or hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements in achieving expected results? 4. What adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement are needed to ensure effectiveness in achieving expected results during the remaining duration of the program? By answering the above questions, the MTE will (a) evaluate progress to date toward agreed program development objectives (DOs) and intermediate results (IRs), (b) analyze the concrete results and tangible impacts that LEAD is expected to create on its current trajectory, (c) determine how successful the program has been in meeting and/or completing SOW and Work Plan objectives, implementation requirements, and deliverables. In addition, under Evaluation Question 1, the MTE will address how LEAD has contributed towards fulfillment of the overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) and the U.S. Government’s LEDS initiative. The MTE has identified implementation challenges while responding to Evaluation Question 3. Instances where the program failed to meet objectives are identified in the responses to Evaluation Question 1. 2 Recommended corrective actions and/or areas for improvement related to program management and implementation and progress towards achieving expected results are outlined in the MTE’s responses to Evaluation Question 4. This includes recommendations on specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level while further strengthening the regional cohesive approach of the program. PROGRAM BACKGROUND USAID LEAD takes a regional approach to facilitate regional cooperation, learning, and knowledge sharing, while promoting low emission development strategies (LEDS) and encouraging public-private￾partnerships in Asian-Pacific countries. LEAD builds the capacity of government and non-governmental partners in developing and using LEDS to strengthen analysis of economic development pathways, GHG inventories and accounting, and carbon market development. A key component of LEAD is the Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP), which serves as a regional platform of the LEDS Global Partnerships (LEDS GP). While regional in approach, LEAD tailors activities to country circumstances in the 11 countries where LEAD activities are implemented. The USAID LEAD program aims to achieve the following objectives:  Strengthening human and institutional capacity to develop and implement GHG accounting protocols, develop GHG markets, and apply low-emission development policies, plans, and strategies.  Strengthening tools, policies, and systems for GHG accounting and low-emission decision￾making.  Promoting a viable private sector GHG accounting services industry as well as market-based platforms for facilitating low-emission investments.  Strengthening and establishing regional platforms to build lasting institutional capacity, networks, and mechanisms to share, replicate, and enhance good practices within the region and to link them to international best practices.  Playing a key role in the success of the USG’s EC-LEDS initiative that supports an Agency Priority Goal (APG) in eight Asian countries covered by the LEAD program. Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive discussion of the USAID LEAD Program and related activities. EVALUATION METHODS The MTE team used a mixed-method, non-experimental study design. Data collection methods included a desk study of key LEAD documents, semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and mini-surveys targeting beneficiaries of LEAD’s training and capacity-building activities. Data was analyzed and organized by sub-evaluation questions derived from the four main evaluation questions. The evaluation team additionally examined the following six key program elements of LEAD: impact and co-benefits, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, partnerships, and sustainability. Each finding was triangulated using evidence from multiple sources, including data from the survey, desk review, and the Performance Management Plan (PMP). Chapter 3 provides an in-depth discussion of study design, data collection and analysis, and limitations of the evaluation. 3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Answers to Evaluation Questions 1 through 3 are presented through a series of findings and conclusions. In response to Evaluation Question 1— to what extent has implementation of activities related to the key program elements been effective in achieving expected results?—the MTE team reviewed:  Implementation of each task and subtask towards achieving expected deliverables;  Achievement of programmatic results including contribution towards outcomes, LEAD objectives, and overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI);  Efforts to ensure sustainability of the respective tasks, subtasks, and programmatic results;  Promotion of gender equality;  Promotion of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership as USG priorities;  Role of regional Program Integrator for USG LEDS activities in Asia;  Appropriately balanced allocation of resources between regional platforms; national- and sub￾national-level participation in regional capacity building and cooperation; national-level activities; and sub-national-level activities; and  Support for “demand-driven” (as opposed to “supply-driven”) requests from countries and USAID bilateral Missions to support LEDS. Task 1 focuses on an analysis across the applicable LEAD target countries of priorities and opportunities for addressing GHG accounting, market readiness, and LEDS regionally. The MTE team determined that a more thorough situation analysis would have enabled the Task 1 report to have identified alternative market driven instruments, besides GHG registries and carbon markets. Such an analysis could have informed the consideration of activities for Task 4 with better potential for market take-up. Task 2 is intended to provide technical assistance and training to country counterparts with the aim of national building in GHG inventory development. Most of the activities and deliverables anticipated in the LEAD SOW had been completed and fulfilled at time of the MTE. Using a combination of both national and regional approaches, the MTE team found that LEAD has supported efforts to strengthen institutional capacity for national GHG inventory development. As the focus of Task 2 is on institutional capacity building, the prospects for sustainability of the task, subtasks and programmatic results at organizational and process levels are high. Task 3 focuses on regional capacity building to develop, evaluate, and publish new GHG accounting protocols and tools in partnership with key government agencies, private sector, non-governmental, and regional organizations. Task 3 activities and deliverables have only partially contributed towards LEAD SOW Objective 2, which is the strengthening of tools, policies, and systems for GHG accounting and low emissions decision-making, with an emphasis on sub-national implementation. Additionally, task 3 has made some contributions to the overall objectives of the GCCI. Task 4 focuses on developing market instruments targeting the private sector to provide the appropriate services and skills to sustain such a market over the long term. LEAD efforts in Task 4 have had limited impact in achieving SOW or GCCI objectives, or SOW outcomes. Additionally, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that subtasks under Task 4 will be sustained beyond the LEAD program period. Task 5, as related to emission factor identification and development, has contributed towards LEAD SOW Objective 1 (Strengthening human and institutional capacity to develop and implement GHG accounting), LEAD SOW Objective 2 (Strengthening tools, policies, and systems for GHG accounting 4 and low emissions decision-making), and the overall objectives of the GCCI. As the focus of Task 5 is on emission factor development to support capacity building in GHG inventories and accounting, the prospects for sustainability of the task, subtasks, and programmatic results at institutional and process levels are high. Task 6 focuses on regional support for LEDS development and implementation. The subtasks under Task 6 directly contribute to the Development Objective (DO) of LEAD that states Institutions, platforms, and initiatives to catalyze LEDS in Asia established or strengthened. Subtasks 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 have contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI. Additionally the ALP platform, as part of the Global LEDS Partnership, has the potential to serve as a “legacy” for the LEAD program by continuing to deliver regional activities and results initiated by LEAD, targeting regional collaboration of stakeholders and regional peer-based exchange of experience, and convening of regional discussions on development issues related to LEDS and green growth. Lastly, the Asia GHG Management Center has shown initial outcomes and has the potential to contribute towards significant programmatic results and regional cohesiveness by improving coordination, sustainability, and up-scaling of LEDS and green growth capacity building activities by all donors operating in the region. Lastly, Task 7 is related to overarching program management and coordination. LEAD has made progress towards achieving Task 7 deliverables. These include development of integrated work plans and a PMP plan which operationalized the role of LEAD as a regional program integrator in EC-LEDS for EPA, NREL and USFS; establishing coordination mechanisms with other public and private institutions; and implementation of a several communication activities such as a LEAD knowledge management website and several knowledge products. In response to Evaluation Question 2—how has the timeliness of the implementation of LEAD activities affected the results of the program to date in terms of the key program elements?—the MTE team found:  Notable delays were evident during the first 18 months of LEAD implementation; however, the program has steadily made improvements and gained momentum, with most subtasks in 2014 completed on schedule. The timeliness of the implementation of LEAD activities in FY2012 and 2013 has had a marginal effect on results of the program in terms of key program elements, including initially delaying full engagement of USG partners. Given that implementation is back on track, the MTE team concludes that initial delays in implementation of LEAD activities have not significantly impacted the results of the program to date in terms of the key program elements. For Evaluation Question 3—what specific factors have helped or hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements in achieving expected results?—the MTE team found the following: Factors that have helped the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements are as follows:  Where LEAD has successfully engaged with bilateral missions and country governments, strong partnerships have helped the relevant and effective implementation of several key activities, including the hosting of the ALP secretariat, identification of country priorities, establishment of in-country working protocols, efficient use of resources, and synergies with other USG funded programs. 5  A number of helping factors have contributed to the effective implementation of LEAD capacity building activities, including the establishment of streamlined participant selection processes, efficient logistics, hands-on training methods, and experienced trainers. Factors that have hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements are as follows:  Insufficient involvement of senior government and non-government stakeholders, including private sector actors, has hindered effective design and implementation of activities. One result has been that LEAD has had a low level of success in establishing demand-driven processes for delivering results that address country-identified needs. While LEAD has engaged several key stakeholder agencies from LEAD countries in its regional activities, lack of awareness of LEAD, and the potential benefits of using LEDS in a country’s planning and decision-making process, has led to low buy-in and could have negative impacts on the sustainability of tasks and subtasks.  Constraints related to equipment availability, internet access, and variations in language and technical skills among event participants have hindered the effectiveness of regional capacity building activities. RECOMMENDATIONS In response to Evaluation Question 4—what adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement are needed to ensure effectiveness in achieving expected results during the remaining duration of the program?—the MTE team recommends specific actions that the LEAD program should take to ensure the success and sustainability of LEAD. Chapter 4 presents and discusses eight recommendations based on the findings and conclusions for Evaluation Questions 1 through 3. These include: LEAD should encourage greater stakeholder engagement to promote sustainability of its initiatives. Evidence from the evaluation highlights the need for LEAD to strengthen engagement with government and non-government stakeholders to improve buy-in and coordination, in addition to increasing stakeholder input in design of trainings and activities. Engaging with a wide array of stakeholders will allow meaningful collaboration with other on-going initiatives, promote greater awareness of regional platforms such as ALP and AGMC, and eventually enhance sustainability of LEAD initiatives in the long run. LEAD should increasingly focus on what it can offer at the regional level by improving regional learning, knowledge sharing, and coordination. LEAD should begin by using lessons learned and case studies from other programs and countries in the region to aid regional learning and adaptation of tools for widespread replication in neighboring countries. Additionally, LEAD should enhance country engagement in its regional processes through the effective use of well-equipped country coordinators. Lastly, LEAD should refocus its GHG market development activities to take into account the diminished status of world carbon markets. LEAD should re-orient its work in fewer countries and engage at additional levels in priority countries. The different capacity levels of partner countries present a challenge for LEAD. Countries such as India, the Philippines, and Thailand are often viewed as regional and world leaders in the technical aspects of “green growth” and GHG accounting, while others such as Cambodia, Laos, and Papua New Guinea are at the beginning stages of adopting and using GHG-related tools. Among several recommended actions, LEAD could re-orient its activities using an approach that “clusters” based on capacity and regional relationships. 6 Lastly, LEAD should leverage the success of the ALP and AGMC and ensure sustainability of these regional platforms through alignment and collaboration with other regional platforms with similar mandates. Specific recommendations include expanding the scope of the AGMC to become a region￾wide center for expert assistance and training. Additionally, LEAD should customize training events and materials for individual countries and provide effective follow-up and support materials to enable training participants to operationalize and implement activities in their country. It is important that LEAD customize training based on capacity level, utilize field-work and hands-on activities, and support follow￾up events to facilitate sustainable knowledge absorption and use. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 7 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID/Development Mission for Asia’s (RDMA’s) Regional Environment Office (REO) requested a mid￾term performance evaluation (MTE) of the Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program to achieve the following key objectives:  Determine the LEAD program’s success in meeting and/or completing the Statement of Work (SOW) and Work Plan objectives, implementation requirements and deliverables, and overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative and the United States Government’s (USG’s) Enhancing Capacity for Low Emissions Development Strategy (EC-LEDS) initiative;  Identify implementation challenges and instances where the program failed to meet objectives;  Recommend corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and implementation and progress toward expected results for the duration of the program period; and  Recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level and further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program. The findings from the MTE will be used to inform:  Any corrective adjustments/changes to LEAD so as to maximize the outcomes of the program in the remaining implementation period; and  The planning and design of future USG and USAID/RDMA Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) activities. The key stakeholders of the MTE include:  USAID, including the RDMA; the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3); the Bureau for Asia (Washington, D.C.); and the respective bilateral missions in the LEAD countries  LEAD Implementing Partners (IPs), including ICF International and its subcontractors  USG partners, including the Department of State (USDOS), Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (USFS), Department of Energy (USDOE); the DOE National Laboratories (including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)); and the U.S. Embassies in Malaysia and Laos  The LEDS Global Partnership (LEDS GP) and the Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP)  Regional/international stakeholders, including multilateral/bilateral agencies and institutes  Stakeholders in partner countries including government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector The expected outcomes of this MTE include:  An assessment of LEAD’s progress in meeting agreed-upon program objectives and completing the SOW;  An assessment of the results and impacts that LEAD is expected to achieve;  Specific recommendations for corrective adjustments/changes to achieve program objectives; 8  An assessment of how LEAD is building on the potential for LEDS in the region and recommendations to improve its strategic positioning; and  Findings and recommendations to inform planning of future programs in support of LEDS by the USG and the LEDS GP. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The MTE SOW lays out the following evaluation questions:  Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has implementation of activities related to the key program elements been effective in achieving expected results?  Evaluation Question 2: How has the timeliness of the implementation of LEAD activities affected the results of the program to date in terms of the key program elements?  Evaluation Question 3: What specific factors have helped or hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements in achieving expected results?  Evaluation Question 4: What adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement are needed to ensure effectiveness in achieving expected results throughout the remainder of the program period? In addressing this question, the SOW requests that the evaluation report include responses in the form of actionable recommendations related to program scope and opportunities to:  Add, change or remove tasks and/or subtasks;  Change the emphasis on individual countries; and  Change the relative emphasis between regional, national, and sub national-level activities to address USAID’s development objective, to “focus and concentrate.” PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA To answer questions 1, 2 and 3, the MTE examined several key program elements of LEAD. The MTE SOW provided an indicative list of program elements. To address the evaluation questions consistently and comprehensively, the LEAD MTE team considered six key evaluation criteria developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC).1 These internationally recognized standards were the lens through which the MTE team assessed the evaluation SOW program elements. Table 1 below expresses the links drawn by the MTE team between the OECD DAC criteria and the LEAD program elements identified in the SOW, approved as part of the Inception Report on August 20, 2014. 1 DAC Guidelines and Reference Series: Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010. http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm 9 Table 1: Linking Evaluation Criteria to Program Elements Evaluation Criteria Proposed by MTE (and approved by USAID/RDMA) Indicative Program Elements in MTE SOW Relevance and quality of design to the problems, needs and priorities of LEAD’s intended target groups Support for “demand-driven” (as opposed to “supply￾driven”) requests from countries and USAID bilateral missions to support LEDS (including clean energy and sustainable landscapes activities) Effectiveness in deploying the most appropriate means to achieve LEAD’s desired results Implementation of individual tasks and subtasks Efficiency in LEAD’s implementation process Appropriately balanced allocation of resources between regional platforms (e.g. ALP and AGMC); national and sub￾national level participation in regional capacity building and cooperation; national-level activities; and sub-national level activities Partnerships with the most relevant organizations that can support LEAD in performing efficiently and effectively, in maximizing its impact and in achieving long￾term sustainability Role of regional Program Integrator for USG LEDS activities in Asia Impact and co-benefits which can be accrued by target groups from LEAD Efforts to achieve meaningful, significant programmatic results (focusing primarily on “outcome”-oriented results, such as promoting near- and long-term low emission development and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation, as opposed to “input-” or “output-” and process-oriented results) Promotion of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership as USG priorities Promotion of gender equality Sustainability of activities and results initiated by LEAD Efforts to ensure sustainability of individual tasks and subtasks and of programmatic results 10 2. LEAD BACKGROUND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT POLICY CONTEXT The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) is one of three U.S. Government (USG) global development initiatives that have presidential-level priority. At an agency level, USAID’s Climate Change and Development Strategy (CCDS) 2012-2016 drives USAID’s work on the GCCI, which focuses on: 1. Climate change mitigation activities that accelerate the transition to low emissions development through investments in clean energy and sustainable land use; 2. Climate change adaptation activities to improve the resilience of people, places and livelihoods; and 3. Strengthening development outcomes by integrating climate change into Agency programming, learning, policy dialogue and operations. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is the driving force behind the USG’s establishment of the LEDS. Under the UNFCCC, both the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 and the Cancun Agreements in 2010 mention LEDS (as “low-carbon development strategy”), with the latter stipulating that both developed and developing countries should adopt LEDS as “indispensable to sustainable development.”2 The LEDS approach articulates concrete actions, policies, programs, and implementation plans to support economic growth through improved resource efficiencies, job opportunities and technologies. For example, the approach promotes improved quality of life for citizens through the use of cleaner technologies and better emissions management. The LEDS approach provides a foundation for achieving long-term, measurable greenhouse gas emission reductions, and decouples emissions from economic growth as compared to a business-as-usual development pathway. The Enhancing Capacity for Low Emissions Development Strategy (EC-LED) launched in 2010 is the main response to this aspect of the UNFCCC. EC-LEDS is the USG support for LEDS. It is the whole-of-government USG initiative to promote LEDS in partner countries. EC-LEDS is a joint strategy adopted by the USDOS and USAID related to GCC mitigation work. Through the EC-LEDS, led by USAID and USDOS, with support from other U.S. agencies including USEPA, NREL, USFS, and USDA, the USG collaborates with partner countries to provide targeted technical assistance for LEDS development and implementation and to build a shared LEDS knowledge base. EC-LEDS provides a guiding framework for LEDS as opposed to a mechanism for LEDS implementation. The mechanisms to implement EC-LEDS include bilateral activity between USAID Country Missions and the respective EC-LEDS partner countries, such as individual country agreements guided by the EC-LEDS framework and the LEDS Global Partnership. EC-LEDS provides a guiding framework for USAID’s mitigation work. This work focuses on developing the capacities of partner countries to use state-of-the-art knowledge, tools, and analyses to both develop and implement LEDS. The objective is to support countries in assessing low emission pathways in any economic sector and prioritize actions that promote low emission development. EC-LEDS is supported by both the Clean Energy and Sustainable Landscapes pillars of programming under the GCCI. 2 UNFCC, 2011; Decision 1/CP.16: “The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention.” 11 The LEAD program was conceived in 2010 and was strongly tied to USAID’s emerging GCC mitigation priorities and the LEDS framework. It was launched in the same year as EC-LEDS to be a mechanism for implementation. LEAD is a key USAID program that contributes to EC-LEDS and LEDS GP efforts as illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: How LEAD aims to support EC-LEDS and LEDS GP 12 LEAD OBJECTIVES, RESULTS, AND TASKS The LEAD program aims to create enabling conditions for achieving sustained low emissions development in Asia’s developing countries by enhancing regional learning through sharing best practices. LEAD’s development objective is to establish or strengthen institutions, platforms, and initiatives to catalyze LEDS in Asia; the program is a whole of government program provides technical support to implement LEDS in target countries based on the EC-LEDS framework. LEAD supports RDMA’s mandate by functioning as a regional program to implement activities, using a process that complements mission efforts at the country level. Examples of LEAD’s regional activities include:  Capacity building events that impart knowledge from international experts while promoting peer learning through the exchange of knowledge and best practices between stakeholders from various LEAD countries;  Development of regional LEDS tools and protocols;  Development of a regional LEDS community of practice; and  Regional knowledge dissemination. LEAD has established (or is in the process of establishing) two major entities to deliver these regional activities: the Asia LEDS Partnership and the Asian GHG Management Centre (AGMC). The ALP is one of three regional platforms created under the LEDS GP. LEAD has been instrumental in activating the ALP and functions as its secretariat. The AGMC is intended to serve as an open platform for coordinating and providing mechanisms for training, needs assessment, and solutions to promote and enable GHG management in Asia. LEAD is currently setting up AGMC in conjunction with the Asian Institute of Technology (or AIT), a well-recognized regional institute. LEAD’s specific objectives include:  Strengthening human and institutional capacity to develop and implement GHG accounting, market readiness, and low emissions development policies, plans, and strategies;  Strengthening tools, policies, and systems for GHG accounting and low emissions decision-making;  Promoting a viable private sector GHG accounting services industry as well as market-based platforms for facilitating low emissions investments; and  Enhancing regional learning through sharing of regional and international best practices. The LEAD program activities are organized across four themes and seven tasks as summarized below: Theme I: Initial Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations 1. Initial regional analysis and stakeholder consultations on program priorities and opportunities Theme II: GHG Accounting and Market Readiness 2. Regional support for national GHG inventory capacity building and development efforts 3. Regional support for GHG accounting protocols, tools development, capacity building, pilot demonstrations, and replication 4. GHG market development 5. Emissions factor identification and development Theme III: Low Emissions Development Strategies 6. Regional support for LEDS development and implementation Theme IV: Program Management and Coordination 13 7. Overarching program management and coordination LEAD originally envisioned engaging 12 countries in regional activities, including: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Of these, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are EC￾LEDS priority countries for the USG, with India as a special partner country in the program. At the time of this MTE, Laos had not engaged with the LEAD program, while Papua New Guinea had undergone very limited engagement in the form of initial consultations.3 No activities have been implemented in China to date. The LEAD Statement of Work specifies the following expected results:  Capacity to prepare and complete high-quality national GHG inventories every two years is achieved in five Asian countries;  Clean energy and landscapes-focused GHG accounting protocols and tools are developed, adopted, and used by hundreds of private and public organizations;  At least three new operational GHG trading platforms or registries are established;  A GHG accounting services industry takes root in five Asian developing countries; and  LEDS—including policies, plans, models, and tools—are adopted and under implementation in five Asian countries by 2015. Following the program’s inception, a more specific set of LEAD Intermediate Results (IRs) were developed as part of the Performance Management Plan (PMP). An integrated results framework is provided in Annex VI Desk Study. This illustrates LEAD’s role as an integrator of the whole of government EC-LEDS, as the PMP and framework incorporates objectives and intermediate results across multiple USG agencies. 3 PNG has had close collaboration with the LEAF program. In addition, two participants from PNG worked on the mangrove carbon stock assessment training and conducted in-country trainings supported by USFS. 14 3. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS EVALUATION DESIGN The LEAD MTE team recognizes that the LEAD program works in countries that have strategic relations with the USG and deals with topics that are politically sensitive at the country level. LEDS, the central theme of LEAD, is an emerging development concept that often carries different interpretations among non-USG stakeholders.4 Significant variations exist among LEAD countries in terms of levels of economic development and growth trajectories, as well as industrial, socio-economic and emission profiles. These circumstances present country- and region-specific challenges to the implementation of LEAD initiatives. In light of these challenges, the evaluation team designed the MTE to be:  Consistent with the practical and logistical realities of engagement with the LEAD countries;  Cognizant of the sensitivities of the LEAD stakeholders at both the regional and country levels;  Robust, with a combination of quantitative and qualitative data to answer the evaluation questions;  Evidence-based, with findings that are verified through triangulation and support “learning” for USAID programming; and  Impartial, independent, and transparent. To maximize the reliability and validity of data analysis, the MTE team:  Ensured adequate sampling of available data sources (documents and key informants);  Ensured consistency of data gathering through the use of structured data collection tools; and  Used mixed methods and triangulated data using multiple sources to verify findings. DATA SOURCES The LEAD MTE used a combination of primary and secondary data to answer evaluation questions. Primary data included information collected directly from key program stakeholder groups. Secondary data sources included program documents and other documents from the LEAD countries. PRIMARY DATA For the purpose of the MTE, the team categorized LEAD stakeholders into the following groups: 1. USG stakeholders (USG) involved in EC-LEDS and consulted under LEAD, including USG partner agencies and USAID bilateral missions; 2. Government agencies (GOV) from the respective LEAD countries; 3. Private sector (PVT) entities from the respective LEAD countries, including chambers of commerce and/or industry; 4. Donors and NGOs (INT); 4 In fact, some countries, including India and Malaysia, use concepts such as “sustainable growth,” “green growth,” and “low carbon development” to encompass strategies and actions that could be part of a comprehensive LEDS. One of the key attributes of LEDS is that they are country-owned and country-driven and need not adopt USG terminology to describe the concept. 15 5. Trainees (TRN) who have participated in LEAD’s capacity building activities. In some cases, this group overlapped with the GOV and PVT stakeholder groups; in these instances, trainees provided additional information in their capacities as GOV or PVT representatives; and 6. The LEAD implementing partner, ICF International, and its subcontractor staff members, as well as the LEAD country coordinators. SECONDARY DATA Secondary data sources included:  Internal documents, including LEAD IP program documents and documents provided by USAID/RDMA, bilateral missions, and USG partners; and  External documents, including those covering relevant national and sub-national actions in LEAD countries; for example, macro-economic plans, sectoral policies, action plans, and implementation programs. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SAMPLE SIZE Based on SOW requirements, the MTE team collected data using a non-experimental approach. This involved the use of mixed methods to allow for a rapid analysis. The mixed method approach to data collection also provided both quantitative and qualitative findings to ensure both rigor and depth of evidence. Mixed methods of data collection included: A. A comprehensive desk study The desk study was an important source of quantitative and qualitative data. It provided valuable information on substantive issues and helped focus evaluation efforts by prioritizing issues and data gaps. The desk study involved an analysis of (i) LEAD program documents provided by RDMA; and (ii) external documents, such as country-specific development plans and strategies. Each document was reviewed using a document review template developed by the MTE team. This template provided structure and consistency with respect to the study’s overview, summary of organizations involved, analysis, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The desk study review is included as Annex VI. B. Key informant interviews (KIIs) Key informant interviews provided fuller coverage, greater depth, and a wider range of information on specific topics. Semi-structured questionnaires (including relevant evaluation sub-questions) were developed for each key stakeholder group consulted to provide structure and guidance for KIIs. However, MTE team members used their judgment and experience in applying the most relevant questions during each interview instead of asking questions verbatim. For example, some sub-questions were not relevant to particular informants given their role in and knowledge of LEAD, and sub￾questions that were answered during the course of discussing other sub-questions were not repeated. In the case of some KIIs, limited informant time availability required that team members ask only the most relevant sub-questions. Throughout the KIIs, the MTE team ensured that stakeholders engaged in substantive discussions that followed a logical pattern. It should be noted that focus group discussions 16 (FGDs) were also guided by the semi-structured interview format, and that both methods of data collection relied on establishing a rapport between interviewers and informants/participants.5 C. Focus group discussions FGDs were used to further explore stakeholder opinions, similar or divergent viewpoints, and judgments on key sub-questions related to the evaluation. Groups included between three and fourteen individuals and were moderated by an MTE team member.6 The MTE team applied USAID guidelines on FGDs to structure discussions.7 D. Targeted mini-survey8 The MTE team conducted a targeted mini-survey to gauge the attitudes of participants toward LEAD capacity building and training events. The survey focused on evaluating the following event attributes: (1) technical aspects; (2) operational aspects; (3) applicability; (4) approach to post-event follow-up; and (5) potential use of partnerships. The evaluation team attempted to use as many key data sources as were accessible and available during the evaluation period. In the case of primary data sources, lists of LEAD stakeholders were obtained from RDMA and the LEAD program. The evaluation team used KIIs and/or FGDs to consult all active LEAD stakeholders who were available during field visits. The evaluation team also attempted to consult with other key stakeholders involved in LEAD and LEDS activities in countries of program focus, including donors, NGOs, and members of the private sector. Consultations revealed that some of these stakeholders were collaborating with the LEAD program team, while others were not. The MTE team determined that stakeholders that were not working with the LEAD team possessed significant technical and operational experience that could potentially offer valuable lessons for the program in areas such as: (i) effective partnerships with national and regional institutions; (ii) options for effective engagement; (iii) program design; (iv) relevant approaches to meet country needs; and (v) programmatic learning to address impact and sustainability. The mini-survey was sent out to LEAD training and capacity building participants who were identified through a list provided by the LEAD program office. The data collection methods, sources, and tools used are summarized in Table 2 below. 5 The evaluation team used a non-accusatory information-gathering approach during KIIs and FGDs that drew on elements of the PEACE model. The approach assumed a relaxed subject with whom the interviewer had rapport was more likely to cooperate and provide thoughtful feedback than a subject who was asked a list of questions in a mechanical manner. The PEACE model is considered to be a “best practice” and is suitable for any type of interviewee. The model was developed in the early 1990s as a collaborative effort between law enforcement agencies and psychologists in England and Wales. PEACE stands for: (i) Preparation and Planning; (ii) Engage and Explain; (iii) Account, Clarify and Challenge; (iv) Closure; and (v) Evaluation. 6 Tips on Conducting Focus Group Interviews, Handout 10-6 Number 10, USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation, 1996. 7 USAID, 2013; Technical note: Focus group Interview, Monitoring and Evaluation Series. November 2013 8 Kumar, Krishna, “USAID Program Design and Evaluation Methodology Report: Conducting Mini Surveys in Developing Countries”, USAID, December 1990, revised July 2006. The concept for the mini-survey as defined in this USAID report centers on a smaller-scale survey with fewer variables and a narrowly defined issue or problem set. The survey is designed with as few questions as possible to require minimal time for completion, and sampling may or may not be a factor in respondent selection. Though respondent selection is kept small, thereby potentially limiting the statistical relevance of the data, mini-surveys can serve as a rapid and useful source of quantitative information. 17 Table 2: Data Collection Methods, Data Sources and Data Collection Tools Data Collection Methods Data Sources Data Collection Tools (Refer to Annex 3) Desk study (LEAD and country documentation) Over 60 documents, including documentation provided by USAID and country-specific sources (Refer to Annex 4) Document review template Consultations More than 85 interviews with key stakeholders from the U.S. and eight active LEAD countries (Refer to Annex 4) Semi-structured questionnaires for key stakeholder groups (USG, LEAD country governments, NGOs, donors, members of the private sector) Focus Group Discussions Nine FGDs with key stakeholders across four LEAD countries (Refer to Annex 4) FGD guides for NGOs, donors, and governments Mini-survey of LEAD trainees Of 559 participants at LEAD training events, 190 individuals responded to the mini-survey, with 154 completing it in its entirety. (Refer to Annex 2 & Annex on Survey) 9 Questionnaire and online survey engine The data collection effort involved field visits to the U.S. and eight of the 11 LEAD countries, including Thailand, Cambodia, Nepal, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Based on guidance from USAID/RDMA and the IP, consultations with the remaining LEAD countries (Bangladesh, Laos, and Papua New Guinea) were not held due to very limited engagement of in-country stakeholder organizations. Table 3 below provides a summary of the number of consultations, FGDs, and organization types consulted in each country. 9 A majority of respondents (52%) came from Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia. The Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia and Malaysia made up another 39%, while Bangladesh, India, Laos and PNG combined to account for only 9% of responses. 18 Table 3: Summary of KIIs, FGDs, Organizations and Trainees Consulted Country KIIs FGDs Number of Stakeholder Organizations Consulted Number of Trainees (TRN) Consulted USG LEAD GOV PVT INT (Asian) U.S. 17 - 9 8 - - - - Thailand 12 2 2 2 4 - 3 1 Nepal 9 1 1 1 9 1 7 2 Cambodia 12 1 1 1 4 - 5 3 Vietnam 6 2 1 1 5 - 1 8 India 5 1 1 1 0 1 3 - Malaysia 14 1 1 1 6 3 3 2 Indonesia 7 - 1 1 1 1 2 - Philippines 6 1 1 1 5 0 4 5 Total 88 9 18 17 34 6 28 21 Annex 4 provides details on individuals consulted from stakeholder groups. DATA ANALYSIS The evaluation team used multiple methods and data sources to answer sub-questions within each evaluation question, setting up a process of triangulation that increased the robustness and credibility of evaluation findings. The team developed and employed a comprehensive analytical framework to systematically answer evaluation questions, and considered the following for each finding:  Analysis of internal and external LEAD documentation from the desk study;  Analysis of findings from KIIs and FGDs in terms of evaluation sub-questions;  Mini-survey analyses using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) data analysis tools; and  Triangulation of country evidence from the above sources leading to the consolidated finding. Findings from KIIs and FGDs for each country were analyzed in terms of sub-evaluation questions and the level of support from each of the specific stakeholder groups. The team used an internal scale to determine the level of agreement across stakeholders on each question or set of questions, which relate directly to the findings presented in the next section of the report. This information is presented as evidence in support of findings by showing the number of respondents who agreed with the finding, based on the structured interviews and FGDs. This information is supplemented by the findings from the desk study and the mini-survey. Refer to Annex II for a full discussion of the rating system applied. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS Complex multi-country evaluations such as the LEAD MTE inevitably face limitations. The MTE team recognizes the following limitations, which may have affected the quality of the MTE in varying degrees: 19 1. In several instances, staff turnover within LEAD stakeholder institutions limited the ability of the team to comprehensively capture findings on a chronological basis. Staff turnover was noticeable within the LEAD program, bilateral missions (particularly in India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and PNG), and several national government agencies. Due to these gaps in “institutional memory,” relevant information was sometimes unavailable during the KIIs. 2. A compressed time schedule, adherence to numerous field visit protocols, and the accommodation of stakeholder-requested changes in travel plans and associated visa arrangements necessitated that the team reallocate resources away from planned analysis and reporting activities. In the case of the Philippines, field work had to be rescheduled to week 13 because national stakeholders were unavailable. With more than 85 consultations and nine FGDs conducted in eight Asian countries and Washington, D.C.—more consultations scheduled than planned in the inception work-planning stage—the team required an extension of deadlines to complete its analysis and reporting. 3. Several stakeholders were unavailable to meet with the MTE team during the five-week, eight￾country field work schedule. The schedule also coincided with holidays including school vacations and national holidays. Ramadan ended while the team was conducting consultations in Bangkok. Holidays and prior commitments impacted the availability of government stakeholders in India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, in particular. 4. Although there were varying degrees of baseline data made available to the team through the document review, the MTE faced challenges in evaluating the attribution of progress to LEAD in large part due to the number of other low emissions programs and the regional nature of the program. 5. Members of USAID/RDMA accompanied the MTE team during KIIs and FGDs in six LEAD countries (Cambodia, Nepal, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand). The USAID/RDMA members shared valuable insights and experiences with the MTE team at various stages of the evaluation design and field work. However, the presence of USAID staff members at KIIs and FGDs may have created a bias toward positive responses. This seemed to be the case when USAID/RDMA staff members disclosed their affiliations during consultations with national government agency stakeholders. In five instances, stakeholders indicated they felt the need to be “politically correct,” and in three cases they expressed an interest in following up on consultations outside of scheduled meetings, which were then conducted separately. 6. Budget and expenditure information is not formally tracked by the LEAD implementer at the task level. It was difficult to obtain even estimates of these figures, however after an additional consultation late in the drafting of this report, the LEAD implementer provided their best estimate of funding broken down by tasks and some subtasks. These have been incorporated into the findings, but with very limited analysis. 7. The MTE team was unable to incorporate evidence from the Asia LEDS Forum 2014, which finished on November 13, 2014, since they had not received data prior to completion of the evaluation. 20 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the LEAD MTE in the form of answers to Evaluation Questions 1 to 4. The Findings to Evaluation Questions 1, 2 and 3 are structured around each of the MTE SOW program elements. These Findings are based on evidence gathered from a number of sources, including a desk review of relevant background and project documents, key informant interviews (including USG, Implementing Partners, Donors, Government and Private sector), focus group discussions and a survey of LEAD training event participants. Evaluation question 4 focuses on adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement. This is answered in the form of recommendations presented in the last section of this chapter. The findings under each of the evaluation questions also address the MTE Objectives as outlined further below. Evaluation Question 1 addresses MTE Objective 1 which is to determine how successful the LEAD Program has been in meeting and/or completing SOW and Work Plan objectives, implementation requirements, and deliverables, and overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) and the US Government’s LEDS initiatives. Evaluation Question 3 addresses MTE Objective 2 which is to identify implementation challenges and instances where the program failed to meet objectives. Evaluation Question 4 addresses:  MTE Objective 3 which is to recommend corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and implementation, and progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the program period.  MTE Objective 4 which is to recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level and further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Question 1: To what extent has implementation of activities related to the key program elements been effective in achieving expected results? This section presents findings for each of the seven major tasks of LEAD in terms of the following program elements:  implementation of each task and subtask towards achieving expected deliverables  achievement of programmatic results including contribution towards outcomes, LEAD objectives, and overall objectives of the GCCI  efforts to ensure sustainability of the respective tasks, subtasks and programmatic results These are followed by findings according to cross-cutting program elements including:  Promotion of gender equality  Promotion of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership as USG priorities 21  Role of regional Program Integrator for USG LEDS activities in Asia  Appropriately balanced allocation of resources between regional platforms; national- and sub￾national-level participation in regional capacity building and cooperation; national-level activities; and sub-national-level activities; and  Support for “demand-driven” (as opposed to “supply-driven”) requests from countries and USAID bilateral Missions to support LEDS This section for evaluation question 1 ends with conclusions based on the findings across the program elements. FINDINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAMATIC RESULTS, AND SUSTAINABILITY OF TASKS AND SUBTASKS Progress on results achieved toward LEAD indicators in the Performance Management Plan is summarized below. These figures will be referenced during discussions of outcomes and results by task throughout this section. Table 4. LEAD Results Achieved to Date against Cumulative Mid-term Targets LEAD Performance Management Plan (PMP) LEAD Indicators Cumulative Results Achieved (FY 2013- 2014) 2013 - 2014 Cumulative Targets (2013 – 2014) Life of Project Targets Development Objective (DO): Institutions, platforms, and initiatives to catalyze LEDS in Asia established or strengthened LEAD Indicator #2: Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-14). 41 23 153 LEAD Indicator #3: Number of regional environmental platforms created or strengthened as a result of USG assistance10 5 3 9 LEAD Indicator #4: Number of organizations participating in regional institutions, platforms, or initiatives 75 54 92 Intermediate Result 1: National and sub-national LEDS created or improved LEAD Indicator #5: Number of countries with improved LEDS-Self Assessment Tool (LEDS-SAT) scores (custom indicator) 4 1 5 LEAD Indicator #6: Number of sub-national LEDS developed or improved as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 0 1 5 10 Although the total number of platforms created and strengthened is three, the cumulative figures reported account for results accomplished with these three platforms across multiple years. 22 LEAD Performance Management Plan (PMP) LEAD Indicators Cumulative Results Achieved (FY 2013- 2014) 2013 - 2014 Cumulative Targets (2013 – 2014) Life of Project Targets LEAD Indicator #7: Number of climate mitigation and/or adaptation tools, technologies, and methodologies developed, tested, and/or adopted as a result of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-8) 5 4 11 Intermediate Result 2: GHG inventory and accounting capacity at the national and sub-national levels strengthened LEAD Indicator #8: Number of countries that achieve higher quality inventories according to the Inventory Project Performance Indicator (IPPI) (custom indicator) 0 0 9 LEAD Indicator #9: Number of sub-national entities applying GHG accounting protocols and tools as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 011 25 225 Intermediate Result 3: GHG market development catalyzed LEAD Indicator #10: Number of private and public organizations reporting GHG emissions as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 012 25 225 LEAD Indicator #11: Number of metric tons of CO2e reported to a GHG registry (custom indicator) 0 1,000 11,000 LEAD Indicator #12: Number of GHG registries established as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 0 1 3 LEAD Indicator #13: Number of individuals achieving a proficiency certification as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 79 140 329 Cross-cutting Intermediate Result (1.2/2.1/3.3): Individual capacity in LEDS, GHG inventories and accounting, and GHG markets strengthened LEAD Indicator #14: Person hours of training completed in climate change supported by USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.26) 15,972 11,993 24,33413 LEAD Indicator #15: Number of gender mainstreaming activities developed, adopted, and/or implemented in LEAD activities (proposed indicator) 1 TBD 4 11 Sub-national activities in Vietnam, Thailand and India reported as delayed but under way. 12 Sub-national activities with private companies reported as delayed but under way. Task 4 registry development postponed due to the political situation in Thailand, affecting indicators 10, 11 and 12. 13 Inclusive of RDMA and USAID/Philippines supported training events 23 Task 1 Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations on Program Priorities and Opportunities Although the MTE SOW puts little emphasis on Task 1 for this evaluation, the team found it useful to examine and briefly comment on this foundational element of the program. Task 1 focused on an analysis across the applicable LEAD target countries of priorities and opportunities for addressing GHG accounting, market readiness, and LEDS regionally, which resulted in a final report completed in FY2012 Q4. The report was developed through desktop research and consultations with regional and in-country stakeholders including host-country governments (national and, where appropriate, sub-national), the private sector, NGOs, universities and research institutions, and USG and other US-based organizations. The report presented findings in terms of climate change and development context in the region, regional cooperation and platforms, and LEDS frameworks and tools, GHG inventories and accounting and carbon market development. The Task 1 report informed the design of technical Tasks 2 to 6. At the time of completion of this task in 2012, the carbon market trends were evidently declining towards an effective collapse, beginning as early as 2008 during the financial crisis. A more thorough analysis of that situation could have enabled the Task 1 report to identify alternative market driven instruments, besides GHG registries and carbon markets based on trends in global carbon markets at that time. Such an analysis could have informed the design of Task 4 activities with greater take-up by stakeholders. Task 2 Regional Support for National GHG Inventory Capacity Building and Development Task 2 is intended to provide technical assistance and training to country counterparts with the aim of national institutional capacity building in GHG inventory development including more specifically improvements to:  understanding of GHG estimation methodologies  GHG inventory data collection and management systems  inventory preparation and reporting processes  increasing the overall information available on governments’ progress in promoting emissions reductions The specific target groups for this activity included key national agencies (including focal agencies for the UNFCCC GHG inventory National Communications process and sectoral agencies supporting the inventory development), sub-national government agencies, universities and research institutions, NGOs, and the private sector. Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Most activities and deliverables anticipated in the LEAD SOW at the MTE point have been completed and fulfilled. LEAD has supported efforts to strengthen institutional capacity for national GHG inventory development using a combination of national and regional approaches. Contribution towards LEAD Objectives The MTE findings indicate that Task 2 activities and deliverables have contributed towards LEAD SOW objective 1 to prepare and complete high-quality national GHG inventories across Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Vietnam, and Philippines. This was an anticipated outcome stated in the LEAD SOW. LEAD has used a combination of regional and bilateral approaches in Task 2 to develop in-house institutional capacities for GHG inventory development at the national focal agencies. This supports 24 government agencies to break free from a reliance on external consultants to develop the National Communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The MTE identified a number of deliverables, implemented via a regional approach, that specifically contributed towards LEAD SOW objective 1 including: Regional training Sessions 1 and 2 on National GHG Inventory Systems for staff from government agencies (from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam); e-learning courses on the 2006 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for government agency staff from Nepal and Thailand; and regional training on mangrove carbon protocol, in collaboration with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and USFS for 31 participants from eight Asian countries on application of a new protocol for measuring and monitoring carbon stocks and GHG emissions of mangroves and other forested wetlands. LEAD also developed the “Annotated Protocol for Carbon Stock Assessment of Mangrove Forests" using field-work in Cambodia as primary inputs. This multimedia guide supports field researchers and practitioners in collecting data necessary for assessing the carbon stocks of mangrove forests by providing simplified instructions, video clips based on field work, animation, and downloadable field data sheets. LEAD and the USEPA jointly finalized the development of the Inventory Project Performance Indicator (IPPI) tool. This will support countries to systematically assess overall quality of their national GHG inventories in terms of transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency, comparability (TACCC), and institutional arrangements and identify areas where technical assistance and capacity building are needed to strengthen national inventory systems. LEAD also deployed a delivery protocol for IPPI and a guidebook for stakeholders and country partners to understand the IPPI tool, its uses, and co-benefits. At a bilateral level, LEAD provided country specific training and technical assistance to national GHG inventory teams from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, which contributed towards LEAD SOW objective 1. These included: development of customized national inventory improvement plans (NIIPs) in consultation with national GHG inventory teams, country partners and technical advisers (for Thailand and Bangladesh); technical assistance for establishing institutional arrangements for national GHG inventory development teams in Bangladesh, Nepal, Philippines, (for energy and forestry sectors) and Vietnam (Agriculture and land use, land use change and forestry “LULUCF” sectors); and undertaking of IPPI baseline assessments (Bangladesh, Thailand, and Philippines). The MTE team conducted interviews in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Nepal, and Cambodia to assess progress toward GHG inventory development. In the Philippines, government agencies stated that LEAD had contributed to making the national GHG inventory development process more systematic and institutionalized. However, the stakeholders noted there is limited awareness of the LEAD program and of EC-LEDS from senior officials. Senior official buy-in was seen as a critical condition to ensure strategic positioning and mainstreaming of GHG inventory development and LEDS across key sectors of the government in the Philippines. In Nepal, government stakeholders indicated that, “LEAD has contributed to building the institutional capacity of [the] Ministry of Science Technology and Environment (MoEST) to develop national GHG inventories.” However, according to several MoEST staff members who participated in regional training initiatives, trainings via eLearning were ineffective due to unreliable internet access and frequent power cuts. Vietnamese government agency staff who participated in LEAD training activities indicated capacity building activities were too generic, and they suggested that regional programs be tailored to Vietnam’s needs, existing skills, and language to improve their effectiveness. Similarly, stakeholders in Cambodia noted that Cambodian training participants were unable to fully utilize the results of capacity building exercises due to limitations in technical and language skills and a lack of access to equipment, such as sample collection and sediment- 25 analysis kits. Although development of a sediment analysis laboratory is outside the scope and budget of LEAD, LEAD facilitated the USFS to donate four sample collection kits to the Cambodian government. KIIs with stakeholders in Malaysia and Thailand indicated that current LEAD capacity building activities contribute little to the preparation of national GHG inventories because these countries already have considerable national capacities in the areas where training is being offered. Stakeholders from these countries stated they would, however, benefit from capacity building in GHG inventory development across key sectors (e.g. Transport, Energy and AFOLU) and at sub-national levels (e.g. for municipal and state governments). These are areas that LEAD can support through a regional capacity building process that could also leverage on the newly established AGMC and other donors and are reflected on further under recommendation 7. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Task 2 has contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI. Firstly by strengthening the institutional capacities of target countries in GHG inventory development to meet their UNFCCC reporting obligations, LEAD is contributing towards the international climate negotiation process. Secondly, by strengthening institutional capacities in GHG inventory development at the national level and across key sectors (including energy, agriculture, and LULUCF) Task 2 is helping LEAD country partners prepare for change towards a low emissions development approach particularly in the areas of clean energy and sustainable landscapes. Thirdly, Task 2 is strengthening bilateral relationships by providing technical assistance in areas including National GHG Inventory Systems, IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, mangrove carbon protocol, the use of IPPI tool for inventory assessment, national inventory improvement plans (NIIPs), and establishing institutional arrangements for national GHG inventory development teams. Contribution towards Outcomes Task 2 contribution towards IR2 (GHG inventory and accounting systems at the national and sub￾national levels strengthened) could not be assessed due to unavailability of data for LEAD indicator #8 (Number of countries that achieve higher quality inventories according to IPPI). The improvement in the quality of the GHG inventories will be visible in 2015 and 2016 when the interim assessments are undertaken. LEAD has so far undertaken IPPI baseline assessments of three countries (Thailand, the Philippines, and Bangladesh) with IPPI baseline assessments for Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam to be carried out in Q1 2015. The regional activities, particularly peer-based learning methods, were highly valued by participants according to KIIs. The sharing of experiences amongst countries in the region was seen as an innovative and effective mechanism to improve knowledge transfer and capacity building. Application of Knowledge from Capacity Building It is important to understand the degree to which training participants felt equipped to apply the knowledge gained from LEAD trainings in their workplace. Table 5 summarizes feedback on three areas of knowledge application evaluated as part of the question, “Since the LEAD training event, to what extent has the knowledge from LEAD training been applied in the following ways?” The green shading is densest around the middle anchor, indicating the greatest number of participants responded that they applied knowledge gained from training to “a moderate extent.” Furthermore, survey respondents from Vietnam, Indonesia, and Nepal indicated in written responses that—in addition to applying GHG inventory development skills acquired from LEAD trainings in their day-to-day work—trainees had used knowledge gained from trainings to train other practitioners at their institutions as shown in Table 5. This aspect of LEAD’s capacity building activities will lead to multiplier effects and the replication of capacities in national LEDS design and implementation. This 26 scale-up of initial LEAD training has the potential to influence national decision-making processes; however, this can only happen if LEAD or other stakeholders provide effective follow-up support at the national and sub-national levels. However, respondents from all countries surveyed alluded to the critical need for further technical and country-specific support to ensure LEAD trainings continue to remain relevant and easily replicated. Table 5: Application of Knowledge from LEAD Training – Survey Results Similar to the results shown in Table 5, the survey results in Table 6 strongly indicate that the level of technical detail provided and topics covered enable event participants to use their newly acquired knowledge to train others in their respective organizations. Table 6: Relevance of LEAD Training Material – Survey Results Engagement of Training Institutes and Trainers from LEAD Countries Stakeholders from Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam strongly advocated the use of national training institutes and national trainers as a replication mechanism to scale up the adoption of clean energy and landscapes-focused GHG accounting tools and protocols by hundreds of organizations. Recommendation 7 builds on this finding. Communication and Outreach Enhancing the understanding and awareness of LEAD amongst key stakeholders can support the scaling up of protocols at the sectoral and sub-national levels. Many stakeholder organizations shared the view that they were not aware of the portfolio of capacity programs provided by LEAD, resulting in a fragmented and bits-and-pieces engagement between the organizations and LEAD. 27 Sustainability As the focus of Task 2 is on institutional capacity building, the prospects for organizational and policy level sustainability of the task, subtasks, and programmatic results are high. In terms of financial sustainability, there are prospects for the tasks, subtasks, and results to continue post-LEAD as these activities support the national communications for the UNFCCC, which receive both national funding and external funding from sources such as GEF. Task 3: Regional Support for GHG Accounting Protocols and Tools Development Task 3 focused on regional capacity building to develop, evaluate, and publish new GHG accounting protocols and tools in partnership with key government agencies, private sector, non-governmental, and regional organizations through capacity building, pilot demonstrations, and replication. As part of protocol and tool development, regional training and technical assistance for targeted public and private sector partners were to be provided on GHG emissions measurement, reporting, and verification at corporate, project, and other levels. The task also aimed to greatly expand the adoption and effective utilization of GHG accounting protocols and tools sustainably among key partners and target groups. Training and capacity building activities were to be followed by pilot demonstrations. The regional approach anticipated the sharing of best practices and lessons learned with other countries and work to replicate model demonstrations (accompanied with targeted capacity building) to ensure successful uptake. For Task 3, both regional and country-level training workshops were to be conducted. Activities under Task 3 relating to sub-national implementations have seen delays of approximately five months. Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Contribution towards LEAD Objectives Task 3 activities and deliverables have only partially contributed towards LEAD SOW Objective 2 that includes the strengthening of tools, policies, and systems for GHG accounting and low emissions decision-making with an emphasis on sub-national implementation. The sub-national sites selected for Task 3 are Thanh Hoa, Vietnam, to support a provincial Green Growth Strategy; the Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), India, to encourage the adoption of GHG accounting tools and protocols by its corporate members; and Chiang Mai, Thailand, to reduce GHG emissions and energy use in the hospitality and tourism sector. Engagement in Chiang Mai, Thailand was, suspended from May 2014 onward due to the partial Stop Work Order given by the USG as a result of the political unrest. The stop work order was lifted in late 2014 and LEAD has resumed engagement with the Chiang Mai Municipality. The collaboration under the U.S. and Thailand EC-LEDS partnership agreement will support local action as part of the province’s objective to make Chiang Mai a sustainable, low-emission city and tourist destination. LEAD has finalized detailed activity plans for its work in Vietnam and India, and signed formal agreements (Memorandum of Understandings) with respective partners in each location. LEAD has also finalized Partnership Development Plans for each site. The sub-national effort with the BCCI in India will involve a course of 22 training topics covering sustainability, green growth, GHG management, and corporate social responsibility to be delivered jointly between LEAD and BCCI. The first two trainings of this course were delivered in September 28 2014. The training course will be complemented by direct assistance to companies for the rollout of GHG management tools and protocols as well as opportunities for regional networking. In Vietnam, LEAD has proposed a package of support activities for the Thanh Hoa provincial Green Growth Task Force (GGTF) that will lead to the development and implementation of the Provincial Green Growth Action Plan (PGGAP). LEAD provided support for the set-up of the Than Hoa provincial green growth task force and drafted its terms of reference. Activities in Vietnam have been implemented with the USAID Forests and Deltas program as directed by USAID. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Task 3 has made some contributions towards the overall objectives of the GCCI. Firstly, by strengthening sub-national capacities in GHG accounting protocols and tools in partnership with sub￾national entities (in Vietnam, Thailand, and India) Task 3 is helping LEAD partners prepare for change towards a low emissions development approach. Task 3 is also strengthening bilateral relationships by developing formalized partnerships with sub-national government agencies in Vietnam and Thailand and the private sector in India. Contribution towards Outcomes In line with the SOW and work plan LEAD delivered a series of events that support the development, adoption, and use of clean energy and landscapes-focused GHG accounting protocols and tools, including the engagement of 44 stakeholder organizations in peer exchange and capacity building activities. According to stakeholders, the capacity building efforts on GHG accounting have not been as successful as those for GHG inventory development in terms of how to adopt and use the protocols. This is largely due to a lack of GHG accounting capacity in LEAD countries, particularly amongst the private sector and NGOs. To increase program impact, LEAD and other stakeholders should conduct follow-up activities at the pilot sites to ensure accounting protocols are developed, maintained, and used by NGOs and private sector organizations in addition to government agencies. While there is private sector engagement in the India pilot, which explicitly targets private sector companies from the BCCI, private sector engagement should also be extended to the pilots in Vietnam and Thailand in order create impact on a larger scale. This potential for engaging private sector and NGO stakeholders is yet to be exploited. Given that LEAD is not an implementation-oriented initiative, the program may need to re￾evaluate its activities to focus on areas where it has comparative advantages (i.e., in developing and maintaining knowledge sharing platforms using knowledge generated by a wide array of stakeholders). Once LEAD is able to use a partnership approach to implement activities, the program could use information from pilot implementation to develop appropriate case studies for regional dissemination. KIIs indicated that participation of institutes from each country can be strengthened which in turn will support implementation and sustain the GHG accounting tools and protocols promoted. Task 3 has contributed towards partial achievement of some of the targets under IR1 “National and sub￾national LEDS created or improved” which cover LEAD integrated PMP indicators #5, #6, and #7. For LEAD Indicator #5, Tasks 2, 3, and 5 have contributed to four countries with improved LEDS-Self Assessment Tool (LEDS-SAT) scores (custom indicator) for Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This can be viewed as a success as the cumulative target between 2012 and 2014 is 1 and the overall target by project completion is 5. For LEAD indicator #6, although no sub-national LEDS have been developed or improved as a result of USG assistance, Task 3 is providing ongoing support for the development of the green growth action plan in Thanh Hoa, Vietnam. 29 In terms of LEAD Indicator #7, Task 3 (in conjunction with Tasks 2 and 5) has contributed to the achievement of four climate mitigation tools, technologies, and methodologies developed, tested, and/or adopted as a result of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-8). These include the mangrove carbon stock assessment protocol, the LEAP tool, Triple Bottom Line training and testing in Khao Yai National Park and Chiang Mai (Thailand), and the Regional Emission Factor training. This is in line with the cumulative targets from 2012 to 2014. With respect to LEAD Indicator #9 (IR2), so far there is no evidence to demonstrate that sub-national entities are applying GHG accounting protocols and tools as a result of USG assistance. As Task 3 sub￾national activities in Vietnam, Thailand, and India have commenced results are anticipated during FY2015. Some KIIs advocated developing case studies from already existing examples on the use of GHG accounting protocols and tools in the region which can serve as a cost efficient manner to demonstrate best practice and promote the scaling up of such tools and protocols. Identification of existing examples in the region has commenced as part of the Asia LEDS forum. This finding is discussed further under recommendation 4. Sustainability Due to various delays, Task 3 and its subtasks have gained traction only in the second half of 2014. Although it is too early to determine the sustainability prospects of its subtasks and results, the nature and design of the pilots provide opportunities for sustainability at institutional, operational, and financial levels. Task 4 GHG Market Development Task 4 focuses on developing market instruments targeting the private sector to provide the appropriate services and skills to sustain such a market over the long term. Task 4 envisaged the provision of capacity building support for:  promoting the development of the GHG accounting services industry and host country efforts to develop GHG trading platforms and registries, including certification training for GHG inventory preparers and verifiers/certifiers;  supporting and managing market‐based approaches that enable cost-effective emissions reductions and open up investment opportunities for US firms pursuing carbon offsets;  ensuring host country partners can support fund transfers that are transparent and reach important beneficiaries such as rural and indigenous communities;  informing the design of better domestic policies for GHG accounting systems. Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Contribution towards LEAD Objectives Task 4 activities have made minor contributions towards LEAD SOW Objective 3 which is to promote a viable private sector GHG accounting services industry as well as market-based platforms for facilitating low emissions investments. During FY2013, The Climate Registry (TCR) report developed on “GHG Registry Support Options for Asia: Profiles of Relevant Registry Systems” provided information to design other activities in the 2014 LEAD work plan, including regional trainings on stationary combustion emissions and in-country and regional trainings on mobile combustion from Task 5. In FY2014, LEAD engaged with the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO) on the establishment of a GHG reporting program and registry for Thailand. LEAD developed a joint GHG registry activity development plan that TGO approved. Implementation of the plan commenced with a 30 training webinar on corporate GHG reporting which LEAD developed and convened for TGO. Thereafter, LEAD and TGO have identified the design elements of the reporting program. Task 4 has led to the exploration of potential partnerships for regional training activities, including cost sharing opportunities, and engaged with the World Bank Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR). However, the collaboration with PMR has not progressed as it has shifted its focus from regional training to country-specific training. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Task 4 has contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI by supporting TGO to develop a market driven mechanism for low emissions development in Thailand. LEAD’s contribution is through the GHG registry activity development plan and through identifying the design elements of the GHG reporting program for TGO. Contribution towards Outcomes Task 4 has achieved very limited progress towards the expected results. The SOW envisaged the setting up of GHG platforms or registries in three countries. While initial steps have been taken toward establishing the first GHG registry in Thailand, there has been limited progress in establishing GHG platforms/registries in other countries. LEAD efforts in Task 4 have also had limited impact in creating a GHG accounting services industry in target countries. The lack of progress toward achieving anticipated results can be partly attributed to the greatly diminished status of global carbon markets.14 As pointed out by USG stakeholders based in Washington, D.C., given the shift in global carbon markets, perhaps a “redirection is needed with a focus on other market driven instruments such as corporate sustainability and GHG reporting.” Indonesia and Malaysia are in the process of establishing Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) indexes for their respective stock exchanges and this is an area LEAD could provide capacity building using a regional approach. Some KIIs suggested that LEAD could also provide support for climate financing by acting as a regional facilitator for the numerous climate-financing options available in Asia. These findings are reflected on further in the form of suggested remedial action under Recommendation 5. There was limited evidence to demonstrate that the Task 4 subtasks will be sustained beyond the LEAD program period. The work with TGO has some potential to be sustained at an institutional level; however, it is too early to make a qualified assessment of its sustainability prospects. Task 5 Emission Factor Identification and Development Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Contribution towards LEAD Objectives Emissions factors are a fundamental element of national GHG inventories development and of GHG accounting protocols. Task 5 deliverables have contributed towards LEAD SOW Objective 1(Strengthening human and institutional capacity to develop and implement GHG accounting) and LEAD SOW Objective 2 (Strengthening tools, policies, and systems for GHG accounting and low emissions decision-making) by developing and strengthening emission factors. 14 ICF, 2013. Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report Including Quarter 4 Progress Update; ICF, 2014. Integrated Asia Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2014; USAID, 2013. Fast Out of the Gate: How Developing Asian Countries Can Prepare to Access International Green Growth Financing, Vol 1. 31 In 2013, LEAD developed a report on Current Challenges and Priorities for Emission Factor Improvement accessible from the LEAD website15. Based on demand identified in the report, LEAD provided training for 55 participants from Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam at an event in 2014, in Manila, Philippines. The training covered methods to accurately estimate current and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector, with a focus on mobile and stationary combustion. The training comprised of methods of emission factor development and hands-on exercises. The regional workshop was followed by in-depth national-level training for 35 Philippine participants representing five government agencies on improving several key emission factors used in the Philippines, including stationary combustion, on-road transport and waterborne sectors, in cooperation with the Philippines Climate Change Commission and Department of Energy. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Task 5 has contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI. Firstly, it has strengthened the institutional capacities of target countries in developing emission factors from the energy sector, with a focus on mobile and stationary combustion. This will support partner countries in meeting their UNFCCC reporting obligations and thus contribute towards the international climate negotiation process. Secondly, by strengthening institutional capacities in emission factor development for the energy sector, Task 5 is supporting country partners to prepare for change towards a low emissions development approach particularly in the areas of clean energy. Thirdly, Task 5 is strengthening bilateral relationships by providing technical assistance to develop and improve emission factors particularly in the case if Philippines. Contribution towards Outcomes Task 5 contribution towards IR2 (GHG inventory and accounting systems at the national and sub￾national levels strengthened) could not be assessed due to unavailability of data for LEAD indicator #8 (Number of countries that achieve higher quality inventories according to IPPI). The improvement in the quality of the GHG inventories will be visible in 2015 and 2016 when the interim assessments are undertaken. LEAD has so far undertaken IPPI baseline assessments of three countries (Thailand, the Philippines, and Bangladesh) with IPPI baseline assessments for Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam to be carried out in FY2015 Q1. As demonstrated under task 2 (Table 5), the mini survey results indicated that training participants felt equipped to apply the knowledge gained from LEAD trainings in their workplace. Furthermore, survey respondents from Vietnam, Indonesia, and Nepal indicated they had used knowledge gained from the training to improve awareness amongst other practitioners at their institutions on emission factor development. Sustainability As the focus of Task 5 is on emission factor development to support capacity building in GHG inventories and accounting, the prospects for sustainability of the task, subtasks, and programmatic results at organizational and policy levels are high. In terms of financial sustainability, there are moderate prospects for the tasks, subtasks, and results to continue, post-LEAD, due to the interest of external funding sources such as the GEF to support the national communications to the UNFCCC. The 15 http://lowemissionsasia.org/resource/emission‐factor‐report 32 prospects of finding in-country government and private sector funding sources are relatively limited unless a stronger business case is established for activities that target economic growth, greater efficiencies, and new markets. Task 6 Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 Asia LEDS Partnerships Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Contribution towards LEAD Objectives During the initial stages of LEAD, the LEDS Global Partnership (LEDS GP) emerged as a key international coordinating mechanism for LEDS and green growth. USAID/RDMA volunteered for the role of chair to develop and launch an Asia Regional Platform of the LEDS GP. This led to the set-up of the Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP) with LEAD acting as the Secretariat for the ALP and providing support for ALP activities. The platform was seen as a delivery mechanism to channel LEAD support in a more coherent manner in terms of stakeholder engagement, coordination, and knowledge sharing on LEDS. Besides hosting the ALP secretariat, LEAD supported the development of a governance structure for the ALP including Co-Chairs and a 20-member Steering Committee consisting of government and international organizations. LEAD also provided support to develop: an annual work plan for the ALP, a logo to build branding, a name, and branding guidelines. In close coordination with RDMA and other partners, LEAD has organized an Asia LEDS Forum on three occasions on an annual basis. This forum has, on each occasion, attracted strategically important co-sponsors such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and a host government (Thailand in 2012, Philippines in 2013, and Indonesia in 2014). A number of ALP partners also provided technical support including the World Bank, United Nations Development Programmed (UNDP), United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The forum has seen engagement of an impressive number of participants on each occasion, starting off with over 150 participants in 2012 and over 250 participants in 2013 and 2014 respectively. Participants at the Asia LEDS forum held in November 2014 provided a set of prioritized topics to be reviewed by ALP in 2015, namely: agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU); benefits assessment; energy; and transport–with finance and climate resilience as cross-cutting themes. Specific activities were proposed for further assessment such as training to develop and finance low emission land use plans in the AFOLU sector; enhancement of select models to integrate assessment of economic and employment benefits of LEDS; technical assistance on policy and finance measures to support sustainable energy; and case studies on policy measures to support integrated transport systems. LEAD also provided support with respect to priorities emerging from the Asia LEDS fora. LEAD organized an interactive session to promote regional learning and direct peer sharing at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (New Delhi, India in 2013). LEAD developed a report titled “Fast out of the Gate: How Developing Asian Countries Can Prepare to Access International Green Growth Financing” which identified and provided preliminary assessment on sources of climate finance available to Asian countries. LEAD also organized two regional workshops on access to climate financing, firstly in Manila, Philippines (2013) that was co-sponsored by the Asian Development Bank. A second workshop on Accessing Finance for Green Growth and LEDS was organized in Hanoi, Vietnam (in 2014) in partnership with the Vietnam Ministry of Planning and Investment and other international partners which brought 33 together over 150 officials and experts from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, and representatives from global climate change funds, state and private banks, and businesses. This led to an important follow-up deliverable, requested by participants, which was the development by LEAD of policy briefs on how country climate-related funds are structured and examples of successful private sector engagement. LEAD also organized the ALP workshop Quantifying the Environmental, Social, and Economic Benefits from Bus Rapid Transit Systems in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (in 2014), in partnership with the Malaysia Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD), the LEDS Global Partnership Transport Working Group, and other international partners. This activity was in response to ALP member requests, in particular SPAD, for capacity building on quantifying impacts from low-emission transport measures. This event convened 70 representatives from stakeholders involved in bus rapid transit (BRT) systems from China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The event contributed to an understanding of tools and methods to quantify BRT impacts, skills to apply the tools, and a peer network to address common system design and implementation challenges. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 have contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI by: (i) Establishing a regional platform with strong participatory involvement of national and regional stakeholders so that GCCI will contribute towards the international climate negotiation process; (ii) Promoting regional peer exchange and experience sharing in LEDS and green growth and contributing towards preparing the LEAD country partners from Asia towards a low emissions development approach, and (iii) Using subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 to strengthen bilateral relationships by providing specific technical assistance in areas including sources of climate financing for Asian countries, the setting up of climate financing schemes and private sector engagement and understanding the environmental, social, and economic benefits from Bus Rapid Transit Systems. While the contributions listed above are noticeable, the pace and scale of the efforts could be greatly enhanced in light of the resources allocated to these tasks (see related finding on resource allocation). In part, this lack of scale and momentum could be attributed to the lack of buy-in from regional stakeholders into a USAID-contractor implemented initiative. Furthermore, the technical content of what is being offered through the ALP events is often not well tailored to country needs and capacities. Contribution towards Outcomes LEAD activities under Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 have contributed towards the DO in terms of strengthening institutions, platforms, and initiatives to catalyze LEDS in Asia KIIs and FGDs indicated that the ALP has gained recognition and appreciation from stakeholders as an open regional platform that brings together multiple stakeholders (donors, governments, NGOs, and private sector), provides peer-based exchange of experience and convenes discussions on development issues related to LEDS and green growth in the region. Over the course of the project, ALP membership has increased to 92 organizational members and 128 individual members.16 This growth in membership serves as a positive indicator of the ALP’s perceived 16 Asia LEDS Forum 2014 Report 34 utility and stakeholder buy-in.17 LEAD activities under Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 have led to a cumulative result of 75 organizations with “active participation” in the ALP who have provided monetary or in-kind support for development and delivery of the ALP offerings contributing towards LEAD indicator #4 (number of organizations participating in regional institutions, platforms, or initiatives). This has exceeded the target of 54 organizations with active participation for period FY2012 to 2014 and is close to the overall project target of 92. An evaluation of the LEDS GP noted the ALP has the highest number of participants from the three regional partnerships covering Asia, Latin America, and Africa.18 Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 have contributed towards developing and strengthening a regional environmental platform, i.e. the ALP, part of LEAD Indicator #3. Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2 have also contributed towards 41 institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance, under LEAD Indicator #2, which exceeds the cumulative target between FY2012 to FY2014 of 23. Sustainability The ALP platform, as part of the Global LEDS Partnership, has the potential to serve as a “legacy” for the LEAD program by continuing to deliver regional activities and results initiated by LEAD targeting regional collaboration of stakeholders (donors, governments, NGOs, and private sector), regional peer￾based exchange of experience and convening of regional discussions on development issues related to LEDS and green growth. LEAD has formed a team of ALP Steering Committee members to develop and implement a sustainability strategy for the ALP. This will focus on diversifying financing for the ALP Secretariat and supporting operations. The team includes the ALP Secretariat (LEAD Chief of Party), the new ALP co￾chair Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Clean Air Asia, and the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy. KIIs and FGDs provided the following areas that could improve the sustainability of the ALP: developing tailored knowledge products for low and middle income countries based on needs assessments; improving the partnership’s awareness and communication strategy; and expanding ALP’s funding base to include private sector funds. Subtask 6.3 - Asia LEDS Knowledge Portal Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Contribution towards LEAD Objectives and Outcomes In early FY2014 the LEAD team launched the Asia LEDS Knowledge Platform, an online resource for sharing knowledge and delivering of capacity building on LEDS and green growth in Asia (www.AsiaLEDS.org). The site targets ALP members, other policymakers, practitioners, experts, and researchers in Asia. It includes a library of knowledge products including technical reports, case studies, and presentations categorized according to topics, type, and country. It also includes a database of LEDS projects and initiatives in Asia. 17ALP Work Plan. Version 1-2013-03-15; Asia LEDS Partnership Work Plan for CY 2014 (v. Dec 15) OA. 18 LEDS GP Secretariat, 2014. Low Emission Development Strategies Global Partnership 2014 Internal Performance Evaluation 35 As of FY2014 Q4, the Asia LEDS website had almost 4000 unique visitors. The most frequent visitors were from Thailand, U.S., Vietnam, Philippines, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany, U.K., and Japan. Subtask 6.3 has contributed towards one target under LEAD Indicator #3, by developing a regional environmental platform, in the form of the Asia LEDS Knowledge Platform. One of the intended results of LEAD is to use peer learning and networking to develop a regional community of practice (COP) in LEDS. The Asia LEDS knowledge platform can contribute towards this result by facilitating an online community of practice. Asia LEDS has a presence on LinkedIn, which provides a platform for an online COP. However, at the time of the MTE there were only 14 members in this online COP, many of whom are mainly program staff. LEAD should increase efforts to establish and grow an online COP with active participation of stakeholders from the region. This is reflected on further in recommendation 4. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Sub task 6.3 has contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI. By establishing a regional knowledge platform for use by stakeholders from Asia it will support the transition of LEAD country partners towards a low emissions development approach and strengthen bilateral relationships. Sustainability The sustainability of the Asia LEDS knowledge platform is to a certain degree dependent on the sustainability strategies pursued for the other two regional platforms–the ALP and AGMC. Given that CDKN is the new co-chair of the ALP, opportunities could be explored to integrate the Asia LEDS knowledge platform with the CDKN portal. Subtask 6.4 - Asian Greenhouse Gas Management Center (AGMC) Implementation Requirements, Deliverables and Programmatic Results Contribution towards LEAD Objectives LEAD created the AGMC as a regional institutional platform that provides training and educational services to support LEDS and green growth initiatives in Asia. Eventually the training programs, material and resources delivered by LEAD will be hosted by AGMC. The AGMC also aims to act as an open platform that delivers and sustains capacity building programs of other donors in the region in the areas of LEDS and green growth. The selection of the AGMC’s name was done based on a survey by GHGMI that was sent to over 5,000 climate change practitioners. However, KIIs and FGD discussions revealed some confusion regarding the role and identity of the AGMC and its apparent lack of integration with the ALP. Several stakeholders interviewed suggested a natural identity for the AGMC should have been as the ALP Training Institute. The Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) based in Bangkok was selected to host the AGMC. A number of considerations supported the selection of AIT by LEAD/RDMA to host the AGMC. AIT has a reasonably large footprint in the South-East Asian region with a significant intake of staff and students from the Asian region whilst also operating a campus in Vietnam. Representatives of several Asian countries are on the AIT board of governance including Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines and Vietnam. AIT has a significant cadre of experts which LEAD anticipates can be built up as a regional pool of trainers/experts in LEDS and green growth. 36 Despite experience substantial delays in FY 2013 and Q1 FY2014 LEAD has developed a governance and operational framework, engaged a full-time director, prepared an initial business plan and developed protocols for training and administration which clarify the role of the AGMC, AIT and LEAD. The AGMC business plan includes a number of clear objectives which support its vision of being the premier regional institution driving a climate-resilient, sustainable, low emission Asia. These include enhancing coordination and collaboration with donors and international organizations to improve efficiency and effectiveness [of capacity building programs], and avoid duplication of efforts; increasing technical and management capacity of climate change practitioners and policy makers; developing and implement innovative solutions for technical assistance and high quality training curriculum and certification programs. However, USG stakeholders expressed concerns that some of AGMC’s objectives overlap with the ALP. These overlapping objectives include: develop and expand regional and national partnerships; strengthening public/private collaboration to advance innovation and increase resources; and to some extent facilitate national-level needs assessments to better target technical and capacity development assistance. Overlap also exists between the AGMC and the Asia LEDS Knowledge platform in terms of creating and administering forums to exchange best practices, tools, and approaches. These overlapping mandates should be reviewed and consolidated with an aim to improve synergy and reduce duplication of efforts between the 3 regional platforms developed by LEAD. During FY 2014 the AGMC supported LEAD in some of its training activities including: facilitation of a LEAP seminar; coordination of regional training on national GHG inventory systems in Thailand with participation of national inventory team representatives from all program countries; and supporting a LEDS 101 leadership course in collaboration with NREL. Contribution towards GCCI Objectives Sub-task 6.4 has contributed towards the overall objectives of the GCCI. Firstly by establishing an open regional platform that can coordinate capacity building efforts of donors on LEDS/green growth, it will contribute towards the international climate negotiation process by improving the channeling and sustainability of support provided from developed countries. Secondly, the AGMC training and education services, which utilize a pool of experts based in the region, is supporting LEAD country partners from Asia towards a low emissions development approach and is also strengthening bilateral relationships in the case of Indonesia and Philippines. Contribution towards Outcomes The AGMC subtask has shown some initial outcomes. As a result of the trainings that the AGMC supported in FY2014, participating countries including Indonesia and the Philippines have built capacity in the form of potential instructors to deliver introductory trainings on LEDS to national and sub-national government officials. These countries have initiated follow-up activities. Indonesian participants organized a half-day workshop with the Ministry of Forestry Education and Training Center to share their training and start the process of developing a LEDS action plan for the city of Bogor. More than 20 people attended the workshop, including representatives from the government, sub-national government of Bogor, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and civil society. The Philippines participants have committed to organize a LEDS 101 camp in 2015 and are undertaking discussions with institutions in the country to seek financial support for the camp. The subtask has also contributed towards developing and strengthening a regional environmental platform, i.e. the AGMC, which is a target of LEAD Indicator #3. 37 The subtask has also contributed improved capacity of institutions to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance (LEAD Indicator #2), as a result of the training activities it supported. This subtask has the potential to contribute towards significant programmatic results and regional cohesiveness by improving coordination, sustainability and up-scaling of LEDS/green growth capacity building activities by all donors operating in the region. Sustainability Strong sustainability prospects exist for the training facilitated by the AGMC in particular for the LEDS 101 leadership course. The activities and results of the subtask have already been sustained in the case of Indonesia that has conducted on its own resources a workshop to share their training and start the process of developing a LEDS action plan for the city of Bogor. Strong sustainability prospects also appear in the case of the Philippines that is planning a LEDS 101 camp in 2015. AIT has a track record in hosting and sustaining international entities such as the AIT-UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRCAP) and the global secretariat of the International Partnership for Expanding Waste Management Services of Local Authorities (IPLA). Yet several stakeholders consulted through KIIs (including those at Thai government agencies) stressed the limitations of putting all LEAD resources into AIT at the regional level, noting this strategy did not involve other Thai institutes with strong credentials in GHG related issues (these institutes include Chulalongkorn University19 and the King Mongkut’s University of Technology) as well as institutes based outside of Thailand. These interviewees suggested a network approach would be preferable. Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Nepal, and the Philippines all have institutions that could serve as part of this network, in addition to other Thai institutes. Consultations with the LEAD team, including the AGMC director revealed that collaborations are already being developed with other training institutions in Thailand. The AGMC has also submitted proposals to a number of external donors in order to improve its sustainability prospects. These include CDKN and the UK Government (Prosperity Fund). The AGMC will have prospects for operational sustainability through involvement of LEAD personal such as the AGMC director and country coordinators who have been involved in LEAD activities for some time. Given the nascent nature of the AGMC business plan, it is too early to comment on the viability of this option to promote sustainability of LEAD initiatives. SubTask 6.5 Findings for subtask 6.5 are presented under the cross cutting findings for role as a regional program integrator below. Task 7 Overarching program management and coordination Activities under Task 7 supported LEAD at both the programmatic and program element level. LEAD completed most of its deliverables under Task 7. A number of deliverables supported the achievement of programmatic results. The integrated work plan operationalized the role of LEAD as a regional program integrator in EC-LEDS for EPA, NREL, and USFS. The integrated PMP also supported this mandate. This is a significant achievement since it allows all USG partners to track and report their 19 In late 2014, LEAD has initiated contacts with Chulalongkorn University. 38 contributions within an overall framework that will be useful in the long run for this and other LEDS related programs that promote regional cohesion across multiple activities. Guided by a communication strategy, LEAD undertook outreach and communication through a number of channels. This included dissemination of a quarterly e-Newsletter distributed to more than 200 contacts in USG agencies and Asian partner organizations; program fact sheet translation into Thai, Laos, Khmer, Bahasa Malaysia, and Vietnamese; and development and dissemination of LEAD reporting outputs as high quality knowledge products. For example, more than 550 copies of the Executive Summary of the "Fast Out of the Gate" report and 200 copies of the full report were distributed at regional events. Approximately 100 such knowledge products were hosted by the LEAD website as well as the Asia LEDS Knowledge Portal. LEAD also established social media platforms in the form of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter pages. The LEAD website had over 57,000 page views and 14,000 unique visitors. Following the launch of the Asia LEDS knowledge portal, less time was spent on the LEAD website with more time allocated for the Asia LEDS Knowledge Portal to support the latter’s role as a regional platform. The overall awareness building and knowledge dissemination approach is effective in providing a regionally cohesive approach to LEDS design and implementation. FINDINGS ON PROMOTION OF GENDER EQUALITY The LEAD SOW requests that LEAD promote women’s participation and empower women to get involved in decision-making processes. LEAD has made efforts to mainstream gender considerations beyond the standard process of having balanced gender representation in its activities. The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), a LEAD implementing partner, developed a comprehensive gender knowledge product, Recommendations for Gender Strategy, which included potential gaps that LEAD could address under its PMP results framework to ensure gender considerations are addressed in the implementation of LEAD activities. The overall approach to address gender more systematically in LEAD involves creating awareness of gender considerations, building capacity in gender concepts, developing partnerships with organizations supporting gender initiatives, and integrating gender into LEDS decision-making. LEAD undertook a gender training program for core program staff and country coordinators to increase awareness of concepts related to gender equality and mainstreaming and LEDS. LEAD developed a gender indicator (number of gender mainstreaming activities developed, adopted, and/or implemented in LEAD program activities) and reported results for integrating gender considerations for the joint NREL LEAD program LEDS 101 course held in Bangkok, Thailand (2014). LEAD also integrated gender equality and mainstreaming concepts under the sub-national pilot activity of Task 3. LEAD’s capacity building program for the BCCI in India includes gender equality and leadership for women owned businesses and executives among BCCI’s corporate members. In the case of Vietnam, LEAD recommended the Vietnam Women’s Union (VWU) in Thanh Hoa to be a part of the Green Growth Task which was accepted by the Steering Committee. This will integrate gender considerations in the province’s green growth strategy development process. LEAD collaborated with the USAID LEAF program on a Regional Leadership Mentorship program which focused on training modules to develop leadership abilities and competencies to promote gender equity. This included two regional training activities. LEAD provided technical assistance to the Business and Professional Women’s Association (BPW) Thailand to develop an Outstanding Women Leaders for Green Growth Award to promote green 39 growth initiatives among women business leaders in Thailand. BPW-Thailand ended the collaboration with LEAD due to concerns on the U.S. response to the military coup d'état in Thailand. The MTE survey provided some insights into gender specific responses on the effectiveness of LEAD training exercises. Since females are somewhat underrepresented in the sample, findings involving gender should be interpreted with caution. However, females did vary significantly from male respondents on three items: (1) The topics covered in the training have adequately prepared me to train others in my organization (p < 0.05), (2) The training was relevant to my own area of specialization (p < 0.05) and (3) I had enough technical prerequisites to take full advantage of the training (p < 0.05). In each item, females were less likely to report strong agreement than their male counterparts. Since the sample of females was smaller than males, there is not enough qualitative data to get an accurate understanding of the reasons behind these patterns. It could be beneficial to do a more in-depth gender analysis of female LEAD training participants in the future to better understand their perspectives and experiences. Within this survey, consistent with the findings on male respondents, the level of English fluency significantly impacted both how prepared a respondent felt for the LEAD training and how personally relevant they felt the training was. Specifically, those with English fluency were more likely to report strong agreement to the following two items: (1) training was relevant to my organizations long-term goals (p < 0.05) and (2) I had enough technical prerequisites to take full advantage of the training (p < 0.05). Similarly, the level of educational attainment also significantly impacted how the respondent viewed the relevance of the LEAD training initiatives. As educational achievement increased respondents were more likely to report strong agreement to the following two items (1) training was relevant to my organization’s long-term goals (p < 0.05) and (2) training was relevant to my area of specialization (p < 0.05). LEAD developed a SOW that outlines gender activities and deliverables to inform development of the FY 2015 integrated work plan. This SOW includes provision to hire an external gender specialist to provide additional technical support to design and implement gender mainstreaming activities. LEAD collaborated with Woman Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) who took part in a panel discussion that addressed improved social inclusion in the November 2014 ALP Forum. Although numerous examples of gender mainstreaming exist for climate adaptation, examples are limited in the case of climate mitigation. Thus the efforts of LEAD to mainstream gender considerations across its activities are commendable. The gender related efforts have so far contributed the achievement of one gender mainstreaming activity developed, adopted, and/or implemented in LEAD activities (LEAD Indicator #15). This was for the gender considerations addressed in the regional LEDS 101 course. FINDINGS ON THE PROMOTION OF EC-LEDS AND LEDS GP AS USG PRIORITIES LEAD has both at the programmatic and task level promoted EC-LEDS and LEDS GP as USG priorities as part of its work plan. The implementation of LEAD tasks has directly contributed towards the two major EC-LEDS priorities of providing targeted technical assistance to its partner countries and building and sharing of knowledge. LEAD has provided targeted technical assistance to its program countries to develop robust and transparent national GHG inventories that are critical to identifying low emission actions and policies. 40 The assistance provided includes National GHG Inventory Systems training; eLearning courses on 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; regional training on mangrove carbon stock protocol; the development of the IPPI tool which assists countries improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency, comparability (TACCC), of their national GHG inventories; development of customized national inventory improvement plans (NIIPs) and establishing institutional arrangements for national GHG inventory development teams – see findings under Task 2 for more details. The efforts of task 5 on emission factor development and improvement contribute to this priority. Under Task 3, LEAD is supporting policies that lower GHG emissions while encouraging economic growth at a sub-national level by targeting pilot initiatives in Vietnam, Thailand and India. LEAD efforts under Task 6 directly contribute to the EC-LEDS priorities of building and sharing of knowledge. LEAD support to host the ALP Secretariat and implementation of ALP events (Sub-tasks 6.1 and 6.2) have contributed to the bringing together of multiple stakeholders (donors, governments, NGOs, and private sector), provides peer-based sharing of experiences and convenes discussions on development issues related to LEDS and green growth in the region. This has also directly supported the LEDS GP, as the ALP is the regional network of LEDS GP in Asia. Sub-task 6.4, the AGMC, promotes the building and sharing of knowledge by acting as an open platform that improves coordination, sustainability and up scaling of LEDS/green growth capacity building activities by all donors operating in the Asian region. Finally, the Asia LEDS Knowledge platform acts as a toolkit that compiles resources (technical reports, case studies, and presentations) and tools that address topics categorized according to specific technical areas and country. FINDINGS ON ROLE AS REGIONAL INTEGRATOR Program Integrator for USG EC-LEDS Partners LEAD has pursued a program integrator role for EC-LEDS with three USG agencies including EPA, NREL and USFS. At a program level, LEAD has both an integrated work plan and PMP framework that aims to systematically integrate the EC-LEDS activities of these three agencies. LEAD interacts with the agencies at different levels. With the USFS LEAD has a well honed coordination process partly due to the physical presence of the USFS regional advisor who is based at the LEAD office in Bangkok. This included developing a protocol for measuring carbon stocks in wetlands in association with the Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program (SWAMP) and technical training on the protocol in Cambodia. Follow-up work in FY2015 is expected to result in adoption of the protocol at the national level. With NREL, LEAD is facilitating capacity building for a number of tools such as the Long range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) model and the Geospatial Toolkit. NREL has also delivered a number of training sessions such as Exploring Clean Energy Opportunities Using the Geospatial Toolkit at the 2013 Asia LEDS Forum and the LEDS Leadership Course. NREL has supported the development of two climate change mitigation tools for the region. Firstly, NREL updated the Geospatial Toolkit (GsT) Help documentation to enhance usability and accessibility of the tool. It also provides illustrative examples of how the tool can be used to analyzed LEDS-related questions. This was based on requests by participants of GsT trainings that took place in the Asia region over the past two years. Second, NREL developed the Introduction to LEDS for Policymakers master PowerPoint slide set that were provided to participants at the regional LEDS Leadership Course, which was a train-the-trainer course. Participants were trained on how to customize and adapt this master slide set as a tool for use in their own trainings in the future. 41 A key result that LEAD has facilitated, as a program integrator for NREL, is the development of a core group of LEDS trainers or champions with knowledge, skills, and resources to facilitate introductory LEDS training and dissemination of basic LEDS information to policy makers in five Asian countries. This has contributed toward a community of practice of LEDS practitioners and leaders in Asia to support sustainable, long-term LEDS frameworks in the region. With EPA, LEAD collaborated on the SEA (South-East Asia) GHG program. This resulted in the development of the IPPI tool, which enables countries to assess the quality of their GHG inventories including institutional arrangements and is discussed further under Task 2. It also resulted in the institutional capacity building of 17 organizations across Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, PNG, Thailand and Vietnam to address climate change issues. The work of the three agencies has also been incorporated in the AGMC in the delivery of training, for example on GHG inventory development with EPA and LEDS 101 with NREL. The agencies indicated that they have had varying levels of success in coordinating their activities with each other within the LEAD initiative. This results from the cyclical funding patterns within each agency whereby the funding cycles do not match each other. The USFS has had extensive experience working internationally on policy implementation issues and is supported by a wide network of international resources. The USEPA and NREL do not possess the same level of program and policy implementation experience and international resource availability. LEAD has also played a USG program integrator role at the bilateral level, under the USG EC-LEDS initiative with Thailand. LEAD facilitated the development of a work plan for this EC-LEDS partnership for Thailand. This involved a scoping report, and facilitating dialogue between 10 Thai government agencies and 7 USG agencies. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Under its contract with USAID/RDMA, the IP is not required to report the task level expenditures because the budget is tracked by CLIN. Extensive consultations with the IP have allowed the MTE team to determine the following estimated level of current resource spending. Table 7. Estimated Allocation of Resources by Task Task Estimate Funding Percentage Task 1 $600,000 3% Task 2 $4,000,000 19% Task 3 $2,000,000 9% Task 4 $2,000,000 9% Task 5 $2,000,000 9% Task 6 - ALP $5,000,000 23% Task 6 - AGMC $3,500,000 16% Task 6 - other $1,500,000 7% Gender $200,000 1% China CLIN $375,000 2% Philippines Buy-in $380,000 2% Total $ 21,555,000 100% Actual contract value $21,550,000 42 Clearly, a bulk of the LEAD budget is spent on Task 6 to host the ALP Secretariat. Most of the ALP resources are spent on administering tasks related to hosting the Secretariat. The technical activities under this subtask seem to overlap with the activities related to the AGMC. A streamlining of efforts under Task 6 could be used to better utilize LEAD’s resources. The AGMC has also been allocated a large portion of LEAD resources. The delays related to establishing the AGMC have meant that it is not yet clear that AGMC’s most recent business plan is implementable. In particular, during consultation with AGMC leadership, they indicated that they will use Task 6 resources to develop an in-house cadre of technical experts who would design and deliver relevant courses. It is not clear that this is the most cost-effective method to deliver the highest quality services–a better approach would rely heavily on readily available USG (and other stakeholders’) resources with AGMC in house resources taking on the role of training coordinators. A sizable portion of the budget is spent on country level initiatives (Task 2) that are designed and implemented to address the country specific “demands” primarily conveyed to the LEAD team via the USAID Bilateral Missions. This approach also enjoys Mission buy-in and also supports on-going Mission￾led and other donor-led efforts. However, the Bilateral Missions often lack the perspectives, resources, time, and expertise needed to prioritize their individual country needs within the context of overall regional needs and priorities. As such, Task 2 initiatives could benefit from a more systematic and continual needs-assessment than is currently available from Bilateral Missions and the Task 1 report. DEMAND DRIVEN VERSUS SUPPLY DRIVEN LEAD is indeed following a "demand driven" approach to designing and implementing tasks. The demand from national stakeholders is being conveyed to LEAD primarily through the Bilateral Missions. However, often the response is constrained by the IP's contract parameters that cannot be easily modified post-award. This rigidity in the contract mechanism is not unique to the LEAD program or USAID. Given this inflexibility during the multi-year contract implementation period, LEAD is unable to access additional resources and/or modify its approach to properly satisfy the demands that are identified during program implementation. This problem is further exacerbated when country specific demands have to be weighed against the overall regional objectives of LEAD. According to KIIs with USG stakeholders, some needs tend to be too country specific. It is not feasible for RDMA and the bilateral missions to meet all of the individual country needs. However, these needs could be facilitated through regional platforms such as the ALP and AGMC. This was evident at the 2014 Asia LEDS forum where LEAD facilitated discussion on country priorities and which donors could support such priority activities. Such facilitation and regional match making can be done on a more regular basis through engagement of the working groups under the LEDS-GP (e.g. clean energy, landscapes, financing etc). CONCLUSIONS FOR EVALUATION QUESTION 1 At its mid-point, LEAD has made significant progress toward achieving the five main outcomes anticipated in the LEAD SOW. As evidenced in progress against the PMP, a number of program targets have already been met, or exceeded, including 41 (target of 23) institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues and 75 (target 54) organizations participating in regional institutions, platforms, or initiatives. The number of regional platforms created or strengthened (3) is tracking in line with targets at the time of the MTE, as is the number of climate mitigation tools, technologies, and methodologies developed, tested, and/or adopted (4). Reporting on the PMP does not yet contain figures on many of the targets for IR2 and IR3, which is largely due to delays in implementation. 43 Indicators on training are close to the targets and appear likely to increase with time. The mini survey results point toward a positive outlook on training, showing that trainees are taking home valuable knowledge that is not accessible elsewhere, applying it and even training others. This aspect of LEAD’s capacity building activities will lead to multiplier effects and the replication of capacities in national LEDS design and implementation. This scale-up of initial LEAD training has the potential to influence national decision-making processes; however, this can only happen if LEAD or other stakeholders provide effective follow-up support at the national and sub-national levels. According to stakeholders, the capacity building efforts on GHG accounting have not been as successful as those for GHG inventory development in terms of how to adopt and use the protocols. This is due in large part to a lack of GHG accounting capacity in LEAD countries, particularly amongst the private sector and NGOs. To increase program impact, KIIs suggested that LEAD should conduct follow-up activities to ensure involvement of NGOs, private sector organizations and training institutes in addition to government agencies, at the pilot sites. This is reflected on further under recommendation 1. Evidence also suggests that to increase the impact and sustainability of LEAD’s capacity building activities, LEAD should increase buy-in from decision-makers in government. The mini survey results revealed that almost 69.7% of participants at LEAD events have attended only 1 event. The proportion of participants attending two events was 27.3% and the proportion of participants attending three events was 3%. To increase programmatic results, LEAD regional events (such as the Asia LEDS forum) should attempt to target repeat participation by attendees of previous events. This will strengthen peer to peer networking and experience sharing. Related to communication and outreach, findings suggest that enhancing the understanding and awareness of LEAD amongst key stakeholders can support the scaling up of protocols at the sectoral and sub-national levels. Many stakeholder organizations shared the view that they were not aware of the portfolio of support provided by LEAD, resulting in a fragmented and bits and pieces engagement of the organizations with LEAD. Findings indicate that the downward trend in global carbon markets may require a shift towards other market driven instruments such as corporate sustainability and GHG reporting. Indonesia and Malaysia are in the process of establishing Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) indexes for their respective stock exchanges and this is an area LEAD could provide capacity building using a regional approach. Some stakeholders suggested that LEAD could also provide support for climate financing by acting as a regional facilitator for the numerous climate-financing options available in Asia. The latter would build upon efforts already undertaken by LEAD under Task 6 including the two climate finance events and the “Fast-out-of-the Gate” knowledge product. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Question 2: How has the timeliness of the implementation of LEAD activities affected the results of the program to date in terms of the key program elements? FINDINGS During 2012 and 2013, over half of LEAD subtasks were delayed. Delays have been minimized in 2014, and as of Quarter 3 of 2014, LEAD has been able to deliver on most of its tasks and subtasks as planned. Further elaborated below, the timeliness of implementation of early activities initially impacted many of the key program elements; however, performance has greatly improved in 2014. 44 At the end of 2013, 15 out of 29 subtasks were reported as completed, five subtasks were reported as completed with delays, and nine subtasks were reported as delayed. USG KIIs indicated that initial delays in implementation and a lack of steady communication prevented the full engagement of USG partners during the first financial year of LEAD. As a result, promotion of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership as USG priorities and LEAD’s role as a program integrator for USG LEDS activities in Asia were delayed. Following personnel changes at the IP, momentum has increased and steady improvements have become evident; in Quarters 1 and 2 of FY2014, almost all activities were reported as completed with minimal delays. Based on a review of annual reports and the key informant interviews, delays were noted for the following tasks and subtasks:  Sub-national site selection, due in large part to changes required by the USAID/RDMA protocol;  Sub-national activity in Vietnam was delayed due to LEAD staffing changes;  Improvement in USAID/Philippines buy-in;  Launch of AGMC (delayed by seven months) due to a number of factors, including a vacancy in the AGMC Director position and the lack of a viable business plan;  Development of the Asia LEDS knowledge platform (delayed by seven months);  Monsoon rains delayed the second phase of carbon stock assessment work in Cambodia; and  Preparation of a report on current challenges and priorities for emission factor improvement (delayed by six months).20 These delays are further discussed below. The MTE team found that in FY2012 and 2013 many scheduled trainings and workshops under Task 2 were delayed in response to host country requests, or for circumstances outside of LEAD’s control. For example, KIIs confirmed that monsoon rains delayed the second phase of forestry-related activity in Cambodia. In contrast, sub-national activity in Vietnam was delayed due to LEAD staffing changes, which resulted in a lack of follow-up after initial program visits. As a result, some country stakeholders questioned LEAD’s commitment to planned activities. In Indonesia, where tasks were conducted in coordination with the USAID/Indonesia Mission, delays stemmed from a lack of communication and follow-up by LEAD during the planning and design phase of activities. During KIIs in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Nepal, participants stated country coordinators should be further engaged to improve the transparency of activity planning in target countries and to establish regular communication with program stakeholders. Overall, the MTE team found that initial delays in implementation had a slight impact on program relevance, effectiveness, and partnerships. In the Philippines, the USAID mission stated that delays had postponed the achievement of visible outcomes for the RDMA-Mission-Philippine partnership. However, the Mission maintained the partnership would not be adversely affected if the new timelines and schedule of deliverables were met. In Nepal, stakeholders confirmed early delays had not adversely affected the relevance of LEAD, as LEAD activities were not integrated with core planning activities. During a KII in Malaysia, an ALP steering committee member indicated that LEAD had been able to 20 USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report Including Quarter 4 Progress Update. Fiscal Year 2013 – October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013; USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2014 Quarter 2 Progress Update. Fiscal Year 2014 – October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013. 45 respond to new requests such as the Clean Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) workshop in a timely fashion, improving the relevance and effectiveness of the program. Activities under Task 3 relating to sub-national implementation experienced delays of approximately 5 months. Initial delays were due to improvements required on the process of coordination with sub￾national partners. According to KIIs, due to reservations by several missions about LEAD's selection process for potential sub-national sites, LEAD refined its approach in consultation with USAID. However, continued delays in the design and implementation of sub-national activities in Vietnam threaten to affect the relevance, effectiveness and partnership elements of the program in-country. The bilateral mission and other stakeholders consulted during KIIs—particularly the ADB and USAID/VNE project—urged immediate corrective action to rectify the delays. The responses from the mini survey indicate that timeliness of trainings did not negatively impact their ability to prepare for training events. Time was provided to prepare trainees in advance, and was not rushed, with time for follow up provided. The mini surveys conducted indicate a relatively high level of satisfaction with the advanced preparation offered prior to the event, with over 66 percent of 151 respondents scoring a 5 or greater on the 1 to 7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree. Similarly, about 55 percent of respondents were satisfied with the follow up event, with about 24 percent answering “not applicable.” Under Task 5, preparation of a report on current challenges and priorities for emission factor improvement was delayed by 6 months.21 Under Task 6, the launch of AGMC was delayed by 7 months due to a number of factors, including a vacancy in the AGMC Director position and the lack of a viable business plan. Although the AGMC has been allocated a large portion of LEAD resources, as discussed under the finding on resource allocation (question 1), delays to establishing the AGMC have meant it is not yet clear if this is an effective allocation of resources. Development of the Asia LEDS knowledge portal was also delayed by seven months. LEAD’s role as a program integrator for USG LEDS activities in Asia were delayed during the initial stages as a result of other program delays in implementation and a lack of steady communication. Progress has since been made by LEAD to play its role as a program integrator and progress is now satisfactory according to USG KIIs. According to USG KIIs, developing a comprehensive gender approach in the middle stages of the project (FY 2013) had an impact on its implementation across LEAD tasks/subtasks. These stakeholders suggest that development of the gender strategy at an earlier stage of LEAD would have improved prospects to implement gender strategies across tasks and subtasks through consideration in the design phase of activities. 21 USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report Including Quarter 4 Progress Update. Fiscal Year 2013 – October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013; USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2014 Quarter 2 Progress Update. Fiscal Year 2014 – October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013. 46 CONCLUSIONS FOR EVALUATION QUESTION 2 Notable delays were evident during the first 18 months of LEAD; however, the program has steadily made improvements and gained momentum, with most subtasks in 2014 completed (or on track to be completed) on schedule. The timeliness of the implementation of LEAD activities in FY2012 and 2013 has had a marginal effect on key program elements including preventing the full engagement of USG partners and therefore delaying the promotion of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership as USG priorities and LEAD’s role as a program integrator for USG LEDS activities in Asia. However, the survey of trainees indicates a strong level of satisfaction with the time allotted to advance preparation for trainings and follow up after completion. Earlier development of the gender strategy would have benefitted LEAD through stronger integration of gender considerations in the design of subtasks and activities. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Question 3: What specific factors have helped or hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements in achieving expected results? FACTORS THAT HAVE HELPED THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE KEY PROGRAM ELEMENTS Importance of Partnerships Where LEAD has successfully engaged with bilateral missions and country governments, these partnerships have helped with the relevant and effective implementation of several key activities, including the hosting of the ALP secretariat, identification of country priorities, establishment of in￾country working protocols, efficient use of resources, and synergies with other USG funded programs. Strong partnerships with bilateral missions and countries have led to greater support for demand-driven requests from countries to support LEDS and coordination with other public and private institutions (Subtask 7k). Collaboration with bilateral missions As discussed in the section for Finding 1.5, LEAD has established a high level of collaboration with bilateral missions in several countries. KIIs in Cambodia, the Philippines, and Vietnam revealed that strong partnerships with bilateral missions have led to the creation of country-specific work plans and engagement with national stakeholders. For example in Vietnam, LEAD collaborates closely with the USAID-funded Vietnam Forestry and Deltas project. LEAD has had success in establishing strong partnerships with the bilateral missions in these countries due to a number of factors. One factor discussed was the importance of having an advocate at the Mission, who is typically someone who is contacted early in the process, and is engaged throughout. This was the case in Cambodia; the USAID contact was a recent Government employee at the Ministry of Environment, the focal agency for LEAD in Cambodia. Another factor discussed was the importance of follow up by the country coordinator and other LEAD staff after initial contact. Although LEAD’s engagement in Indonesia has been more limited than in other countries and the Mission and other USAID project staff complained about the lack of follow up by LEAD after initial contact had been made, LEAD’s responsiveness to USAID/Indonesia requests has resulted in collaboration with the mission’s flagship project on clean energy. This has paved the way for successful events in Bangkok and Medan on regional and Indonesia-specific capacity building related to the LEAP model. 47 Collaboration with governments in active LEAD countries By the end of FY 2013, LEAD had engaged more than 65 government agencies, including line ministries and departments, in capacity building activities through ALP and other initiatives.22 Representatives from all LEAD country governments except India and PNG participated in activities; attendees included, but were not limited to, staff members from Ministries of Finance, Ministries of Energy, and government academic institutions that help increase LEAD’s relevance and visibility. LEAD has achieved greater success in effectively implementing activities in countries where it has established partnerships with key government stakeholders. For example, KIIs and progress reports revealed that LEAD’s collaboration with national government agencies related to the national Green Growth Strategy in Vietnam has aided significantly in the implementation of several key activities. Similarly, LEAD is working closely with the Philippines’ Climate Change Commission (CCC), which has coordinated the involvement of other government agencies in LEAD activities. In contrast, LEAD initially approached the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) to be the focal agency for the program in Malaysia, but a lack of agency buy-in prevented the Ministry from serving in this capacity. While Malaysia has a focal agency for Green Growth— the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) — EPU staff indicated in KIIs that the unit had not been approached by LEAD to play a coordinating role in the country; at the time of the MTE, no other focal agency had been identified for Malaysia. In Nepal, the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MoEST) was identified as a focal agency. Through MoEST, LEAD has successfully engaged other government agencies; however, activities in Nepal have lost momentum due to communication and coordination barriers. Strengths in Capacity Building Activities Factors that have helped contribute to the effective implementation of LEAD capacity building activities include the establishment of streamlined participant selection processes, hands-on training methods and experienced trainers, and efficient logistics. Streamlined participant selection processes for regional activities The absorption capacity of trainees is very important in determining the effectiveness of regional capacity building programs. In countries such as the Philippines, Nepal, and Vietnam, a robust participant selection process for regional events has helped ensure a high absorption capacity among trainees. In other LEAD countries, where participant selection processes have been less transparent, regional capacity building events have had less of an impact. In Cambodia, several stakeholders commented that training events were attended primarily by individuals with English language skills, even if these participants lacked expertise relevant to the technical topics covered. In all, over three quarters of trainees surveyed (77 percent) responded positively that they had enough technical prerequisites to take full advantage of the training. Over 88 percent responded that the language of trainers and materials was easily understood. This points to a successful identification of participants with both the language and technical background to maximize gains from trainings. 22 USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report Including Quarter 4 Progress Update. 48 LEAD has used different channels for participant selection, including channels employed by other USAID projects like the Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI) and those recommended in discussions with LEAD coordinators and bilateral missions.23 Hands-on training methods and experienced trainers In their written responses, survey respondents noted that practical training, fieldwork, and hands-on classroom training with experts helped them understand how to effectively apply concrete knowledge gained in trainings once they returned to their organizations. Respondents felt that trainers at the regional events were “extremely knowledgeable,” “very supportive,” and “worked hard to transfer their skills to the trainees.” This qualitative data was further supported by the answers to three questions from the mini-survey (Table 8). Table 8: Usefulness of Technical Aspects of LEAD Training Efficient logistics and operational management of regional events The successful management of training events by LEAD has helped increase the effectiveness of trainings. Several questions within the mini-survey examined respondents’ views on the operational aspects of LEAD training events; Table 9 below provides an overview of participant responses to these questions. Similar to the table evaluating technical aspects, the concentration of dark green between numbers 5-7 indicates an overall high level of satisfaction with operational components of training events. 23 USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report Including Quarter 4 Progress Update 49 Table 9: Operational Aspects of LEAD Trainings FACTORS THAT HAVE HINDERED THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE KEY PROGRAM ELEMENTS Lack of Involvement of senior government and non-government stakeholders LEAD has not significantly involved senior government and non-government stakeholders in its processes. This has hindered program design and implementation. Extensive discussions with RDMA and USAID/Washington officials indicate that typically, USAID Missions are the point of contact during project design. This process has led to a program that manages several country-specific activities that may not be tied to a regional agenda. Moving forward, a more proactive approach towards seeking national stakeholder inputs during activity design could provide added regional cohesiveness to the program. Lower engagement from senior decision makers has hindered key stakeholder buy-in and understanding of national and sub-national priorities. To date, LEAD has had a low level of success in establishing truly demand-driven processes for delivering results that address country-identified needs. While LEAD has engaged several key stakeholder agencies from LEAD countries in its activities, lack of awareness of LEAD and the potential benefits of using LEDS in a country’s planning and decision-making process has led to low buy in from senior government agency officials. Insufficient engagement with government decision makers may negatively impact the sustainability of tasks and subs-tasks and of programmatic results. Improving outreach and developing new and strengthening existing mechanisms for engaging non￾government stakeholders holds potential to broaden and strengthen partnerships, increase understanding of national and sub-national priorities, and build key stakeholder buy-in. KIIs and training participant surveys revealed that LEAD has had limited engagement with non-government stakeholders, including community-based organizations, private sector organizations, research and academic institutions, and multilateral institutions. The Annual Report for FY2013 cites engagement with eight regional organizations, eleven donor organizations—including three USAID- funded programs— six NGOs, and nine research and academic organizations. The outcomes of these engagements are not 50 clearly documented and KII participants noted the engagements had not yielded substantive partnerships with regional organizations. 24,25,26 It is worth noting, however that ALP’s steering committee includes an impressive list of several donors, development agencies, partner government agencies, institutes and NGOs. LEAD has responded to specific requests for technical assistance and has involved stakeholders in structuring individual capacity building activities, including the development of clean transport in Malaysia, identification of training needs in Nepal, and forestry GHG inventory development in Cambodia. However, as noted above, much of the input received during work plan development is offered by bilateral missions—and to some extent, by country coordinators who provide short-term technical assistance—rather than by government and non-government stakeholders. In scoping studies, LEAD had aimed to work with a variety of stakeholders. However, mechanisms for involving a wide range of partners have not been clearly identified, and the program’s communication plan lacks clearly articulated communication and outreach strategies for generating collaboration at the national and regional levels. 27, 28 The MTE team found that the private sector in the majority of LEAD countries had engaged minimally in program activities, even though many LEAD results are related to the private sector. Activities such as developing public-private partnerships and designing and implementing carbon registries will require a concerted effort to engage private sector entities in program countries. There are examples to point to. The Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry has partnered with LEAD, representing over 5,000 companies. ALP events have also drawn private sector participation in areas including transportation, agriculture, forestry and green technology. While the program has engaged organizations such as the UNDP, UNEP, ADB, and World Bank primarily through ALP, a clear vision for long-term partnerships with these organizations has not emerged from these interactions. Donors and development agencies like the EU, UNEP, and UNDP support LEDS capacity building efforts, and LEAD should explore the possibility of program synergies and joint capacity building activities where possible.29 24 USAID Asia, 2013. LEAD Program, Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report Including Quarter 4 Progress Update. 25 Donor organizations include the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); British Foreign and Commonwealth Office/British High Commission; International Finance Corporation (IFC); Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the USAID-funded Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) program; USAID/Indonesia – Clean Energy Development Project; USAID/Philippines – CEnergy project; and NREL. 26 Regional organizations consulted include the German-ASEAN Programme on Climate Change (GAP-CC); Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP); Asian Development Bank (ADB); Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI); Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW); LEDS Global Partnership and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). 27 LEAD Program SOW – Philippines. Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) Program Support for Greenhouse Gas Inventory Capacity Building in the Philippines (USAID/Philippines Buy-in), June 2012 28 ICF International, 2013. USAID Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) Program Communication Plan ( Draft) 29 Some examples of these include the EU-funded Regional Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Policy Support program being implemented with UNEP; the EU-funded Regional EU ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (READI); the UNDP-led Low emission capacity building program that includes the following LEAD countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam; GEF country projects on Climate change mitigation in the relevant countries; UNEP-led projects on technology need assessment, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) support and access to climate finance through Finance for Access to Clean Energy Technologies (FACET). 51 The establishment of solid partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders is critical to improving LEAD’s effectiveness, potential for impact, and prospects for sustainability. Buy-in from a wide variety of actors will strengthen program ownership, efficiency, and sustainability of results. Greater buy-in may also contribute to LEAD’s positioning as the premier regional program for LEDS capacity building activities, particularly in the areas of green growth, clean energy planning, energy security, clean public transport, and sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Evidence to Support Finding 3.3.a KIIs and FGDs Agreement/Stakeholder USG GOV INT TRN PVT IP Notes Agree with Finding* 2 11 15 3 6 1 *There was a high degree of agreement across stakeholders (76%) that engagement with NGOs and the private sector could be improved. Number of informants who answered this question 3 11 17 8 7 4 Challenges for Capacity Building Activities Constraints related to staff and equipment availability, internet access, and variations in language and technical skills among event participants have hindered the effectiveness of some regional capacity building activities, including national GHG inventory capacity building and development activities under Task 2. Internet access constraints KIIs and the mini-survey indicated participants from lower income countries had difficulty accessing LEAD e-learning courses due to limited internet access. This was particularly true in Nepal and Cambodia. In Nepal, e-learning participants experience regular power outages due to load shedding in the country’s electricity grid. KII participants from MoEST and other Nepalese government agencies indicated they had asked LEAD to support the cost of internet dongles, which would enable internet access during power outages. Stakeholder agencies also indicated they would be willing to work in coordination with LEAD to seek financial support for internet dongles from other sources. Staffing and Equipment Constraints Equipment availability was the second-most-cited constraint among training participants consulted (the first was inadequate budget allocations for program activities). Slightly less than half of mini survey respondents reported a lack of specialized equipment needed to implement activities covered by trainings, including data collection, testing, and analysis. This constraint was noted in particular during KIIs and FGDs in Cambodia and Vietnam. KII participants from Cambodia voiced dissatisfaction with field work conducted without proper protective gear and adequate explanation, arguing this hindered the absorption of knowledge. KII participants also cited a lack of access to tools, methods, and equipment for collecting and analyzing field samples. 30 Although 30 Tools and equipment include soil sampling and analysis equipment and refrigerated boxes to transport samples. 52 LEAD is primarily a technical assistance program and does not provide capital assistance to stakeholders, small provisions for financial assistance—or support to participants in accessing mechanisms for financial assistance from other agencies through platforms like the ALP—would improve the effectiveness of LEAD as a regional program. More than 42 percent of mini-survey respondents reported experiencing staffing or timing constraints when applying knowledge acquired at LEAD events. Respondents reported a lack of technical staff with knowledge of LEAD subject areas, as well as situations where LEAD activities fell outside the direct responsibility of staff members or their offices’ priorities. Participants also noted that when technically trained staff members were available, they were often assigned to several projects and lacked time to prioritize LEAD issues. Large variations in technical and language skills of event participants Though some countries in the region share common characteristics, such as economic and emissions growth potential, LEAD countries are in varying stages of policy development and have differing institutional capacities.31 Variations in technical capacities and language skills among stakeholders have hindered the effectiveness of training activities, suggesting that LEAD’s “one approach fits all” strategy has been rendered less effective due to the program’s regional focus. KII and FGD findings from Nepal, Cambodia, and Vietnam indicated dividing LEAD countries into different sub-groups and offering capacity building activities tailored to each group could increase program impact. For countries with limited capacity, such as Cambodia, pre-training was suggested as a mechanism for bringing trainee capacity up to the level of other regional training participants. Respondents also noted the effectiveness of regional activities with clearly defined “teacher” and “student” countries; for example, participants from Nepal cited the usefulness of lessons learned from regional exchanges with Malaysia. KIIs and FGDs revealed that stakeholders in Cambodia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam favored this approach, combined with classroom training. Most suggestions from KIIs and FGDs regarding training content improvement revolved around providing additional resource materials that participants could use during the event and after they returned to their organizations. Respondents suggested that LEAD create handouts to accompany expert presentations, as well as a manual of best practices for each training subject. Respondents also posited that it would be helpful to convene regular community of practice dialogues, where participants could continue to discuss case studies, new knowledge on climate change, and implementation challenges. CONCLUSIONS FOR EVALUATION QUESTION 3 LEAD has been successful in establishing itself as a regional program for target countries. It has had a high level of collaboration with bilateral missions in some countries, and has built ties with a large number of government entities. Even greater effectiveness is possible through strengthen its engagement with a broader range of stakeholders in the work planning process. 31 USAID Asia, 2012. LEAD Programme, Regional Priorities and Opportunities for Promoting Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) in Asia. Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultation: Summary Report. USAID. 53 LEAD has deployed effective processes to support the implementation of regional capacity building activities. Trainings generally appear to be successful, with a targeted selection process, and good planning, operational and management processes in place. However, resource constraints faced by target countries should be addressed to improve effectiveness. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: RECOMMENDATIONS What adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement are needed to ensure effectiveness in achieving expected results during the remaining duration of the program? Drawing on findings and conclusions from evaluation questions 1-3, the MTE team has assembled a set of recommendations to respond to evaluation question 4. Recommended adjustments, corrective actions, and potential areas for improvement are outlined below. The recommended actions will improve program management, effectiveness and impact at the regional level and further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the LEAD program to ensure the sustainability of successful initiatives. Encourage Greater Stakeholder Engagement to Promote Sustainability Several findings and conclusions above highlight the need for LEAD to enhance engagement with government and non-government stakeholders to improve program buy-in and increase effectiveness, impact and cohesion at the regional level. The recommended actions listed below will ensure that LEAD: (1) Uses its country specific resources and initiatives to support an integrated and well articulated regional agenda32 while moving away from an approach that manages multiple tasks within the countries of the region and (2) Effectively engages key stakeholders to help implement LEDS via enhanced and continued support for the ALP as well as the AGMC. Recommendation 1: LEAD should increase its focus on stakeholder involvement by broadening partnership engagement under Task 7. LEAD should, under Subtask 7k (Coordination with other public and private institutions), enhance its stakeholder coordination activity to achieve greater buy-in, ownership, and sustainability prospects for its regional activities among stakeholders. This will further enhance partnership development and program sustainability. Specifically, the LEAD program office should conduct regular consultations (perhaps at bi-annual intervals) with regional and national stakeholders. In addition, LEAD should create a “Partnership” activity under Task 7 to explicitly enhance engagement of non-government stakeholders, including civil society organizations, private sector organizations, research and academic institutions, and multilateral institutions beyond what is currently done. Recommendation 2: LEAD should increase donor coordination through collaboration with 32 At the regional level, LEAD should continue to emphasize: (a) regional peer based knowledge exchange and capacity building, (b) regional dialogue on LEDS best practices at the policy and strategy level, (c) regional technical assistance including expert support, conduct of studies and development of strategy papers, (d) regional coordination and consolidation of donor support in the LEDS area and (e) development of suitable partnerships with other regional/international knowledge platform to operate the knowledge platform established by LEAD. 54 other regional platforms within Task 6. LEAD should provide clearer objectives and roles for donor involvement beyond their existing role as part of the ALP as well as enhance engagement and buy-in of government stakeholders in the ALP and AGMC. This would streamline donor participation in the activities of ALP and AGMC while enhancing prospects for sustainability of the LEAD supported initiatives. The LEAD program office should create a Subtask on “Donor Coordination” under Task 6, to consolidate donor participation across LEAD tasks and identify specific roles for donors in the ALP and AGMC. LEAD should reach out to other international and regional platforms and, in the near term, should focus on collaborating with: a. Knowledge platforms including the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), the UNEP SCP Clearinghouse b. Regional bodies including the ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE), ASEAN Working Group on Climate Change (AWGCC), the ASEAN+3 Leadership program for sustainability and the Asia￾Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) c. Regional programs such as the EU funded Regional Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Policy Support, EU Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (READI), the UNDP Low emission capacity building program d. Regional private sector organizations including companies and business associations e.g. the Confederation of Asia-Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI), the Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of Commerce (APCAC), the Impact Investment Exchange Asia (IIX), and the US-ASEAN Business Council. Recommendation 3: LEAD should engage with key government decision makers and agencies by utilizing the regional Asia LEDS Forum and country coordinators more effectively. A hindering factor to implementation noted in the findings and conclusions for evaluation question 3 was a lack of involvement of senior government stakeholders. The evaluation team recommends increasing their involvement in part by improving the use of the country coordinators. Currently, the country coordinators provide agenda development and coordination support for the Asia LEDS Forums. But there is a need to improve the outcomes and impacts of the forums. Country coordinators are well positioned to help participants better prepare, plan and take away more from the forums and other regional level engagements. Findings for evaluation question 2 suggest that country coordinators should be further engaged to improve the transparency of activity planning in target countries and to establish regular communication with program stakeholders. Coordinators can also better link resources to the country and participant specific needs that are identified while helping to shepherd the knowledge sharing that is essential for regional cohesiveness. First, LEAD can create a new activity under Subtask 6.2 (Asia LEDS Forum) to specifically engage government decision makers and agencies driving national development agendas, on LEDS. These could include the National Planning Agencies and Ministries of Finance for example. The activity should focus on consultations on mainstreaming LEDS in the national development planning processes and link LEDS as a development approach that supports decision making around green growth and low carbon development. Regarding the country coordinators, LEAD should increase their levels of effort (LOE), allowing them sufficient time to engage with in-country stakeholders in a strategic and systematic manner. This will also allow LEAD to better coordinate its efforts with USAID bilateral missions and other donors to enhance 55 its position as a strategic regional program. In this context, LEAD’s experience in the Philippines could serve as an example for how to engage country coordinators and raise awareness of LEAD among national stakeholders. The LEAD program office should provide country coordinators with clearer mandates and improve awareness of how LEAD regional activities and platforms can support LEDS and other similar initiatives, such as green growth and low carbon development, in partner countries. This effort should ensure that country coordinators prioritize their work on Task 2 (Support National GHG Inventory Capacity in LEAD Countries) such that all country specific activities undertaken by LEAD emphasize the sustainability of partnerships that are developed and the eventual success of Subtask 6.4 (Asian Greenhouse Management Center). Finally, LEAD can support efforts by country coordinators to adopt standardized communication protocols, with a particular emphasis on responding to requests from government and in-country stakeholders. Again, this would be effective in ensuring that Task 2 supports Subtask 6.4 by helping to guide AGMC’s curriculum and training development. Re-orient Tasks to Enhance Regional Focus Recommendation 4: LEAD should re-orient its tasks to provide increased impetus to the strategic elements of the program that meet key regional needs and can be sustained beyond the life of the current project. Based on evidence from findings presented under evaluation question 133, the MTE team recommends that LEAD clearly define its niche as a strategic regional program by re-orienting its task level activities to improve the regional cohesiveness of activities and appropriately balance the allocation of resources between regional platforms and national/sub-national participation in regional capacity building and cooperation. Specifically, under Subtask 6.2, LEAD should strengthen regional experience sharing on LEDS related strategies and policies that can explicitly contribute to economic and social development, including on green growth, green economy, low carbon development and sustainable development. The near term focus should be on relevant policy frameworks and institutional arrangements that could support LEDS implementation. This activity should include dialogue and experience sharing on sector specific strategies that could be mainstreamed in national development agendas. In this context, LEAD should focus increased attention on awareness building among national decision makers and communication of the LEDS approach to all stakeholders and strengthening the community of practice in the region through more regular peer exchanges34. LEAD could potentially engage more countries in the ALP such as China, Japan, Korea35 and Singapore via the annual Asia LEDS Forum. This would ensure that the experiences of these (and other) nations 33 Among other findings, it was noted that the Task 1 effort failed to fully capture Asian ground realities in light of the collapse of the global carbon markets. As a result, the continuing emphasis on developing GHG registries (Task 4 – LEAD Indicator 12)) may be misplaced. As stated in the conclusions on evaluation question 1, related efforts under Task 3 and Task 4 could be reexamined to enhance their effectiveness. 34 The conclusions on the findings related to evaluation question 1 indicate that this should be a fairly high priority for LEAD. 35 Engaging all nations will require considerable tact and patience. A phased approach that links cooperation on EC-LEDS to broader economic and policy cooperation among nations could lead to improved communication and cooperation on LEAD supported initiatives. 56 are available to strengthen LEAD’s inputs into LEDS. In addition, the early engagement of these stakeholders could result in continued support for the legacy initiatives—ALP and AGMC—beyond the life of the LEAD project. In the medium to long term, ALP should be supported through a “coalition of willing” stakeholders that includes the countries mentioned above as well other national governments in Asia and key multilateral donor agencies, NGOs, and academic/research institutions36. Regional entities such as the ASEAN and SAARC could also be included in this coalition. Task 3 should be modified to identify and develop suitable case studies from the numerous existing LEDS efforts in the region37. These include efforts initiated by LEAD and those initiated independent of LEAD. The case studies would support a cost effective and regional approach for highlighting best practices. The pilot (demonstration) projects that are being planned by LEAD at the national and sub￾national levels should be carefully examined to ensure that only those initiatives that support the development of relevant “case studies” for regional learning and knowledge sharing are implemented. As noted in the findings, given the delays in implementing Task 3, several planned activities have been on hold and/or delayed. This provides an opportunity to examine the scope, scale and sequence of planned activities to emphasize the fact that a case study approach could effectively gather relevant information that could be shared via the LEAD knowledge sharing platforms (AGMC and ALP). All pilot activities should be re-prioritized to ensure that the activities undertaken lead to the development of meaningful case studies for eventual knowledge sharing38. To increase program impact, LEAD (and other stakeholders) should conduct follow-up Task 3 activities on pilot implementation to ensure accounting protocols are developed, maintained, and used by NGOs and private sector organizations (in addition to government agencies at the pilot sites). Whilst there is private sector engagement in the India pilot that explicitly targets private sector companies from the BCCI, private sector engagement should also be extended to the pilots in Vietnam and Thailand in order create impact on a larger scale.39 In that context, LEAD should build on its role as a successful integrator of USG resources40. Having overcome some of the initial hurdles associated with fluctuating funding levels and incompatible activity cycles at the participating US agencies, LEAD is now well positioned to ramp up its role and increase the value added by USG-agency participation in Asia. In the near term, the LEAD Country Coordinators could be used to help customize agency inputs to the needs of the region and support the curriculum development efforts at AGMC41. As a practical outcome of this experience in integrating USG resources, LEAD should develop a “manual of best practices” for future integrators – the lessons learned from this experience should be used to institutionalize the process of resource integration. Under subtask 6.3, LEAD should enhance activities towards establishing an online Community of Practice (COP). This should extend and scale up to involve participants at LEAD events. To encourage active involvement of stakeholders in the online COP, integration should be done with training 36 The LEDS GP platforms in Africa and Latin America are not funded by USAID – their institutional structure should be examined for possible lessons learned for the ALP. 37 KII respondents indicated a desire to share and discuss case studies (findings under evaluation question 3). 38 The findings indicate that, currently, this is not the case (even though the work plan alludes to this approach). 39 This is based on findings related to evaluation question 3. 40 As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, the IP integrates the inputs of the USEPA, USFS and NREL under LEAD. Specifically, it helps with the administration and logistics of USG inputs into regional and national training events. 41 This will begin to address some of the stakeholder concerns identified in the finding on LEAD’s role as a regional integrator of USG resources. 57 programs and regional of LEAD including those under the ALP and AGMC. The online COP can act as a platform for participant registration, provision of preparatory materials for events and exercises. The COP could also be branded as a regional professional body dealing with LEDS and Green Growth with basic accreditation. To strengthen peer to peer networking and experience sharing, LEAD regional events (such as the Asia LEDS forum) should try to target repeat participation by attendees of previous events. This will sustain the dialogue initiated and promote more intensive peer to peer networking. Findings to question 1 (demand vs. supply driven) highlighted that it is not feasible for RDMA and the bilateral missions to meet all regional or individual country needs for LEDS related support. However, these needs could be facilitated through the regional platforms established i.e. the ALP and AGMC. These platforms can facilitate identification of priority regional or country needs for LEDS/green growth and link this to available donor support, as demonstrated in the recent Asia LEDS forum 2014. Such facilitation and regional match making can be done on a more frequent basis through engagement of the respective working groups under the LEDS-GP (e.g. clean energy, landscapes, financing etc). Recommendation 5: LEAD should refocus its GHG market development activities to take into account the diminished status of world carbon markets. This report has cited several findings related to how the downturn in carbon market trends has adversely affected the potential impact of some tasks. Task 4 should be modified to reflect the substantially diminished global demand for carbon credits. Activities under Task 4 could refocus efforts on demand driven GHG market areas such as supporting corporate GHG and sustainability reporting and on regional climate finance. Activities under Task 4 can include technical assistance and support for establishing corporate GHG and sustainability reporting schemes. These could support sustainability reporting initiatives in national stock markets (e.g. ESG indexes in Malaysia and Indonesia). At a regional level, LEAD should engage with relevant ASEAN and SAARC platforms (e.g., those dealing with energy and climate change) to explore the feasibility of a regional GHG reporting scheme or index. Activities under Task 4 can also include facilitation of regional climate financing from a multitude of sources (donors, government and private sector). This can take the form of a one-stop-shop or clearing house that provides information on available climate finance options. The Information provision channel can include the existing knowledge platform established by LEAD and relevant stakeholder entities in LEAD countries. Climate financing information that can be facilitated includes climate financing from donors, bilateral and multi-lateral agencies; climate financing from private sector (including green banks and angel investment), green financing schemes, impact investments, climate finance, and green bonds. Recommendation 6: At a programmatic level, LEAD should consider refocusing its work on fewer countries and engaging at additional levels in priority countries. The findings on the regional approach to capacity building and those under Tasks 2, 3, 5 and 6 indicate a wide range of capacity levels in partner countries, which can be a challenge for future LEAD implementation. Countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand are viewed as leaders in specific technical aspects of LEDS and GHG accounting. On the other hand, countries such as Cambodia, Laos, and Papua New Guinea are at the early stages of establishing basic systems for developing inventories, accounting and reporting systems. 58 Given the fact that 19% of total LEAD resources are allocated to Task 2 (see finding related to resource allocation among tasks) and consumes the second largest proportion of the annual program budget, not only is it worthwhile to reevaluate the country specific activities such that they feed into a coherent regional strategy42 but it is imperative that LEAD examines the wisdom of operating in all partner countries simultaneously. It may be worthwhile to engage with fewer countries at more meaningful levels such that project resources are not “spread too thin.” The lessons learned from the initial engagements could be used to expand the reach of the program if deemed necessary. This expansion should be well planned through periodic assessment of global trends on climate change issues as well as assessment of country needs and capabilities. This dynamic approach to program implementation will be a critical aspect of ensuring long term sustainability of regional activities and regional cohesion. Given LEAD’s success in engaging government stakeholders on strategically important initiatives in Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, the program should enhance engagement of these countries in regional activity in addition to the existing knowledge exchange and capacity building. LEAD should engage these countries in catalyzing the launch of AGMC services (Subtask 6.4) and in establishing regional dialogue on LEDS. Indonesia should continue to be a part of LEAD only if it can be integrated into regional program activities43. Although Malaysia has contributed towards regional interactions and some regional cohesiveness44 buy-in of key agencies and decision makers should be enhanced in line with Recommendation 1. Work in Nepal should be carefully monitored to ensure the buy-in and regular engagement of relevant stakeholders and to guarantee that planned activities are designed to achieve overall expected outcomes at the regional level. In each case, the LEAD country coordinators should play a critical role in raising LEAD’s visibility and coordinating stakeholder involvement in regional activities. LEAD should reassess activities in Bangladesh, India, Laos, and Papua New Guinea. It is likely that LEAD’s resources will be better utilized as a regional program if country specific activities in these member nations are dropped from the program. 45 These countries could continue to participate in regional platforms such as the ALP, AGMC, and regional capacity building activities and in the annual LEDS forum. LEAD should also assess if stakeholder involvement in regional platforms such as the ALP and annual LEDS forum should be expanded Asia-wide (including Central Asia and Asia Pacific countries) or whether it should continue to involve countries from RDMA’s core geographic focus of South East-Asia and targeted countries of South Asia. In this context, it should be noted that currently, LEAD relies very heavily on the Bilateral USAID Missions to determine country specific needs and uses the information provided by the Missions to 42 This action is suggested in Recommendation 4. 43 Consultations with RDMA indicate that demand from Indonesia for regional participation has been strong even while country-specific capacity building needs have been limited to LEAP training. 44 For example, LEAD could build on successful interactions between Malaysian and Nepali stakeholders. The “one-off” Indonesia activity was opportunistic and successful; however, given the wide range of activities undertaken by USAID/Indonesia, it is important to re-examine LEAD’s Indonesian involvement within an overall regional strategy. 45 It should be noted that the activity in India is in its nascent stage and could be viewed as being part of a strategic initiative involving the Indian private sector. However, discussions with the private sector stakeholder revealed that it would pursue the initiative on its own “with or without LEAD’s support”. The added value of LEAD’s engagement in India is, at best, marginal. 59 design the program’s national and regional activities. This approach does have the advantage of being “demand driven” and enjoys Mission buy-in. It also supports on-going Mission-led and other donor-led efforts. However, the Bilateral Missions often lack the perspectives, resources and expertise needed to prioritize country needs within the context of overall regional needs and priorities. Hence, LEAD has run the risk of designing and implementing country-driven activities that may not always support regional priorities. Expand Training and Knowledge Sharing Opportunities Recommendation 7: LEAD should expand the scope of the AGMC, under Subtask 6.4, to become a region wide center for expert assistance and training We learned from the findings that LEAD country stakeholders strongly advocate for the use of national training institutes and national trainers as a replication mechanism. The AGMC should expand its scope beyond a location specific center to become a region wide entity that involves a network of existing institutions. The AGMC should then aim to harmonize the offerings of the training, capacity building and knowledge sharing service in LEDS related areas from existing vendors by: 1. Providing standardization and accreditation of existing training materials developed by a variety of institutions operating in the region, 2. Providing accreditation for training providers in the region (such as training institutions in LEAD countries) that can deliver AGMC accredited training material, and 3. Commissioning and developing new training materials. The business plan for the AGMC (Subtask 6.4) should include a provision for the AGMC to act as a credible, high quality provider of LEDS related expert assistance in the region. This could include the conduct of studies, development of policy documents and strategy papers, technical assistance, and studies supporting based on the needs of stakeholders in the region. Such services can cover areas such as: 1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), 2. Development of proposals for the NAMAs facility and 3. Development of concept notes for the UNFCCC. LEAD should consider hiring a full-time training coordinator46 to support AGMC in establishing a brand identify for itself such that it is able to provide a unique set of services to the region based on a careful assessment of regional needs in support of LEDS (and related initiatives such as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions and NAMAs). A competent training coordinator should be able to assess country specific needs and capabilities and match them up with relevant USG and other resources to provide value added services through AGMC. Over time, this approach will enhance AGMC’s credibility and garner support from multiple stakeholders. The AGMC can also house a database of accredited regional experts and service providers. 46 This training coordinator role could be filled by one of the country coordinators, as long (s)he possess the relevant expertise and LOE. 60 The AGMC should develop programs that target LDCs such Cambodia and Nepal (and eventually Myanmar, Laos and PNG) based on topics in Tasks 2, 3 and 5. This could contribute towards improved regional cohesion as Cambodia, Nepal and other LDCs would be in a better position to benefit from and contribute to the regional knowledge exchange, peer learning and dialogue footnoted previously. Recommendation 8: LEAD should customize training events and materials for individual countries and support curriculum development in national institutions and universities. Findings 1.4, 3.3, and 3.4 highlight the need for LEAD to customize trainings and to provide effective follow-up and support materials to enable training participants to operationalize and implement activities in their respective countries. LEAD should measure the capacity of stakeholders in Tasks 2, 3 and 5 and adapt tools and training materials to the different skill and experience levels of stakeholders, working together within their respective enabling and incentive (policy and market) environments. This strategy is most important for capacity building related to MRV, geo-spatial analysis, economic valuation (including TBL), and LEAP and related tools. LEAD capacity building activities in Tasks 2 to 5 should include: (i) “training of trainers” activities with national experts and institutions; (ii) training through country-specific case studies; (iii) a combination of field work and classroom training; (iv) the rotation of training event venues between partner countries and Bangkok, to allow for the incorporation of site visits and country-specific learning into the program; and (v) the provision of relevant equipment to stakeholders and in-country practitioners for training purposes, to facilitate better knowledge absorption and use. LEAD should take stock of the current perceptions of AGMC in the region and aim to build increased awareness among international, regional and national stakeholders of AGMC's potentially unique role. Awareness-building activities can also ensure that stakeholders do not view the AGMC as duplicating the efforts of other programs and institutions. Strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of AGMC include: (i) clarifying AGMC’s agenda and focus; (ii) pairing international experts with local agencies; (iii) supporting greater involvement of national and regional experts in the program beyond specific training events; and (iv) implementing the AGMC business plan. With increased buy-in, input, and coordination, the AGMC can improve its offerings and promote the sustainability of LEAD-initiated activities. 61 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID/RDMA’s Regional Environment Office (REO) is conducting a mid-term performance evaluation of the LEAD Program in order to achieve four key objectives: 1) Determine how successful the LEAD Program has been in meeting and/or completing SOW and Work Plan objectives, implementation requirements, and deliverables, and overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative and the US Government’s LEDS initiatives; 2) Identify implementation challenges and instances where the program failed to meet objectives; 3) Recommend corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and implementation, and progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the program period; and 4) Recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level and further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program. The scope of this mid-term performance evaluation will encompass all the key activities that contribute to the achievement of the LEAD Program’s overall goal and objectives. Data-based evidence in support of the evaluation findings will be essential. The mid-term evaluation will be used to improve the performance of the second half of the program and make necessary adjustments to enhance the measurement of outcomes when the program is complete. The evaluation is also expected to be of use to donors, NGOs, host country governments, and other USAID missions working on climate change adaptation preparation facilities throughout the Asia-Pacific region. AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USES The primary stakeholders to benefit from the findings of the mid-term evaluation include:  USAID/RDMA;  The LEAD Program team, including ICF International and its subcontractor partners;  Other USAID and US Government agency partners supporting LEDS-related activities in Asia including: o USAID Bilateral Missions in Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and Vietnam; o USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and the Environment (E3); o USAID Asia Bureau (USAID/Asia); o US Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Scientific Affairs, Office of Global Change (State/OES/OGC) o US Embassies in all USAID-presence countries in Asia as well as in China, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand; o US Forest Service (USFS); o US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); o US Department of Energy Labs Consortium (particularly the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL]); and 62  USAID’s external bilateral, regional, and international partners and key stakeholders that address LEDS issues across the Asia-Pacific region, including participating host country government agencies and other international partners (bilateral donors, multilateral institutions, NGOs, academic institutions, research institutions, think tanks, etc.). USAID/RDMA anticipates that E3 will be able to disseminate evaluation findings to Missions with similar programs; and that NGOs and multilateral organizations operating in this sphere will also benefit from reviewing evaluation results. The table below summarizes how these audiences will or could use the evaluation results. Evaluation Task Principal Information Users Evaluate progress to date toward agreed program objectives and intermediate results; analyze concrete results and tangible impacts that LEAD is expected to create on its current trajectory; determine how successful the program has been in meeting and/or completing SOW and Work Plan objectives, implementation requirements, and deliverables, as well as overall objectives of the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative and the US Government’s LEDS initiatives USAID/RDMA, implementing partners Identify implementation challenges and instances where the program failed to meet objectives USAID/RDMA, implementing partners Recommend corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and implementation, progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the program period; recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level in addition to further strengthening the regional cohesive approach of the program USAID/RDMA, implementing partners, NGOs, USAID bilateral Missions EVALUATION QUESTIONS The mid-term performance evaluation will focus on answering four key questions, as follows, specifically with regard to Tasks 2-7 (including applicable Sub-tasks) as outlined in the LEAD Program contract Statement of Work and program Work Plans (i.e., FY2013-FY2013 Work Plan and FY2014 Work Plan), and addressing key program elements where applicable. 1) To what extent has implementation of activities related to the key program elements, listed below, been effective in achieving expected results? Key Program Elements 63  implementation of individual Tasks and Sub-tasks;  efforts to achieve meaningful, significant programmatic results (focusing primarily on “outcome”-oriented results, such as promoting near and long term low emission development and GHG emissions mitigation, as opposed to “input” or “output,” process￾oriented results);  efforts to ensure sustainability of individual Tasks and Sub-tasks and of programmatic results;  promotion of gender equality as required in the SOW;  promotion of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership as US Government priorities;  role of regional Program Integrator for US Government LEDS activities in Asia;  appropriately balanced allocation of resources between regional platforms (such as the Asia LEDS Partnership and AGMC); national- and sub-national level participation in regional capacity building and cooperation; national-level activities; and sub-national level activities; and  support for “demand-driven” requests from countries and USAID bilateral Missions to support LEDS (including clean energy and sustainable landscapes activities). Note: Key program elements may be further refined by USAID/RDMA and the contractor prior to commencing with the consultation phase of the evaluation. 2) How has the timeliness of the implementation of activities related to the key program elements listed above affected the overall results of the program to date? 3) What specific factors have helped or hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements listed above in achieving expected results? 4) What adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement are needed to ensure effectiveness in achieving expected results during the remaining duration of the program? The contractor must prepare responses to question #4 above in the form of actionable recommendations in the evaluation report. These may include opportunities to add, change, or remove Tasks and/or Sub-tasks; change the emphasis on individual countries; and/or change the relative emphasis between regional, national and sub-national level activities to address the USAID objective to “focus and concentrate.” EVALUATION DESIGN AND PROCESS This mid-term performance evaluation is intended to answer the evaluation questions presented above. The suggested conceptual approach that will be used to answer these questions will focus on but not be limited to the following: desk study, key informant interviews, site visits, and consultations with relevant stakeholders. Other applicable qualitative and quantitative methods may be proposed as appropriate. An evaluation team comprised of independent external consultants, with support from members of USAID and possibly other organizations (see section C.4), will examine the performance of the LEAD Program from the start of the agreement through the evaluation period. While the evaluation should address past performance, USAID is also interested in forward-looking recommendations on possible 64 strategies for improving the second half of the program and accelerating regional efforts to promote sustainable, low-emission, climate-resilient development in Asia’s developing countries. The evaluation scope of work requires the evaluating consultants to gather information on the program, analyze that information, and provide answers to the evaluation questions. The independent external consultants are to work in conjunction with other team members to plan and implement this evaluation. USAID/RDMA and the full evaluation team will need to be heavily involved with design, planning, and logistics, but the consultants are expected to provide significant overall leadership and direction, exercise a degree of autonomy, as well as have the final responsibility for conducting the evaluation and completing evaluation deliverables. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS The evaluation team will be required to evaluate this multi-faceted program in a timely manner. Data requirements, collection methods, and required analyses will be determined collaboratively with USAID/RDMA under the direction of an independent, external team leader (not affiliated with USAID or the program). Details on final datasets, collection methods (including interview questions and key informants to be interviewed), and analytical framework(s) will be approved by USAID/RDMA as part of the initial work plan approval. Data are expected to be disaggregated by sex, where relevant, and level of intervention (regional; national/country; and sub-national). As summarized below, the data collection and analysis process will comprise three phases. All questions stated in section C.3 must be addressed, to the extent practical, in all three phases. The desk study and internal consultations may also support planning for key informant interviews and focus group discussions.  Desk Study: The evaluation team must review existing data, documents and information listed below, and work with USAID/RDMA to acquire additional documents and information as needed, in addition to prioritizing primary data collection where gaps remain.  Internal Consultations: The evaluation team must meet in-person or hold conference calls with key stakeholders to identify specific priority areas for the evaluation. These may include but are not limited to USAID/RDMA, USAID/Asia Bureau, USAID/E3, State/OES/OGC, USEPA, USFS, NREL, and relevant USAID bilateral missions and US Embassies. For purposes of this SOW, USAID/RDMA expects that in-person meetings will be required with USAID Missions in the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, and Nepal and US Embassies in Vientiane and Bangkok.  Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions: The evaluation team must conduct in-person interviews and focus group discussions with program implementing partners, collaborating partners, program beneficiaries, and others listed as key stakeholders in section C.2 to allow for a range of perspectives and give depth to the evaluation. 65 METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Method Strengths Limitations Desk study  Provides valuable information on substantive issues and generates a list of questions including key stakeholders that can be used in other methods  Helps to focus efforts and prioritize issues and gaps  Time consuming  Depends on resource availability Consultation  Provides valuable information on substantive issues and generates a list of questions including key stakeholders that can be used in other methods  Provides greater depth and insights and general surveys  Depends on availability of key stakeholders  Need to consider time zone differences Individual interview  Potentially data-rich, detailed answers  May need to interview through translators (possible loss of meaning and data richness)  May contain informant’s bias Focus group discussion  Can generate a broader range of ideas and responses.  Can include a greater number of participants in less time and result in rich discussion, if facilitated well.  Discussion may require the use of translators (possible loss of meaning and data richness).  Some respondents may dominate the discussion. EXISTING DATA A number of program-related documents including but not limited to the following will be available and provided upon award:  LEAD Program Statement of Work, list of deliverables and related documents (from contract);  LEAD Program “Implementation Plan” for GHG inventory capacity building in the Philippines in support of a buy-in from USAID/Philippines;  LEAD Program “Task 1” report on “Regional Priorities and Opportunities for Promoting Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) in Asia: Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations: Summary Report”;  LEAD annual Work Plan for FY 2012 - FY 2013;  Integrated LEDS Work Plan for FY 2014;  LEAD Performance Management Plan (PMP);  LEAD quarterly and annual reports;  LEAD Program technical reports and key deliverables;  Annual Work Plan(s) of the Asia LEDS Partnership (prepared by LEAD);  Communication materials;  USAID Climate Change and Development Strategy, January 2012;  USAID Operational Plan guidance on global climate change-funded programs, including LEDS 66 programs; and  USAID/RDMA/REO Global Climate Change Data Quality Assessment Report, 2012. TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will be comprised primarily of four (4) independent external consultants, as follows: 1. A Team Leader (international consultant) 2. An Assistant Team Leader/Subject Matter Expert (international consultant) 3. Two Evaluation Specialists (regional consultants) USAID requests that the Offeror propose how best to allocate responsibilities of external consultants serving on the evaluation team. The evaluation will be led by the Team Leader and supported by the Assistant Team Leader (also referred to as Subject Matter Expert) and the Evaluation Specialists. The Team Leader will be responsible for the overall implementation of the evaluation, ensuring that all expected tasks and deliverables are completed on time and of high quality. S/he must have significant professional experience coordinating similarly complex evaluations, and leading and managing evaluation teams. The candidate must have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must be fluent in English and have a master’s level degree with 15 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant analytical field (e.g., environmental studies, environmental science, economics, international development studies, foreign relations); doctorate-level credentials are an added strength. The Team Leader must have a solid understanding of LEDS programming (i.e., clean energy, sustainable landscapes, low emission analysis and decision-making tools and systems, GHG accounting, GHG market development, regional environmental partnerships). It would be highly desirable, but not required, to have knowledge and/or experience working with USAID rules, regulations, and procedures, particularly USAID’s evaluation policy and requirements of Clean Energy, Sustainable Landscapes, and LEDS programs. S/he will oversee the overall drafting of the evaluation framework, including methodology determinations; organization of calendar/travel/meetings; coordinate the desk study, interviews, and other data collection; and analyze the data with input from team members and USAID/RDMA in order to draft the evaluation report. The Assistant Team Leader/Subject Matter Expert will support the team leader in the implementation of the evaluation. S/he should have significant professional experience in implementing similarly complex evaluations that involve multiple stakeholders. The candidate must have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must be fluent in English and should have a master’s level degree with 10 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant analytical field (e.g., environmental studies, environmental science, economics, international development studies, foreign relations). S/he must have a solid understanding of LEDS programming. It would be highly desirable, but not required, to have knowledge and/or experience working with USAID rules, regulations and procedures, particularly USAID’s evaluation policy and requirements of Clean Energy, Sustainable Landscapes and LEDS programs. S/he will contribute to the overall drafting of the evaluation framework by participating in the desk study, interviews, and other data collection; and analyzing the data with input from team members and USAID/RDMA to draft the evaluation report. 67 The regional Evaluation Specialists will provide additional technical support to the evaluation team as well as support the administrative and logistical functions necessary to carry out the evaluation. S/he should be a national or local expert from the region and have strong organizational skills. S/he should have strong English writing and speaking skills in addition to a university level degree with 8 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant field (e.g., program/project management, program/project evaluation, international development and diplomacy, climate change mitigation, LEDS). S/he must have experience working regionally, with international organizations or on regional programming. S/he will assist in coordinating the desk study, conducting interviews and other data collection and providing overall administrative and logistical support, including meeting arrangements for the team. The external consultants will be supervised by the task order (TO) Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) while working closely with the LEAD Program COR to gain in-depth information of the program activities. The TO COR and/or Alternate COR will provide strategic direction and guidance throughout the evaluation process, including the development of the work plan, any data collection tools, and the evaluation report outline, approach, and content. In addition to the independent external consultants, the evaluation team may be complemented by additional team members, including: 4. LEDS Specialist (USAID/Washington) 5. LEDS Specialist (State/OES/OGC) 6. Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (USAID/RDMA) The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will assist in the overall evaluation implementation, planning, reviewing and commenting on draft report. The LEDS Specialists from USAID/Washington and/or State/OES/OGC will provide complementary technical assistance to the evaluation team. These individuals will be confirmed with the evaluation team following award. It is expected that the team members identified above will be able to participate virtually for the desk study, work plan, and inception report review as well as assist in the preparation and review of the draft final report. They also should be able to participate in the evaluation field visits for at least 1-2 weeks. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT AND LOGISTICS The LEAD Program supports activities in primarily 11 countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines, PNG, Thailand, and Vietnam). The evaluation team is expected to visit and conduct field visits for consultation in at least seven of these countries (including Thailand), as well as in the United States. USAID/RDMA suggests that the evaluation include Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—countries where the LEAD Program has been most active to date—although the mix of countries may change following award and discussion with USAID/RDMA. To save time and cost, USAID/RDMA recommends that the evaluation team separates into two sub-teams for site visits and data collection. The evaluation team will receive support from USAID/RDMA in selecting priority organizations and places to visit during the evaluation, and in gaining country clearance where appropriate. The evaluation team is expected to schedule interviews or other modes of data collection with key stakeholders, although USAID and LEAD Program’s contractor can assist in providing contact information. The evaluation team is also responsible for making its own meeting and logistical 68 arrangements including: hotel, air travel, and local transportation arrangements in accordance with US requirements for allowable carriers and per diem. Team members should have the necessary language skills for countries of focus, or engage local language interpreters to support interviews and reviews of local language documents and records, where necessary. RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor will implement the evaluation under the technical direction of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). All contracted evaluation experts will work in conjunction with other evaluation team members to plan and implement the proposed evaluations. USAID/RDMA and the full evaluation team will be involved in the design, planning, and logistics, but the Contractor must provide the leadership and direction and is responsible for the key evaluation duties and deliverables. 69 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Chapter 3 provides an overview of the evaluation methods used. This annex provides additional details regarding the evaluation methods used by the MTE team including:  Survey methodology  Data collection: KIIs and FGDs  Country data analysis: KIIs and FGDs  Synthesis of Findings and Conclusions  Evaluation quality assurance (QA) approach   SURVEY METHODOLOGY Survey Design: Several preemptive measures were taken into consideration during survey design stage in order to ensure content validity of the mini-survey. The scales, wording and order of questions within this survey were specifically chosen in an effort to promote accurate self-reporting of participants attitudes towards the LEAD training attended. Specifically, for all items measured on a scale a 7-point response scale with regularly spaced numbers with descriptive anchor words (far left, middle, far right) was used. Statistical research has shown that participants give more accurate responses when only given descriptions at anchor points, and bipolar scales have maximum reliability and validity at 7 points (Palmer, 2002). In addition, questions were re-written to remove any double-barreled items (asking two questions in one sentence), or any phrases that were leading or included strong emotional words (Schwarz, 1999). The delivery of the survey through an online format allowed the survey questions to be presented in a random order to each respondent. Categorical answers to questions were also randomized when appropriate. These measures reduce the likelihood of any primacy or order effects (Groves et. al, 2009). Participants were identified from attendance logs with names and email addresses of all participants at LEAD training events conducted. After any duplicate emails were removed, each attendee received a personal email seeking responses to mini-survey. The original request was sent out on August 20, 2014, and two reminders were sent out on August 22, 2014 and August 25, 2014 in order to maximize response rates. Out of the 527 viable emails messages sent out, 206 emails were opened. In total, 190 individuals responded; 154 respondents fully completed and 36 respondents partially completed the survey. This places the total response rate at 36.1% (higher than typical online response rates of 10-20% (Nulty, 2008). Table 1: Country of Origin of Respondents Country Number Percentage Thailand 27 18% Vietnam 26 17.3% Cambodia 25 16.7% Philippines 19 12.7% Nepal 17 11.3% Indonesia 11 7.3% Malaysia 11 7.3% Bangladesh 4 2.7% India 4 2.7% Laos 3 2.0% Papua New Guinea 3 2.0% 70 Data Analysis: Data was exported from Survey Gizmo and analyzed using the SPSS v21 data analysis tool. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables and means, ranges, standard deviations and percentages were calculated for continuous variables. Survey Sample Demographics: The sample was fairly representative of the countries in which the LEAD RDMA Trainings have taken place (see Table 1). Of those who responded 64.7% were male, 35.3% female. This is likely due to the original gender composition of the attendance list. This cannot be confirmed because gender-specific information was not collected by LEAD. A majority of respondents were between the ages of 35-54 (49.7%). Two age groups followed this age group: 25-34 (36.6%), 55+ (7.8%), and 18-24 (3.9%). The economic and educational backgrounds of respondents were also diverse. A majority of respondents held either a bachelor’s degree (35.7%) or a post-graduate degree (62.3%), but their educational backgrounds varied greatly (see Table 2). As Figure 1 indicates, respondents were also widely distributed in terms of household income, ranging from less than US $3,000 per year (23.5%) to US $18,000 and above (13.8%). Most respondents reported either full professional working proficiency (22.1%) or working proficiency (46.8%) in the English language. However, as indicated in Figure 2, a significant proportion of participants reported limited working proficiency in English (27%). Table 2: Educational Backgrounds of Respondents Country Number Percentage Accounting 1 0.7% Aerospace/Automotive 1 0.7% Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 20 13.3% Biotechnology 2 1.3% Business/Professional Studies 1 0.7% Construction 1 0.7% Consulting 3 2.0% Education 4 2.7% Engineering / Architecture 36 24.0% Government/Military 4 2.7% Healthcare / Medical 2 1.3% Legal 3 2.0% Mining 3 2.0% Research / Science 12 8.0% Utilities 1 0.7% Environment / Climate Change 38 25.3% Economics 9 6.0% Figure 1: Household Income 71 DATA COLLECTION: KIIS AND FGDS Data collection for KIIs was done using semi structured questionnaires. These questionnaires consisted of sub questions that would contribute to answer each of the evaluation questions. These sub-questions were derived in terms of the six program elements of relevance and quality of design, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, partnerships and sustainability that are based on OECD DAC criteria. Specific questionnaires were developed for each of the following stakeholder groups:  US Government including USG partner agencies and USAID bilateral missions (USG);  Stakeholder Government agencies (GOV) from the respective LEAD countries;  Donors and NGOs (INT) implementing LEDS related activity in the LEAD countries  Trainees (TRN) who have participated in LEAD’s capacity building activities. In some cases these overlapped with stakeholder GOV and PVT stakeholder groups – they provided additional information in their capacities as GOV or PVT; and  LEAD implementing partners (IP), including ICF, subcontractor staff members and LEAD country coordinators. These questionnaires are provided in Annex 3. Data collection for FGDs was undertaken using FGD guides, in order to gather information to answer specific sub-questions to each evaluation question based on the target group type. The FGD guides are provided in Annex 3. Country Data Analysis: KIIs and FGDs The findings from each evaluation question were analyzed in terms of the specific sub-questions under each program element. The analysis was done on a country-by-country basis. The findings from KIIs and Figure 2: Fluency in English 72 FGDs for each country were analyzed in terms of sub-evaluation questions and the level of support from each of the specific stakeholder groups. A high (H) level of support for an issue was defined as over 70% of respondents (from KIIs and FGDs) providing consensus. A moderate (M) level of support for an issue was defined as 40% to 70% of respondents (from KIIs, FGDs) providing consensus. A low (L) level of support for an issue was defined as less than 40% of respondents (from KIIs, FGDs) providing consensus. These levels of support were supplemented by the findings from the desk study and the mini￾survey. An extract of the template used for this analysis is provided in Matrix A. Further qualitative analysis was done for each country in terms of the extent to which activities in the country are contributing towards achievement of the expected key results for LEAD. The constraints faced by the countries in meeting these results and specific needs to address these results were also covered (Matrix B). Finally a general qualitative analysis was done for each country covering the evaluation questions across the key program elements (Matrix C). Matrices A, B and C (as blank templates) are presented in this annex for illustrative purposes. The completed matrices with data from KIIs and FGDs in the U.S., Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are not presented to respect the anonymity of the respondents. The following table outlines the codes used to develop the country specific analyses using Matrices A, B and C. 73 CODING USED IN THE ANALYSIS CODES EXPLANATION NA at country level   The question applies at the regional level and not at the country level. Source of Evidence: E1.   KIIs E2.   FGD E3.   Mini‐survey E4.   Desk Study Organization types USG US Government agencies GOV National government agencies in Asia INT International agencies including donors and NGO's TRN Trainees that participated in LEAD events PVT Private sector entities Strength of Action H High M Medium L Low 74 MATRIX A (TEMPLATE): ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS FROM KIIS AND FGDS FRAMEWORK FOR EACH COUNTRY Sub-questions SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BY SOURCES E1US G E1G OV E1IN T E1 TRN E1 PVT E2G OV E2 INT E2T RN E2PV T E3 E4 Question 1: To what extent has LEAD been effective in achieving its expected results? 2. To what extent have target groups been defined in the LEAD SOW or in its implementation plans? 3. Were key USG stakeholders involved in the design of activities? 4. Were key country stakeholders involved in the design of activities? 5. To what extent have tasks/sub-tasks been designed to meet requests from countries and bilateral Missions to support LEDS? 6. To what extent are the most suitable training methods used, bearing in mind the operating context of the target countries? 7. To what extent are the most suitable tools (e.g. software, modelling, etc.) applied, bearing in mind the operating context and capacities of target countries? 8. Has LEAD designed activities that provide good value for money? 9. Has LEAD appropriately balanced the allocation of resources between regional platforms (e.g. ALP and AGMC); national and sub-national level participation in regional capacity building and cooperation; national-level activities; and sub-national￾level activities? 10. What proportion of LEAD’s total anticipated outputs been achieved to date? 75 Sub-questions SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BY SOURCES E1US G E1G OV E1IN T E1 TRN E1 PVT E2G OV E2 INT E2T RN E2PV T E3 E4 Question 3: What specific factors have helped or hindered the effective implementation of activities related to the key program elements in achieving expected results? 30. To what extent have LEAD’s processes been flexible to accommodate any changing needs/requests from countries? 31. To what extent have the deliverables in the SOW supported the delivery of relevant results? 32. To what extent are the indicators in the PMP output oriented as opposed to result oriented? 33. To what extent are target groups able to absorb the TA? 34. To what extent are institutional capacities developed as opposed to individual capacities? 35. To what extent have suitable program staff been identified and employed to Implement LEAD activities? 36. To what extent has the achievement of outputs contributed to the achievement of expected results? 37. To what extent has the ALP secretariat been able to support the regional collaboration and peer exchange in LEDS? 76 Sub-questions SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BY SOURCES E1US G E1G OV E1IN T E1 TRN E1 PVT E2G OV E2 INT E2T RN E2PV T E3 E4 38. Is LEAD able to make use of the various strengths and capacities of USG stakeholders? Question 4: What adjustments, corrective actions, and specific areas for improvement are needed to ensure effectiveness in achieving expected results during the remaining duration of the program? 46. To what extent can LEAD activities be better aligned with country specific development agendas and local needs in LEDS areas 47. Will the impact and sustainability prospects from LEAD improve through a focus on specific LEAD countries? 48. What improved local partnerships can be established (e.g. with academia/training providers) to support delivery of LEAD activities and maximize up scaling of results? 49. Has LEAD identified synergies and developed partnerships with relevant bilateral, regional and international organizations (e.g. donors, development partners, NGOs and institutes)? 50. What staffing and resource corrections are needed to improve timeliness and value for money in the implementation of activities? 51. What strategic partnerships need to be developed by LEAD to support implementation and improve strategic positioning in its target countries? 52. What synergies and partnerships with relevant bilateral, regional and international organizations can add value to the overall objective of LEAD? 53. What adjustments in LEAD activities are needed to establishing at least three new operational GHG trading platforms or registries? 77 MATRIX B (TEMPALTE): ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTION TO EXPECTED RESULTS OF LEAD Framework for Each Country MATRIX B: EVALUATION OF LEAD EXPECTED RESULTS – COUNTRY 1 EXPECTED RESULTS WILL RESULT BE COMPLETELY ACHIEVED BY SEPTEMBER 2016? SCALE OF: 1(NO), 2 (MAYBE) & 3 (YES) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (FROM MEETINGS, FGDS, SURVEYS) PROVIDE SOURCE CONSTRAINTS I. Capacity to prepare and complete high￾quality national GHG inventories every two years achieved in this (out of five) country. (IR2: GHG inventory and accounting systems at the national and sub-national levels strengthened) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: II. Clean energy and landscapes-focused GHG accounting protocols and tools developed, adopted, and used by hundreds of private and public organizations. (IR 1.1: Implementation of LEDS strengthened & IR2: GHG inventory and accounting systems at the national and sub-national levels strengthened) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: III. A new operational GHG trading platform or registry established in this country. (IR3: GHG markets strengthened) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: IV. GHG accounting services industry takes root in this (out of five) developing country. (IR 3.2: Ability to participate in GHG markets improved) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: V. LEDS - including policies, plans, models, and tools - adopted and under implementation in this (out of five) country. (IR1: National and sub￾national LEDS created or improved ) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: 78 MATRIX C (TEMPALTE): QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY PROGRAM ELEMENTS Framework for Each Country MATRIX C: COUNTRY RANKINGS BY PROGRAM ELEMENT – COUNTRY PROGRAM ELEMENT TO DATE – WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF SUPPORT ON THIS PROGRAM ELEMENT? SCALE OF 1(LOW), 2 (MODERATE) & 3 (HIGH) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SUMMARIZED FROM TABLE 1.D (FROM MEETINGS, FGDS, SURVEYS) PROVIDE SOURCE A. Relevance B. Effectiveness C. Efficiency D. Partnerships E. Sustainability F. Impacts SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The findings from the analysis at country level were synthesized at the LEAD program level. This was done using the interpretive framework of evaluation questions, 6 key program elements and sub￾questions. Findings to each sub-question were answered in terms of:  Quantitative evidence from respondents to KIIs and FGDs, dealing with a particular issue across all countries was included. The level of support for findings for each sub-question was consolidated across all stakeholders that discussed the particular issue across all countries. The same scoring system used for the quantitative country analysis was applied, with high (H) level of support for an issue with “over 70% of respondents (from KIIs and FGDs) providing consensus”. A moderate (M) level of support for an issue had “40% to 70% of respondents (from KIIs, FGDs) providing consensus”. A low (L) level of support for an issue had “less than 40% of respondents (from KIIs, FGDs) providing consensus”.   Qualitative findings: relevant qualitative findings from the country analysis (using Matrices B and C) were included in the synthesis.   Findings from the mini-survey that helped answer specific sub-questions qualitatively or which provide specific quantitative evidence, were included.  Findings from the desk study were included which provided specific evidence. The conclusions were generated based on a synthesis and interpretation of findings. The conclusions 79 provide judgments of findings. In many cases the conclusions were developed based on a synthesis of a cluster of findings in terms of each evaluation question and program elements or a grouping of program elements. Based on the findings and conclusions, actionable recommendations were developed for (i) overall program management, (ii) regional level action and (iii) country level action. EVALUATION QUALITY ASSURANCE The MTE implemented the following QA measures:  Protocols for effective logistics arrangements (including organizing airline flights, visas, accommodation, local travel and meeting venues)  Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and responsibilities for interview and focus group management (e.g., contact, scheduling, meeting logistics and venues)  Consensus amongst team on approach to facilitating interviews and focus group discussions to answer the evaluation questions with minimal bias  Responsibilities for recording and analysis of interview and focus group data  Team discussions to analyze the data and conduct iterative enhancements of the analytical framework for the evaluation questions  Appointing a focal person from the MTE team for reporting  Peer review by QED HQ and USG evaluation participants  Professional editing of key deliverables. 80 MATRIX B: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTION TO EXPECTED RESULTS OF LEAD Framework for Each Country MATRIX B: EVALUATION OF LEAD EXPECTED RESULTS – COUNTRY 1 EXPECTED RESULTS WILL RESULT BE COMPLETELY ACHIEVED BY SEPTEMBER 2016? SCALE OF 1(NO) – 3 (YES) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (FROM MEETINGS, FGDS, SURVEYS – PROVIDE SOURCE) CONSTRAINTS I. Capacity to prepare and complete high-quality national GHG inventories every two years achieved in this (out of five) country. (IR2: GHG inventory and accounting systems at the national and sub-national levels strengthened) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: II. Clean energy and landscapes￾focused GHG accounting protocols and tools developed, adopted, and used by hundreds of private and public organizations. (IR 1.1: Implementation of LEDS strengthened & IR2: GHG inventory and accounting systems at the national and sub-national levels strengthened) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: III. A new operational GHG trading platform or registry established in this country. (IR3: GHG markets strengthened) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: IV. GHG accounting services industry takes root in this (out of five) developing country. (IR 3.2: Ability to participate in GHG markets improved) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: V. LEDS - including policies, plans, models, and tools - adopted and under implementation in this (out of five) country. (IR1: National and sub-national LEDS created or improved ) Country Specific: Region Specific: Program Design: Other: 81 MATRIX C: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY PROGRAM ELEMENTS Framework for Each Country MATRIX C: COUNTRY RANKINGS BY PROGRAM ELEMENT – COUNTRY PROGRAM ELEMENT TO DATE – WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF SUPPORT ON THIS PROGRAM ELEMENT? SCALE OF 1(LOW), 2 (MODERATE) & 3 (HIGH) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SUMMARIZED FROM TABLE 1.D (FROM MEETINGS, FGDS, SURVEYS – PROVIDE SOURCE) A. Relevance B. Effectiveness C. Efficiency D. Partnerships E. Sustainability F. Impacts 82 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE 1: GOVERNMENT STAKEHOLDERS Evaluation Question 1: Relevance and Quality of Design 1. What LEAD activities has your organization been involved in? 2. To what extent was your organization involved during the initial scoping activities? 3. To what extent are LEAD activities aligned with specific development priorities in your country (such as policies, action plans, etc) in your sector? 4. Does LEAD consult you to provide feedback when designing activities such as training workshops or other activities? Effectiveness 5. What feedback do you have on tools (e.g. software, modeling, etc) provided by LEAD? (e.g. are they useful, relevant, can be used by your staff, etc) 6. Are the training methods used suitable for your country? How can the training be improved? Efficiency 7. How does your organization coordinate LEAD activities with the LEAD program? 8. How would you describe the coordination process? What do you recommend to improve the coordination process? Partnerships 9. To what extent do you engage with the partnerships established by LEAD such as the ALP? 10. How useful are these partnerships to your current activities? 11. Are there other organizations that LEAD should engage within your country, to create greater impact (e.g. institutions, academia etc)? 12. Are there any other donors in your country who are operating in areas complementary to LEAD? Impact and Co￾benefits 13. What sectors in your country have the highest potential for impact from LEAD? 14. How have the LEAD capacity building activities resulted in improved national capacities to implement Low Emission development activities? 15. How did LEAD support the design or implementation of LEDS policies, plans, and tools in the country? Sustainability 16. What is the likelihood that activities and results initiated by LEAD will continue beyond the LEAD program period? 17. What are the mechanisms that can finance activities started by LEAD after the LEAD program ends? Evaluation Question 2: Timeliness Relevance and Quality of Design 18. What problems, if any, has your organization had with timeliness of lead activities? 19. To what extent have the timing of LEAD activities impacted support to specific national initiatives in LEDS? Impact and Co￾benefits 20. To what extent are LEAD activities at the national level aligned to the planning and decision-making timelines of your country? Evaluation Question 3: Relevance and Quality of Design 21. To what extent have LEAD’s processes been flexible to accommodate any changing needs/requests from your organization? Effectiveness 22. To what extent is the training material content appropriate to the capacities of your staff? 23. To what extent are institutional capacities developed as compared to individual capacities, through various LEAD activities? Efficiency 24. Partnerships 25. How was the regional collaboration and peer exchange supported by ALP been relevant to your organization? Impact and Co- 26. What widespread actions has your organization taken to adopt the GHG accounting protocols for private and public organizations? 83 benefits 27. Has LEAD been able to promote the establishment of a GHG accounting services industry in your country through the training of professionals in this area? Sustainability 28. To what extent have these activities been cost effective? Do you expect that these activities will continue after the LEAD program ends? 29. Are you aware of the AGMC (Asia GHG Management Centre)? If yes, to what extent would this be a suitable mechanism to support LEAD activities in the future? Evaluation Question 4: Relevance and Quality of Design 30. How can LEAD activities be better aligned with country specific development agendas and local needs in LEDS areas? Any specific areas you would like to mention? Effectiveness 31. Do you recommend any improvements in local partnerships (e.g. with academia/training providers) to support delivery of LEAD activities and maximize upscaling of results? 32. Do you have any recommendations to improve the capacity building activities in terms of relevance, effectiveness or impact? Efficiency 33. Can you provide any recommendations to improve coordination of LEAD activities with your organization? Impact and Co￾benefits 34. What adjustments should LEAD make to support institutional arrangements/policy instruments to harvest the long term co-benefits of a LEDS approach? 35. How has LEAD developed awareness and capacity to improve opportunities for gender participation in low emission development activity in your country? 36. How can LEAD contribute towards co-benefits in areas such as:  Economic and job opportunities (including clean energy and sustainable landscapes jobs)?  Large scale application of new and more efficient technologies through improved access channels and financing mechanisms?  Opportunities for industry and SMEs participation?  Creating opportunities for gender equality and gender participation?  Creating opportunities for improvement of local environment (e.g. reducing air pollution concentration in urban areas through cleaner public transportation systems or improving indoor air quality through cleaner energy)? Sustainability 37. What are your recommendations to create a greater prospect for sustainability of LEAD activities? QUESTIONNAIRE 2: BILATERAL MISSIONS  Evaluation Question 1: Relevance and Quality of Design 1. How does LEAD engage with the Mission in identifying country needs for project activities? 2. What is the process you used to identify and select suitable national stakeholders to engage with LEAD? 3. Does LEAD request feedback from the Mission when designing activities/events (e.g. training, regional workshops? If yes, please describe them. If no, what recommendations do you have? Efficiency 4. How would you rate the coordination of LEAD activities at the country and regional levels? 5. Would you be able to comment on the financial aspects of LEAD? 84  For example, do LEAD activities provide good value for USG money in comparison to similar USG activities that have been or are being implemented in the region? Partnerships 6. How has LEAD contributed towards integrating US Government LEDS input and partnerships in the country? 7. To what extent has LEAD developed partnerships with the most relevant organizations in the country? How has LEAD developed these partnerships? 8. How has LEAD developed synergies and partnerships with relevant bilateral, regional and international organizations (e.g. donors, development partners, NGOs and institutes)? Impact and Co￾benefits 9. To what extent has LEAD been able to promote the USG priorities of EC-LEDS and the LEDS Global Partnership in the country? 10. What sectors in the country have the highest impact prospects from LEAD? 11. To what extent have the LEAD capacity building activities led to improved national capacities to implement low emission development on a larger scale? Sustainability 12. What is the likelihood that activities and results initiated by LEAD will continue beyond the LEAD program period? Which activities? Evaluation Question 2: Relevance and Quality of Design 13. To what extent have the implementation delays and timing of activities impacted LEAD’s ability to support specific initiatives in the country? Effectiveness 14. To what extent are LEAD activities aligned to the planning cycles of the bilateral missions? Evaluation Question 3: Effectiveness 15. To what extent have LEAD activities created institutional capacities in addition to individual capacities in the country? Partnerships 16. How has the ALP Secretariat been able to support regional collaboration and peer exchange with the country? 17. How does LEAD make use of the various strengths and capacities of USG stakeholders? Sustainability 18. Please describe how the national stakeholder can continue LEAD activities following program completion? 19. How can the AGMC (Asian GHG Management Centre) improve the sustainability and impact prospect of LEAD activities at the regional and national levels? Are there other models that have worked in the country? If so, are they worth exploring? Evaluation Question 4: Relevance and Quality of Design 20. How can LEAD activities be better aligned with country specific development agendas and local needs in LEDS areas? Partnerships 21. What partnerships (bilateral, regional and international organizations) can improve implementation effectiveness and maximize results for LEAD in the country? Impact and Co￾benefits 22. What are the adjustments required in LEAD capacity building activities to create impact on a large scale (e.g. 10s of thousands of GHG accounting personnel)? 23. What are the adjustments required for LEAD to support institutional arrangements and harvest the long term co-benefits of a LEDS approach in areas including:  Improved economic and job opportunities  Large scale application of new and more efficient technologies  Creating opportunities for improving the local environment 24. How can LEAD activities be more strongly embedded in and owned by national and regional stakeholders and their systems? 85 QUESTIONNAIRE 3: LEAD COUNTRY COORDINATORS Evaluation Question 1: Relevance and Quality of Design 1. How were key country stakeholders involved in the design of activities? What was the process used to engage them? 2. What does the country need to implement LEDS? Are they reflected in the LEAD work plan? 3. To what extent have tasks/subtasks been designed to meet the needs and requests from the country to support LEDS? Effectiveness 4. What are the coordinating mechanisms between the country and the LEAD program based in Bangkok, Thailand? Are there any outstanding challenges or difficulties? How can they be overcome? 5. What are the communication/coordination mechanisms between the LEAD coordinator and the country stakeholders like GO’s and NGO’s? Are there any remarkable challenges? How can they be overcome? 6. Have there been any in-country training activities? If yes, please describe them. To what extent do regional and in-country training take country needs into account effectively? How effective are the trainings? What has been their impact so far? 7. To what extent are the training methods suitable for the operating context of the country? Are there any communication and language problems during the training? 8. To what extent are the most suitable tools (e.g. software, modeling etc) applied, bearing in mind the operating context and capacities of target countries? Efficiency 9. What proportion of LEAD’s total anticipated outputs have been achieved to date? What proportion of LEAD’s total anticipated overall results (including outputs and outcomes) have been achieved to date? 10. What is your view of the country’s political/government willingness to work on LEDS? Partnerships 11. What are the existing partnership opportunities with local organizations in the country, especially for national capacity building? 12. To what extent has LEAD identified synergies and developed partnerships with relevant national organizations (e.g. donors, development partners, NGOs and institutes)? What are the other organizations that LEAD can partner with? Impact and Co￾benefits 13. What sectors in the country are likely to have the highest impact from LEAD activities? Is LEAD targeting the right sectors? 14. As a LEAD coordinator, how will the capacity building activities of LEAD be able to create long-term impacts? What factors contribute to that? 15. Does LEAD contribute to any particular national policy/plan strategy? 16. How has LEAD supported the design or implementation of LEDS policies, plans, and tools in the country? Sustainability 17. Without LEAD’s support, to what extent do you think the activities and results promoted by LEAD will continue? Evaluation Question 2: Relevance and Quality of Design 18. Have the implementation delays and timing of activities had an impact on LEAD’s ability to support specific national initiatives in LEDS? Effectiveness 19. Are LEAD activities aligned to the planning cycles of the national government? Is this a necessary criterion? 20. Has there been any difficulty or delay in working with the government resulting from the country’s political situation? Efficiency 21. What proportion of activities has been implemented in the country within the work plan timeline? Are there any outstanding implementation challenges? 22. Are there any other factors (such as communication and coordination challenges) that have resulted in inefficiency? How can they be improved? Partnerships 23. To what extent has the timing of LEAD activities affected partnerships and potential work plans with relevant organizations at the national and regional 86 levels? Impact and Co￾benefits 24. To what extent is LEAD aware of relevant policies/plans/processes and key timings for strategic input for them? Has the timeliness or the lack thereof affected the impact of LEAD, especially on crucial government policies? Sustainability 25. To what extent have implementation delays affected the ability to develop feasible strategies for LEAD activities at the regional and national levels? Evaluation Question 3: Relevance and Quality of Design 26. Have LEAD’s processes been flexible enough to accommodate any changing needs/requests from the country? How can this mechanism be improved? Effectiveness 27. To what extent are institutional (as opposed to individual) capacities developed? 28. What are the factors contributing to the increased effectiveness of LEAD’s capacity-building initiatives? How can they be improved? Efficiency 29. Have suitable program staff been identified and employed to implement LEAD activities? 30. What kind of additional support would be useful to you as a LEAD coordinator? 31. To what extent have suitable counterpart staff/champions been identified from partner government and civil society stakeholders for LEAD implementation? How have they been engaged in the implementation of LEAD actions in the country? Partnerships 32. To what extent has the ALP secretariat been able to support the regional collaboration and peer-to-peer exchange in LEDS? 33. Does the regional platform provided by LEAD offer new areas of partnerships or lessons learned for effective implementation? Impact and Co￾benefits 34. To what extent has LEAD been able to progress towards establishing GHG accounting systems? 35. Have the key beneficiaries been clearly identified and contacted? Sustainability 36. Are the activities/results cost-effective for the national stakeholders to continue following completion of LEAD? 37. Have capacity building initiatives created national experts with a potential to contribute to LEDS activities? 38. Does having LEAD coordinator’s position as a consultant (part time) pose any challenge to the sustainability of LEAD’s activities? 39. Has the AGMC improved the potential sustainability of LEAD activities at the regional and national levels? Evaluation Question 4: Relevance and Quality of Design 40. How should LEAD activities prioritize in your country to better align with country specific agenda? Effectiveness 41. What improved local partnerships can be established (e.g. with academia/training providers) to support delivery of LEAD activities and maximize upscaling of results? Efficiency 42. What staffing and resource corrections are needed to improve timeliness and value for money in the implementation of activities? Partnerships 43. Impact and Co￾benefits 44. What adjustments in LEAD activities are needed to provide timely and suitable inputs to the governments? 45. What adjustments are needed so LEAD can support institutional arrangements/policy instruments to harvest the long term co-benefits of a LEDS approach in areas such as:  Improved economic opportunities in urban and rural regions  New job opportunities (including clean energy and sustainable landscapes jobs)  Large scale application of new and more efficient technologies through 87 improved access channels and financing mechanisms  Creating opportunities for industry and SMEs to participate  Creating opportunities for gender equality and disadvantaged groups  Creating opportunities for improving the local environment (e.g. reducing air pollution concentration in urban areas through cleaner public transportation systems or improving indoor air quality through cleaner energy). Sustainability 46. Do you have any recommendations for sustainability? QUESTIONNAIRE 4: DONORS AND INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES Evaluation Question 1: Relevance and Quality of Design 1. How were the donors and agencies consulted during the design of activities? What was the process and type of engagement? 2. What are the key needs of country for LEDS? Have they been reflected in the LEAD work plan? Effectiveness 3. What are the coordinating mechanisms between your agency and the LEAD program? Are there any outstanding challenges or difficulties? If yes, what are they? How can they be removed? 4. What are the communication/coordination mechanisms between your and other donors/agencies and the country stakeholders such as the LEAD program coordinator? Are there any remarkable challenges? If yes, please describe them. How can they be reduced? 5. Are the donors/agencies working on any of the LEAD areas in the country? Are the most suitable training methods being used to undertake these activities in the context of the target countries? Are there any problems in implementing these activities? 6. Are the donors/agencies undertaking any training activities in LEAD areas in target donor countries? What is the most effective way to carry out such training activities? Are there any lessons to be learned on how to improve training activities? If yes, please describe. Efficiency 7. If applicable, has your agency and LEAD created common working mechanisms or resources to support the target country? If yes, what are the mechanisms or support systems that have been created? 8. What is the overall political/government willingness in the country for LEDS? Partnerships 9. Are there any opportunities for partnerships with local organizations in the target countries, especially for national capacity building? 10. Has your organization been a part of or developed any partnerships and synergies with relevant national organizations (e.g. donors, development partners, NGOs and institutes)? What can be learned from this for LEAD? Impact and Co￾benefits 11. What sectors in the target countries have the highest impact prospects from LEAD? Is LEAD targeting the right sectors? 12. If relevant, do you think LEAD’s capacity building activities have been/will be able to create long-term impacts? What factors contribute to that? 13. If applicable, do you know of any LEAD contribution to specific national policy/plan or strategy? Sustainability 14. Without the LEAD support, do you think the activities and results promoted by LEAD will continue? Evaluation Question 2: Relevance and Quality of Design 15. If relevant, what do you think of the implementation process of LEAD’s activities? 16. How have delays and timing of activities had an impact on LEAD’s ability to support specific national initiatives in LEDS? Effectiveness 17. Are LEAD activities aligned to the planning cycles of the national government? Is it a necessary criterion? Is there anything that can be learned from your engagement 88 in LEAD related areas of work to create greater synergies with national government planning cycles? 18. In your work experience with areas similar to LEAD, has there been any delay due to country’s political situation/ difficulty in working with the governments? Are there lessons to learn from this? Efficiency 19. For activities undertaken by you in areas similar to LEAD, are there any factors (such as communication and coordination challenges) that have resulted into inefficiency? How can they be improved, and what lessons can be learned? 20. If relevant, has LEAD response been adequate and timely leading to genuine efficiencies and partnerships? What else can be done to create greater efficiencies between the two agencies? Partnerships 21. How has the timing of LEAD activities affected partnerships and potential work plans with your agency and other donors and other relevant organizations at the national and regional levels? Impact and Co￾benefits 22. Is LEAD aware of relevant policies/plans/processes and key timings for strategic input? Has the timeliness or the lack thereof affected the impact of LEAD, especially on crucial government policies? Is there anything that can be learned from your work in the area of LEAD that can improve the way LEAD functions? Sustainability 23. How have the implementation delays affected the ability to develop feasible strategies for LEAD activities at the regional and national levels? Question 3: Relevance and Quality of Design 24. Has LEAD’s processes been flexible enough to accommodate any changing needs/requests from countries, and to work with you and other members of the donor community? How can this mechanism be improved? Effectiveness 25. To what extent are institutional (as opposed to individual) capacities developed? 26. What factors have contributed to the effectiveness of the capacity-building initiatives that your agency undertook and what lessons can be learned by LEAD? Efficiency 27. If you have interacted with LEAD staff in the country, what is your opinion on the LEAD staff, both the coordinator and the program staff? Do you feel that the LEAD coordinator identified and employed to implement in-country LEAD activities is suitable for the work s/he is undertaking? Partnerships 28. Does the regional platform provided by LEAD offer new areas of partnerships or lessons learned for effective implementation? Impact and Co￾benefits 29. To what extent has LEAD been able to progress towards establishing GHG accounting systems? 30. What lessons can be learned from your LEAD type activities in regard to identifying, working and communicating with key beneficiaries? Sustainability 31. Are existing efforts/activities/results in the target country cost-effective for the national stakeholders so that they can continue their efforts after the LEAD program is concluded? What is your opinion on the work of LEAD specifically, if relevant? What can be learned from your work in the area? 32. How has the LEAD project’s capacity building initiatives resulted in creating national experts with a potential to contribute to LEDS activities? How has LEAD contributed to this? Question 4: Relevance and Quality of Design 33. How should LEAD activities be prioritized in the country to better align with the country specific agenda? Effectiveness 34. What changes do you suggest in local partnerships (e.g. with academia/training providers) to support delivery of LEAD activities and maximize upscaling of results? Efficiency 35. What lessons can you share on staffing and resource management to improve timeliness and value for money in the implementation of activities in the area of LEADS? 89 Partnerships 36. What strategic partnerships need to be developed by LEAD to support implementation and improve strategic positioning in its target countries? Impact and Co￾benefits 37. What adjustments in LEAD activities are needed to provide timely and suitable inputs to the governments? What can be learned from your agency’s work? 38. What lessons can be learned from your work in the area to improve LEAD’s support to institutional arrangements/policy instruments in order to harvest the long term co-benefits of a LEDS approach in areas including:  Improved economic opportunities in urban and rural regions  New job opportunities (including clean energy and sustainable landscapes jobs)  Large scale application of new and more efficient technologies through improved access channels and financing mechanisms  Creating participation opportunities for industry and SMEs  Creating opportunities for gender equality and disadvantaged groups  Creating opportunities for improving the local environment (e.g. reducing air pollution concentration in urban areas through cleaner public transportation systems or improving indoor air quality through cleaner energy). Sustainability 39. Do you have any recommendations for sustainability through your work in the area? QUESTIONNAIRE 5: TRAINEES The participants at past training events have typically attended regional events. Some have attended more than one event and others have also attended national events. The detailed questions provided here were used as guides to solicit relevant responses to the following overarching issues: 1. What were the best components of the training event in terms of: (a) technical content and (b) process and logistics? 2. What follow-up activity by LEAD would be most appropriate? 3. Do you have other comments or recommendations for LEAD? Sub-questions were asked during one-on-one meetings and during group meetings or focus group discussions (FGDs). Sub-questions allow for a fleshing out of relevant details that address the issues above. Detailed sub-questions: 1. How relevant was the training to your organization’s development plans or long term activities? (i) In the future, what is the likelihood that your organization will use the knowledge gained from this training event? (ii) Are there staff and time constraints to using this knowledge within the organization? (iii) Are there equipment and other resource constraints to using this knowledge within the organization? (iv) Did the training material seem to build on an in-depth “national needs assessment”? 2. How relevant was the training to your own area of specialization? (i) In the future, what is the likelihood that you will use the knowledge gained from this training at you workplace? 90 3. Did the training event improve your understanding of the training topic? (i) Do you feel adequately prepared to train others within your organization on the topics covered by the training event, if relevant? (ii) How appropriate was the level of technical details provided? (iii) Did you have the technical prerequisites to take full advantage of the training provided? (iv) Did LEAD help you prepare for the training event? 4. Rate the overall structure and format of the event and whether it was conducive to maximize learning opportunities. (i) How would you rate the topics discussed during the event? (ii) Rate the quality of the presentations, training materials, documents, manual and guides provided. (iii) Were sufficient examples provided to illustrate the topics? 5. Was the duration of the event appropriate, considering the topics covered? (i) How would you rate the logistics for the training event? 6. How useful were the opportunities provided by the event to collaborate with regional counterparts and international experts? 7. How would you rate the trainers’ advance preparation for the training event? 8. Rate the relevance of any follow-up events: (i) proposed (if applicable) and (ii) conducted (if applicable). 9. Have you used the knowledge you gained from the training so far? If not, why not? 10. Did the LEAD program contact you with any post-training survey or follow-up? If yes, were you contacted via phone-calls, e-mail and/or other means? 91 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD) GUIDE 1: NGOS Background Typically NGOs have current and planned activities in the field that could complement LEAD’s initiatives in the region. In some instances, these stakeholders are aware of the LEAD program and are collaborating closely with the LEAD program team. In most cases, the technical and operational experience of these entities along with their regional presence could offer valuable lessons for the LEAD program. Date, Country FGD Sample Agenda 9.30 – 9.45 Registration and Tea Provide a 1-page handout about the LEAD program 9.45 – 10 Welcome and Overview of FGD Overview: LEAD Mid Term Evaluation and objective of the focus group discussion 10.00 – 10.45 Major Topic 1: Overview: Ongoing programs of organizations working on low emissions development (LED) issues in xx (country) 10.45 – 11.30 Major Topic 2: Recommended partnerships for LED programs in xx (country) 11.30 – 12.20 Major Topic 3: How can sustainability for LED related programs in xx (country) be maximized? 12.20 – 12.30 Wrap-up 12.30 Lunch Initial Questions from Moderator (before Major Topic 1) 1. How many of our participants today were previously aware of LEAD? 2. Have any of our participants today have been involved in LEAD? (Moderator records the number of participants) 2a. If yes, in what LEAD activities have they been involved and what has been the nature of the involvement? Major Topic 1: Existing LEDS programs in a partner country 3. Could the organizations present today, please provide an overview of their ongoing programs and activities in the country in the area of “Low Emissions Development”, “Low Carbon Development” and “Green Growth”? 92 Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  How were the needs assessed: desk study, consultations, field visits, etc.?  What specific activities were undertaken related to Capacity Building and Institutional Development?  What are priority sectors and geographic areas?  Who are the target groups and partners?  What are the specific activities and interventions?  What is the time frame for the project?  What national development plans/policies/frameworks/strategies do these activities contribute to?  What are the emerging findings, conclusions and recommendations?  What specific methods do you use to ensure that there is government buy-in so that the activities (especially those related to Capacity Building and Institutional Development) are sustainable beyond the life of the project? Major Topic 2: Partnerships for Low Emissions Development in a partner country 4. What partnerships did your organizations establish to implement these Low Emissions Development programs? Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  What government agencies are involved?  What NGOs / donors / development agencies are involved?  What academia/research institutes are involved?  What stakeholders at the sub-national level are involved (e.g. local government, NGOs, CBOs)?  Did your organization already have existing partnerships with these organizations?  How do you hope to establish sustainable partnerships?  What are you doing to support Capacity Building and Institutional Development? 5. What are your recommendations for relevant partnerships that LEAD should establish in a partner country? Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  What key government agencies are involved?  Are key NGOs / donors / development agencies involved?  Are key academia/research institutes involved?  Any recommendations on how to foster and develop these partnerships to maximize impact to support Capacity Building and Institutional Development? Major Topic 3: Maximizing sustainability of LEDS related programs in the country 6. Based on your experiences, please provide recommendations on how LEAD could maximize the sustainability of its activities beyond the program period Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  What mechanisms do your programs employ to ensure sustainability of project activities?  How do you maximize institutionalization and ownership of activities and results?  How do you align program activities with national/sub-national policy priorities?  Where are the financial resources that can support sustainability of activities beyond the LEAD program period? 93  Are there private sector resources to ensure that priority activities are sustainable beyond the program period? 94 FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 2 - DONORS AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES Background Typically donors and development agencies have current and planned activities in the field that could complement LEAD’s initiatives in the region. In some instances, these stakeholders are aware of the LEAD program and are collaborating closely with the LEAD program team. In most cases, the technical and operational experience of these entities along with their regional presence could offer valuable lessons for the LEAD program. Focus Group Discussion: Suggested agenda FGD Sample Agenda 9.30 – 9.45 Registration and Tea Provide a 1-page handout about the LEAD program 9.45 – 10 Welcome and Overview of FGD Provide an overview of the LEAD Mid Term Evaluation and objective of the focus group discussion. 10.00 – 10.45 Major Topic 1: Overview of ongoing programs of organizations in the area of low emission development in a partner country. 10.45 – 11.30 Major Topic 2: Recommended partnerships for low emission development programs in a partner country. 11.30 – 12.20 Major Topic 3: How can sustainability for low emission development-related programs in a partner country be maximized? 12.20 – 12.30 Wrap-up 12.30 Lunch Initial Questions from Moderator (before Major Topic 1) 1. How many of our participants today were previously aware of LEAD? 2. Have any of our participants today been involved in LEAD? (Moderator records the number of participants) 2a. If yes: in what LEAD activities have they been involved and what has been the nature of the involvement? Major Topic 1: Existing LEDS programs in a partner country (45 minutes) 3. Could the organizations present today, please provide an overview of their ongoing programs and activities in xx country in the area of “Low Emissions Development”, “Low Carbon Development” and “Green Growth”? 95 Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  What priority areas are these in?  Who are the target groups?  What types of activities are provided?  How were needs assessed?  Which national development plans/policies/frameworks do these programs contribute to?  What are the emerging results?  Major Topic 2: Partnerships for Low Emissions Development in a partner country (45 minutes) 4. What partnerships did your organizations establish to implement these programs? Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  What government agencies are involved?  What NGOS / donors / development agencies are involved?  What academia/research institutes are involved?  What stakeholders at sub-national level are involved (e.g. local government, NGOs, CBOs)?  Did your organization already have existing partnerships with these organizations? 5. Please provide your recommendations for relevant partnerships that LEAD should establish in a partner country? Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  Key government agencies  Key donors / development agencies are involved?  Key NGOS?  Key academia/research institutes are involved?  Any recommendations on how to foster and develop these partnerships to maximize impact? Major Topic 3: Maximizing sustainability of Low Emissions Development related programs in a partner country (35 minutes) 6. Based on your experiences, please provide recommendations on how LEAD can maximize the sustainability of it activities beyond the program period. Sub-questions to focus the discussion:  What mechanisms do your programs employ to ensure sustainability of Low Emissions Development related activities?  How do you maximize institutionalization and ownership of activities and results?  How do you align program activities with national/sub-national policy priorities?  What are financial sources can support sustainability of activities beyond the LEAD program period? 96 ANNEX IV: SOURCES OF INFORMATION A. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR DESK STUDY No. Document Title Document content MTE Documents 1. SOL-486-14-000017 Scope of work for MTE 2. LEAD MTE Tentative Schedule 2014- 05-28 Tentative schedule RDMA (weeks, date, location) 3. LEAD MTE Design Matrix Evaluation Design Matrix by QED (questions, sub questions, indicators, data source/collection/analysis) 4. LEAD MTE Interview Question Protocols Draft Protocols for interviews with key informants and focus groups 5. LEAD Stakeholders LEAD stakeholders (USG, Contractors, international, regional and country) USAID Guidelines & Templates (Evaluation and Climate Change) 6. USAID Evaluation Policy Jan 2011 Evaluation practices, requirements, quality criteria 7. Branding for Sample Evaluation Report Template (2) USAID Branding Requirements Evaluation Report Template 8. How to Note Preparing Evaluation Reports in WORD December 2012 Supplementary note to preparing evaluation report processes 9. ADS 203 USAID assessing and learning guidelines: Evaluation, Performance monitoring, PMP Project M&E plans, Standards and Criteria, Indicators, Data Quality, Project Cycle learning, Performance plan and reporting 10. USAID Climate Change (CC) and Development Strategy 2012 Strategic objectives of USAID CC program 11. FY 2013 OP Guidance - Annex 11 Global Climate Change USG Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI), guidance on clean energy and sustainable landscape initiatives Asia LEDS Partnership Documents 12. LEAD Factsheet Brief summary of LEAD 13. Asia LEDS Calendar of Events - As of June 4 2014 LEDS events May to July 14. ALP Brand Identity Guidelines 2013 Asia LEDS Partnership Brand identity guidelines 15. ALP Branding Strategy and Full Guidelines – 2013-12-31 Asia LEDS Partnership communication and branding strategy – detailed guidelines 16. ALP Work Plan Version 1 2013-03-15 Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP) work plan 2013 17. Asia LEDS Partnership Work Plan for CY 2014 (v. Dec 15) OA ALP Work Plan 2014 LEAD Documents 18. LEAD Work Plan FINAL FY 2012 - FY 2013 (Word version) Lead Integrated Program Work Plan FY2012 and 2013. Country WP Summaries 19. LEAD Work Plan FINAL FY 2012 - FY 2013 (Word version) As above PDF version 20. Asia LEDS Program Integrated Work LEAD Integrated Work Plan FY2014 (Oct 2013 to Sept 97 No. Document Title Document content Plan FY 2014 FINAL 2014-02-27 external version (word version) 2014). Country WP Summaries 21. Asia LEDS Program Integrated Work Plan FY 2014 FINAL 2014-02-27 external version (PDF) As above PDF version 22. Fast Out of the Gate Vol 1 Preparing Access by Asian countries to International Green Growth Financing (multilateral, bilateral, international, private, market) 23. Fast out of the Gate Executive Summary 2013-03-12 Executive Summary of above 24. GHG Registry Support Options for LEAD Program - DRAFT 2013-08-05 kr Includes global case studies 25. ICF LEAD Contract SOW Section C, Deliverables, etc. 2011-09-12 SOW for Lead Program contract 26. Integrated PMP Results Framework March 3-14 Overall Results Framework for LEAD (IRs, USDOS, and indicators) 27. LEAD Draft Communications Plan 2012-01-23 clean Strategic Communication Plan for LEAD 28. LEAD Gender Strategy FINAL January 8, 2014 (1) Recommendations for LEAD Gender Strategy 29. LEAD PMP v1.0 - 2013-03-22 FINAL LEAD Performance Management Plan 2012-2016 30. LEAD Program 150 Day GHG Inventory Report and Mitigation Plan 2012-11-02 - Revised kr LEAD’s Internal Activity GHG Inventory and Mitigation Plan (150 days) 31. LEAD Year One GHG Inventory and Mitigation Plan 2012-11-29 kr LEAD’s Internal Activity GHG Inventory and Mitigation Plan (Year One) 32. LEAD Year TWO GHG Inventory and Mitigation Plan Feb 28 2014 LEAD’s Internal Activity GHG Inventory and Mitigation Plan (Year Two) 33. LEAD FY2012-Q1 Contract Status Report v3 rev. Quarterly Progress Report FY2012 34. LEAD FY2012-Q2 Contract Status Report kr oa Quarterly Progress Report FY2012 35. LEAD FY2012-Q3 Contract Status Report revised Quarterly Progress Report FY2012 36. LEAD FY2012-Q4 Contract Status Report Quarterly Progress Report FY2012 37. LEAD FY2013-Q1 Contract Status Report Final Quarterly Progress Report FY2013 38. LEAD FY2013-Q2 Contract Status Report Quarterly Progress Report FY2013 39. LEAD FY2013-Q3 Contract Status Report clean Quarterly Progress Report FY2013 40. LEAD FY2013-Q4 Annual and Q4 Progress Report 2013-11-29 Final Annual Progress Report 41. LEAD FY2014-Q1 Contract Status Report 2014 01 15 Quarterly Progress Report FY2014 42. LEAD FY2014-Q2 Progress Report Quarterly Progress Report FY2014 98 No. Document Title Document content April 16, 2014 43. LEAD Task 1 Report 2012-11-27 FINAL (Word) Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations: Summary Report (includes regional findings and country findings) 44. LEAD Task 1 Report 2012-11-27 FINAL (PDF) PDF version of above 45. LEAD Task 5 report- DRAFT 2013- 08-08 clean Challenges and Priorities for GHG Emission Factor Improvement in 10 LEAD Asian Countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam) 46. LEDS Self-Assessment Tool - version 1.1 - March 2014 USG LEDS - Self Assessment Tool (SAT) for internal M&E of LEAD 47. LEDS-SAT Guidance Document - version 1.1 - March 2014 - clean General reference document to above SAT LEAD Data Quality Analysis (DQA) 48. REO DQA Final Report 2012 USAID/RDMA/REO Global Climate Change Data Quality Assessment Report, 2012 (Covers all GCC programs for Asia) 49. REO DQA Final Activity Reports 2012 ICF LEAD Data Quality Assessment of LEAD (in 2012) 50. LEAD DQA Checklist ID 4 8 2 26 Person Hours DQA on Person Hours of Training completed in climate change supported 51. Letter of Verification for DQA Attach to checklist for Person Hours 52. LEAD DQA Checklist ID 4 8 2 8 Number of tools DQA on Number of climate change mitigation and/or adaptation tools, technologies, and methodologies, developed, tested, and/or adopted 53. LEAD DQA Checklist ID 4 8 2 14 Number of institutions DQA on Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues 54. LEAD DQA Checklist ID Number of regional platforms 55. LEAD DQA Checklist ME System LEAD Level Country Documents 56. EC-LEDS Cambodia Pre-Scoping Desk Study FINAL 2012-10-29 57. Cambodia EC-LEDS Scoping Report 2012-11-23 final 58. EC-LEDS India Desk Study 2012-07-30 59. LEAD Program SOW USAID Philippines buy-in v 8.17.12 60. Malaysia Pre-Scoping Report - Draft - ICF - Aug 22 2012 kr oa 61. Malaysia EC-LEDS Scoping Report 2012-11-07 v04 oa sh 62. Thailand EC-LEDS Pre-Scoping Report 99 No. Document Title Document content 2012-09-15 CLEAN 63. Thailand EC-LEDS Work Plan 2014- 04-08 JL OA External Documentation 64. Vietnam Green Growth Strategy 2012 65. Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS) Nepal 66. Climate Change Master Plan Thailand 67. Green Growth Program Indonesia 68. 10th Malaysia Plan, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department Malaysia 5 Year Macro-economic Development Plan for Malaysia covering 2011-2015 69. Green Technology Policy Malaysia, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water Malaysia 70. Green growth road map Cambodia B. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED All stakeholder consultations, including phone and face-to-face interviews, as well as focus group discussions, were conducted between July 11, 2014 and August 29, 2014. Washington DC Organization/ Address Position US Government USAID - E3/GCCO CE Programs USAID/Asia Bureau Asia Bureau SL Advisor USAID - E3/GCCO Office Director USAID - E3/GCCO Overall USAID LEDS Program Lead Coordinator USAID - E3/GCCO CE Programs OES OES LEDS Coordination OES State LEDS Program Lead Coordinator 100 Organization/ Address Position USEPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division USEPA Program Manager for SEA GHG Inventory Program NREL NREL LEDS Coordinator NREL Energy Expert NREL Transport and Development Impact Assessment Expert NREL Director, LEDS GP Secretariat USDA - Foreign Agriculture Service International Agricultural Development Specialist USDA - Foreign Agriculture Service LEDS Programs USFS - Office of International Programs Climate Change Program Specialist ICF International LEAD Program Office COP LEAD ICF HQ LEAD Contract Manager ICF HQ LEAD Engagement Manager ICF HQ LEAD STTA ICF HQ LEAD STTA/Former DCOP LEAD ICF HQ LEAD STTA ICF Beijing LEAD Technical Manager Sub-contractors Stockholm Environmental Institute Director, U.S. Center Alliance to Save Energy Vice President, International Programs Engility Senior Specialist, Climate Change and Development Engility Specialist, Climate Change and Development Engility Specialist, Climate Change and Development 101 Organization/ Address Position Institute for Sustainable Communities Program Director - Asia Climate Registry Director of International Development Bangladesh Organization/ Address Position USAID Bangladesh USAID/Bangladesh, Madani Avenue Dhaka, Bangladesh LEDS Advisor USAID/Bangladesh, Madani Avenue Dhaka, Bangladesh Deputy Office Director LEAD Coordinator LEAD Coordinator LEAD Country Coordinator Cambodia Organization/ Address Position USAID USAID/Cambodia, #1, Street 96, Sangkat Wat Phrom, Khan Daun Penh Mission Director USAID/Cambodia, #1, Street 96, Sangkat Wat Phrom, Khan Daun Penh Deputy Mission Director USAID/Cambodia, #1, Street 96, Sangkat Wat Phrom, Khan Daun Penh Environment Officer, Office of Food Security and Environment USAID/Cambodia, #1, Street 96, Sangkat Wat Phrom, Khan Daun Penh Project Management Specialist - Environment/Forestry. Office of Food Security and Environment USAID/Cambodia, #1, Street 96, Sangkat Wat Phrom, Khan Daun Penh Development Assistant Specialist, Monitoring and Evaluation LEAD Coordinator LEAD, Phnom Penh Coordinator Ministry of Environment Climate Change Department, Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh Director 102 Organization/ Address Position Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh Various departments including Climate Change Department WWF/Cambodia WWF Cambodia, 21, St.322, Boeung Keng Kang I, Phnom Penh, PO Box 2467 , Cambodia Country Director National Green Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh Secretary General/Deputy Secretary General Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy, #79-89, St Pasteur, (51) Khan Duan Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Director, Department of New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of Mines and Energy, General Department of Energy Fisheries Administration #186, Norodom Blvd.Fisheries conservation, Department Director of Fisheries Conservation Director, Department of Fisheries Conservation Fisheries Administration 186, Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Phnom Penh Deputy Director General, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh Supporting Forest and Biodiversity (SFB) WINROCK International, Phnom Penh Centre, Building F, Room 588, Sothearos Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Near Build Bright University Chief of Party, Supporting Forest and Biodiversity (SFB) UNDP UNDP Cambodia, No 53, Pasteur Street, Boeung Keng Kang, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, P.O. Box 877 Climate Change Policy Analyst ADB ADB, Cambodia Resident Mission Forest Administration/FAO FA/FAO: #5, Street 370, Boeung Keng Kang I, Khan Chamcamorn, P.O Box 53, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Forestry Officer (REDD+) India Organization/Address Position 103 Organization/Address Position USAID USAID/India, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi Senior Forestry Advisor, Clean Energy and Environment Office USAID/India, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi Senior Clean Energy Specialist, Clean Energy and Environment Office LEAD Coordinator Connaught Place, Delhi Vice President, ICF Connaught Place, Delhi LEAD Coordinator Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industries Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industries (BCCI); 4, Ballard Estate, Mackinnon Mackenzic Building, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Director General Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industries (BCCI); 4, Ballard Estate, Mackinnon Mackenzic Building, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Joint Director ICLIE ICLIE, Delhi Deputy Secretary General Development Alternatives Development Alternatives, Delhi Vice President Institute for Sustainable Communities ISC, Regus Business Centre, Times Sq, 2nd Floor, B Wing, ndheri - Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Acting Country Director ISC, Regus Business Centre, Times Sq, 2nd Floor, B Wing, ndheri - Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Program Officer, USAID Low Emissions Asia Development (LEAD) Program Indonesia USAID USAID/Indonesia LEDS Coordinator USAID/Indonesia Program Officer USAID/Indonesia Acting Mission Director USAID/Indonesia CE Program Lead 104 Organization/Address Position LEAD LEAD Program LEAD Coordinator National Council on Climate Change National Council on Climate Change Secretary, Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Working Group International Clean Energy Development (ICED) Project International Clean Energy Development (ICED) Project Chief of Party, Tetra Tech Green Works, Asia/ American Chambers of Commerce American Chambers of Commerce Chair, Environmental Management and Protection Committee, American Chambers of Commerce The Asia Foundation- Indonesia The Asia Foundation- Indonesia Director for Environmental Governance Laos Organization/Address Position USAID Embassy Vientiane USAID Country Representative to Laos Malaysia Organization/Address Position US Embassy US Embassy, 376 Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ESTH Officer LEAD LEAD, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia LEAD Country Coordinator Land Public Transport Commission Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD), Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, 50470, Kuala Lumpur Special Officer to CEO, Strategic Initiatives and Projects Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department 105 Organization/Address Position Economic Planning Unit (EPU) Prime Minister's Department, Level -1, Block B5, Complex B (JPM), Putrajaya 62502, Presint 1 Assistant Director Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA), Galleria PJH, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya Director of Renewable Energy and Technology Division Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA), Galleria PJH, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya Assistant Director Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia Head, Climate Change Program Energy Commission Energy Commission, Diamond Building, Presint 4, Putrajaya 62502, Malaysia Senior Analyst to the CEO Energy Commission, Diamond Building, Presint 4, Putrajaya 62502, Malaysia Head, Demand Side Management Energy sector Specialist Energy Commission, Diamond Building, Presint 4, Putrajaya 62502, Malaysia Head of Research and Analysis WWF Malaysia WWF Malaysia, 1 Jalan PJS 5/28A, Petaling Jaya Commercial Centre (PJCC), 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia HEAD of Education/Corporate Reporting Initiatives WWF Malaysia, 1 Jalan PJS 5/28A, Petaling Jaya Commercial Centre (PJCC), 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia Director of Policy and Conservation UNIDO-GEF Industrial Energy Efficiency Program UNIDO-GEF, SME Corp Malaysia, Level 6, SME 2, Block C, Lot E, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Kuala Lumpur Sentral, 50470 Kuala Lumpur National Project Manager 106 Organization/Address Position YTL Carbon Finance YTL-SV Carbon Sdn Bhd Senior Consultant EU-Malaysia Chamber of Commerce & Industry EU-Malaysia Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Suite 3.03, Level 3, Menara Atlan, 161B Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Deputy Vice Chairman SIRIM Sirim Berhard, 1 Persiaran Data Menteri, Section 2, Shah Alam, Selangor Senior Director Energy & Environment Flagship, Research & Technology Division Sirim Berhard, 1 Persiaran Data Menteri, Section 2, Shah Alam, Selangor Research & Technology Division Univesiti Tun Abdul Razak (UNIRAZAK) Univesiti Tun Abdul Razak (UNIRAZAK), No. 8, Jalan Munshi Abdullah, 50100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Dean Bank Rakyat School of Business and Entrepreneurship Nepal Organization/address Position USAID USAID/Nepal - POC, US Embassy, Maharjgunj Environment Team Leader USAID/Nepal, US Embassy, Maharjgunj NRM and GCC Programs Specialist USAID/Nepal, US Embassy, Maharjgunj Program Specialist LEAD Lead country coordinator Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoEST) Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoEST) Senior Agro-Economist, LEAD Focal Person Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoEST) Climate Change Officer Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoEST) Assistant Climate Change Officer/SNC Project 107 REDD Forestry and Climate Change Cell REDD Forestry and Climate Change Cell, MoFSc Joint Secretary National Planning Commission Secretariat National Planning Commission Secretariat Joint Secretary Department of Forest Research and Survey Department of Forest Research and Survey Deputy Director Department for International Development (DFID) NEPAL DFID Climate and Environment Adviser Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport Joint Secretary (Technical) FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Clean Energy Development Bank Limited Deputy CEO ICIMOD RS Analyst WWF Forest Carbon Specialist WWF Deputy Director Nepal Trust for Nature Conservation Senior Conservation Officer Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development Environmental Specialist Department of Forestry Assistant Planning Officer Clean Energy Nepal Program Director Multi Stakeholder Forestry Program (MSFP) Manager, Climate Change Alternative Energy Promotion Center Climate Change Officer Winrock International Program Associate HICCDRC, Kathmandu University Researcher Consultant Lead Country Coordinator- Nepal 108 The Philippines Organization/Address Position US Embassy USAID/Philippines Acting Office Director USAID/Philippines SL Programs LEAD Manila LEAD Country Coordinator ADB ADB Climate Change Specialist, Climate Change Program Coordination Unit ADB Principal Climate Change Specialist, Climate Change Program Coordination Unit B-LEADER Engility/B-LEADER, Manila, Philippines Chief of Party B-WISER B-WISER, Manila, Philippines Chief of Party B-WISER, Manila, Philippines REM and MRV specialist Climate Change Commission Climate Change Commission Senior Scientist Research Specialist Department of Energy Department of Energy Senior Scientist Research Specialist Department of Environment and Natural Resources Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Management Bureau Senior Research Specialist II Department of Transport and Communication Department of Transportation and Communications Senior Project Evaluation Officer III Department of Transportation and Communications Senior Transport Development Officer National Economic and Development Authority National Economic and Development Authority Economic Development Specialist 109 ICLIE ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat Country Director, Indonesia Program Office ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat Program Manager Thailand Organization/ Address Position USAID RDMA RDMA Senior Regional Climate Change Advisor RDMA Program Officer RDMA Program/Project Development Officer RDMA Regional Strategic Specialist RDMA REO Director RDMA REO Deputy Director Government Organizations ONEP Director, Climate Change Office TGO Director, GHG Information, TGO Royal Forestry Department Other Thai organizations Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment Director Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment Researcher Chiang Mai Municipality, Thailand Sanitary Researcher LEAD PROGRAM OFFICE ICF Communications Manager ICF DCOP-Technical ICF Director, AGMC ICF Sr. Technical Officer ICF M&E Manager ICF Director, AGMC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ADB Environmental Operations Center Technical Program Head ADB Environmental Operations Center Deputy Technical Head 110 ADB Environmental Operations Center Climate Change coordinator ADB Environmental Operations Center Climate Change Mitigation Specialist Winrock International Chief of Party, Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests Climate Focus LEAF Senior Forestry and Land Use Policy Advisor LEAD COORDINATOR ICF LEAD Coordinator, Thailand US Government USFS - Office of International Programs Asia Regional Forest Advisor Vietnam Organization/Address Position USAID VIETNAM USAID/Vietnam Natural Resources Officer USAID/Vietnam SL and Adaptation program lead USAID/Vietnam SL and Adaptation Program Lead USAID/Vietnam M&E Specialist and Gender Advisor, Program Development Office (PDO) USAID/Vietnam Director of PDO USAID/Vietnam Program/Project Development Officer USAID/Vietnam Budget and Project Design Specialist - PDO Office LEAD LEAD Coordinator Ministry of Planning and Investment Ministry of Planning and Investment Deputy Director General Ministry of Planning and Investment Expert, Department of Science, Education, Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry of Planning and Investment VFD VFD Team leader, Sustainable Landscape Group Institute of Energy Science, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology Deputy Director 111 Institute of Energy Science, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology Director, Center for Energy System Research Institute of Energy Institute of Energy Energy Economist Vietnam Center for Technology Responding to Climate Change Head of Division of CC mitigation Technology, Dept. of Meteorology, hydrology and climate change Vietnam Center for Technology Responding to Climate Change Technical Officer Vietnam Center for Technology Responding to Climate Change Technical Officer Department of Science, Technology and Environment, MARD Department of Science, Technology and Environment, MARD Expert Institute of Forest Ecology and Environment, Vietnam Academy of Forest Science (VAFS), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) Expert 112 ANNEX V: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ANNEX VI: DESK STUDY REPORT This annex contains the results of the review of all the documents made available as part of the desk study for the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Low Emissions Asian Development Program. Each section includes: 1. Overview 2. Background and Introduction 3. Summary Document Name USAID, 2014. Integrated Asia Low Emission Development Strategy (LEDS) Work Plan FY 2014. USAID Asia. Annexure 2 1. Overview The Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 integrated work plan identifies activities to be taken up by the USAID LEAD team, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Development Authority (USDA) / Forest Service (FS) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 (October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014) as a part of the US-Asia LEDS program. The work plan is based on the USAID LEAD Statement of Work. The work plan outlines activities by tasks and subtasks. Task 6 on Regional Support for LEDS Development and Implementation is presented before the other technical tasks since the activities in tasks 2-5 are considered components of Low Emission Development Strategy (LEDS). Task 7 is addressed in Annex 4. Task 1, Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations on Program Priorities and Opportunities (under Program Component A: Initial Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations), was omitted from the work plan, as it had already been completed. For each task, this work plan includes subtasks, detailed activity sheets, using a standard template that presents i) Task/subtask number and task/subtask title ii) Location(s) and countries benefiting iii) Team iv) Objective(s) v) Background vi) Participants/stakeholder vii) Prior activities completed (FY 2012 - FY 2013) viii) Prior results achieved (FY 2012 - FY 2013) ix) Results comments x) Planned activities in FY 2014 xi) Results for FY 2014 xii) Target comments xiii) Continuity with FY 2015 activities and xiv) Progress towards sustainability. 2. Background and Introduction By 2030 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy use in Asia’s developing countries are expected to increase from 33% to 45% of the world total for the business as usual scenario. Emissions from the forest and land use sectors are expected to increase and will contribute to these trends. To help Asian governments, businesses, and institutions develop proper frameworks for sustained low￾emission, climate-resilient development across all economic sectors, the USAID Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) initiated its US-Asia LEDS Program (ALP). The program is designed to build the capacity of relevant stakeholders to develop and use LEDS in four interrelated areas, analysis and modeling of economic development pathways, emissions trajectories, and technology options; GHG inventories and accounting; carbon market development; and regional cooperation. The US-Asia LEDS program identifies LEDS-related activities to be funded by USAID/RDMA through the USAID LEAD program, the NREL, USEPA, and the USDA/FS. Support from USAID projects like the 121 Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) program and Private Financing Advisory Network-Asia (PFAN-Asia) program is also planned. 3. Summary The work plan has given an overview of results achieved in FY 2012 and 2013, and identified training and capacity building activities to be carried out for LEAD countries. This section therefore first looks at achievements so far and then the planed actions. Results achieved in FY 2012 and 2013 are given task wise. Achievements from work plan for FY 2012 – 2013 Program Component A: Initial Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations. Task 1 is under this program component and is - Initial Regional Analysis, Stakeholder Consultations on Program Priorities, and Opportunities. This task was completed in the first program year. The regional analysis informed the design of tasks in FY 2012, 2013, and throughout the five-year plan. Program Component B: Low Emissions Development Strategies. Task 6 identified under this program is Regional Support for LEDS Development and Implementation. Achievements under this task are detailed below. Prior Results Achieved (FY 2012- FY 2013): Indicators Comments Indicator 3: Number of regional environmental platforms created or strengthened as a result of USG assistance 1 The ALP was created and strengthened as a result of USAID LEAD assistance. Indicator 4: Number of organizations participating in regional institutions, platforms, or initiatives 44 Per guidance of the PMP, 44 organizations “participated” in the ALP, surpassing targets. Indicator 5: Number of countries with improved LEDS-SAT scores (custom indicator) 0 Because the USAID LEAD program scheduled development of the LEDS-SAT tool to take all of FY 2013; baselines will be conducted in FY 2014 and annual target for FY 2014 will be 1 as stated in the PMP Indicator 7: Number of climate mitigation and/or adaptation tools, technologies, and methodologies, developed, tested, and/or adopted as a result of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-8) 2 The tools for this result are the GsT and the forested wetlands carbon protocol (for which activities appear under Task 2) Program Component C: GHG Accounting and Market Readiness. Tasks 2 to 5 are identified under this program. Achievements under each of these tasks are detailed according to the tasks separately below. TASK 2—REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL INVENTORY CAPACITY BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT 122 Prior Results Achieved (FY 2012- FY 2013): Indicators Comments Indicator 8: Number of countries that achieve higher quality inventories according to the Inventory Project Performance Indicator (IPPI) (custom indicator) 0 In FY 2013, the IPPI baseline was established. Results will not be achieved until the IPPI assessment is completed following capacity building activities to determine if a higher quality inventory has been achieved. Indicator #14: Person hours of training completed in climate change supported by USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.26) 1,600 person hours for Philippines 2,328 for subtask 2.12 (Regional Capacity Building on the Carbon Stock Assessment Protocol for Forested Wetlands ) Training hours supported by USAID/Philippines. No training completed in other countries. Indicator #2: Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-14). 8 TASK 3—REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR PROTOCOLS AND TOOLS DEVELOPMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND REPLICATION Prior Results Achieved (FY 2012- FY 2013): Indicator s Comments Indicator 6: Number of sub-national LEDS developed or improved as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 0 Sites have not yet been selected Indicator 9: Number of sub-national entities applying GHG accounting protocols and tools as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 0 Sites have not yet been selected TASK 4—GHG MARKET DEVELOPMENT Prior Results Achieved (FY 2012- FY 2013): Indicators Comments Indicator 10: Number of private and 0 Target for FY 2012 and FY 2013 set at 0 123 public organizations reporting GHG emissions as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) per USAID LEAD’s Project Management Plan (PMP) Indicator 11: Number of metric tons of CO2e reported to a GHG registry (custom indicator) 0 Target for FY 2012 and FY 2013 set at 0 per USAID LEAD’s PMP Indicator 12: Number of GHG registries established as a result of USG assistance (custom indicator) 0 Target for FY 2012 and FY 2013 set at 0 per USAID LEAD’s PMP TASK 5—EMISSIONS FACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT Prior Results Achieved (FY 2012- FY 2013): Indicators Comments Indicator #5: Number of countries that achieve higher quality inventories according to the IPPI tool (custom indicator) 0 To date, Task 5 activity has focused on report finalization. Indicator # 7 Number of climate mitigation and/or adoption tools, technologies, and methodologies developed, tested, and/or adopted as a result of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-8) 0 To date, Task 5 activity has focused on report finalization. Indicator #14: Person hours of training completed in climate change supported by USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.26) 0 To date, Task 5 activity has focused on report finalization. Activities planned for FY 2013 and 2014 The activities planned for FY 2013 and 2014 are both at the regional and country level, based on identified demand. These are detailed below. There are two Asia LEDS Forums planned – one each in 2013 and 2014 for FY 2014, for all partner countries. These include a training session on LEDS, coordination with ALP members, LEDs for policy makers, LEAP model, IPCC learning events and emission factors for mobile and stationary combustion. In addition, several other activities involving different countries will cover Components B (Low Emission Development Strategies) and C (GHG Accounting and GHG Market Readiness). Most activities will focus on transport, agriculture, forest and land use, alternate energy as well as understanding LED and GHG. Exchanges, workshops and other events include those for ALP on appropriate transport mitigation action (including on the Malaysian Bus Rapid Transit system, low emission development benefits, contribution to LEDS partnership development, participating in the agriculture, forest, and other land use (AFOLU) working group, presentation of case studies and toolkits and Asia Green House Management Centre inauguration. 124 Bangladesh: Overall 22 activities have been identified for Bangladesh of which 3 are country specific activities. Apart from the training activities that are common for the whole group, Bangladesh will also receive SilvaCarbon training on forested wetlands. There are 3 country specific activities under Component C, subtask 2.1 (National GHG Inventory Capacity Building in Bangladesh). Country specific activities include: training for the country inventory team, technical assistance on activity data collection and use of inventory software and for estimation GHG emissions and removals. Cambodia: Overall 30 activities have been identified for FY 2014. Of these 9 are country specific activities. The country specific activities are under Task 2. These trainings and other activities on forested wetland, support to establishing a sustainable National Inventory Plan, IPPI assessment, participation in e-learning and capstone course for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other recruitment and procurement activities. The e-learning and capstone course for IPCC was included on request from the country. In India, 20 activities have been identified. Apart from the general training that all countries will receive, Indian partners will receive SilvaCarbon training for forested wetlands. Other activities planned for this period include scoping visits and partnership development plan preparation (in India) and site selection. Indonesia: There are 25 activities for FY 2014, of which 7 are country-specific. The country specific activities falling under Task 2 are meeting with the Ministry of Environment, Inventory Project Performance Indicator (IPPI) baseline assessment, and participation in IPCC 2006 e-learning and capstone courses. The country specific activities under Task 3 are scoping visit to Medan and site selection and development of partnership plan. Laos: All activities in Laos are contingent on the Government of Laos signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with USAID. This was not done as of February 23, 2014. Malaysia: In Malaysia, a total of 27 activities are planned for FY 2014. Eight of these activities are country specific covering Task 2 (subtask 2.6 and 2.12) and Task 3. The country specific activities under Task 2 are IPPI baseline assessment, technical assistance (TA) on stock change factors for soil and dead organic matter, TA on methane emissions from livestock and rice, and participation in IPCC 2006 e-learning and capstone courses. Task 3, country specific activities are a scoping visit to identify potential sub-national engagement, site selection and development of partnership plan. Nepal: Of the 23 activities planned, 5 are country-specific activities that are part of Component C’s sub￾task 2.7 (National GHG Inventory Capacity Building in Nepal). The country specific events include: a planning meeting with Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment (MoSTE), preparing an activity plan for inventory support, conducting an IPPI baseline assessment, an inventory introduction workshop, and technical assistance to the development of a national inventory system (an ongoing activity). The Philippines: 26 activities are planned, 7 of which are country specific activities (including a training workshop on emission factors for mobile sources and stationary combustion as both a country specific and regional activity). The country specific activities include the GHG inventory work plan meeting, donor coordination meeting, IPPI baseline assessment, technical assistance for AFOLU and Agriculture and Land Use (ALU) software, and 4 workshops on Emissions Factors and on Energy Sector Inventories. 125 Additionally, the Philippines is participating in the Southeast Asia Climate Finance Workshop on Accessing Finance for Green Growth and LEDS and the SilvaCarbon regional training session on forested wetlands. Papua New Guinea: 12 activities planned for Papua New Guinea (PNG), of which 4 are country level activities. PNG will not participate in either of the two Asia LEDS Forum or the training sessions on LEDS. PNG will participate on coordination with ALP members, IPCC training, national inventory systems, and SilvaCarbon training for forested wetlands. All the country specific activities are in the form of technical assistance and are for emission and removal estimates and review of National Communications inventory chapter, institutional arrangements, ALU software, inventory tools for the energy and other sectors and mitigation analysis for agriculture and land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF). Thailand: 39 activities have been identified for Thailand, 20 of which are country specific. Task 6 country specific activities include conducting EC-LEDS workshop and other related activities in conjunction with EC-LEDS. Under Task 3 country specific activities include developing national GHG registry systems. Under Task 2, Thailand has several country specific TA activities, such as data collection, documentation archiving, review of emission estimates, emission factors, review of different software and tools; and participation in IPCC 2006 e-learning and capstone courses. Under Task 3, the country specific activities include scoping visit, site selection to Chiang Mai, and partnership development. Vietnam: A total of 26 activities are planned for Vietnam, including 7 country specific activities. The country specific activities are a part of Task 2 and 3. Under Task 2, the activities are TA on data collection and on various tools and participation in IPCC 2006 e-learning and capstone courses. Under Task 3 the country specific activities are a scoping visit to Thanh Hoa province, site selection and development of a partnership plan. Key Points  The integrated work plan is a positive step in ensuring there is coordination and collaboration between different agencies with which the LEAD program works.  Focus of the work plan is on capacity building and work on GHG accounting protocols, strengthening tools for GHG accounting, low-emission development decision-making, and establishment of regional platforms for institutional capacity and networking.  The capacity-building and technical assistance seem to clearly be the focus of quite a bit of the activities in the countries, where a number of capacity building activities are the same for all countries and a few are also according to the country project needs. Training on GHG inventory development is to be provided to all partner countries. Some training, such as for forested wetlands (SilvaCarbon) training is aimed at only specific countries, and the GHG registry support is only provided to Thailand at present. This shows that the countries have started to identify and prioritize their needs under the USAID project.  The capacity building and technical assistance planned under the project clearly demonstrates that the project aims to strengthen the country teams’ capacities to ensure that they are able to implement the work plans.  The focus for emission factors and GHG accounting is mainly on (i) transportation, (ii) forestry, (iii) agriculture, (iv) land use management, and (v) energy.  Activities in PNG are limited, especially when it comes to capacity building activities. In addition, it is not participating in the Asia LEDS Forum. 126  The Data Quality Assessment Report (reviewed separately), identifies several weaknesses in the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system. However, M&E training, capacity building, and other activities are not planned. Document Name LEAD Program SOW – Philippines. Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) Program Support for Greenhouse Gas Inventory Capacity Building in the Philippines (USAID/Philippines Buy-in), June 2012 1. Overview This document is a LEAD program Statement of Work (SoW) for The Philippines. This activity was awarded on September 27, 2011 to ICF Incorporated, LLC. The contract was for technical assistance for capacity-building on climate change and clean energy. 2. Background and Introduction The SoW intends to interface with the activities of the USAID/Philippines-funded Climate Change and Clean Energy (CEnergy) Program, for activities relating to GHG inventories and the successor energy program of the USAID/Philippines specifically addressing LEDS. It is a two-year project with an end date in September 2014. USAID/Philippines is the activity manager for this SoW. The Technical Assistance (TA) will build The Philippine’s capacity to design and implement its own LEDS through the U.S. Government’s EC-LEDS initiative. Activities under the SoW included developing GHG inventories, carbon market development, regional cooperation, capacity building, and knowledge sharing platforms. Government of the Philippines (GHP) Climate Change Commission (CCC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with USAID for EC-LEDS in November 2011 with a MoU between USAID and the Government of Philippines (GPH) in November 2011. The activity is founded on GPH’s 2009 Climate Change Act, 2010 National Framework Strategy on Climate Change, and the National Climate Change Action Plan. The tasks under this MoU are (i) Regional Support for National GHG Inventory Capacity Building and Development, (ii) Regional Support for MRV Protocols and Tools Development, Capacity Building, Pilot Demonstrations, and Replication, (iii) Emissions Factor Identification and Development, and (iv) Regional Support for LEDS Development and Implementation. 3. Summary All identified activities are under Component B: Low carbon emission strategies with one task each under subtask 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. Sub-task 6.1 - on institutionalization of national GHG inventory and LEDS is to include government agencies, the private sector and civil society organizations (CSOs). Government agencies involved would be from the central level to local government units at the provincial, city, and municipal levels. Prior to the conclusion of CEnergy in June 2103, the project will hire another coordinator/advisor to manage the GHG inventory and LEDS process. 127 Subtask 6.2 is on workshops and training on GHG inventory and Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV). There will be at least 6 technical workshops in FYs 13 and 14. For training activities like GHG inventory building, GHG estimation methodology, reporting processes and promote the development, testing, evaluation, publishing, and use of the MRV tools and protocols collaboration between CEnergy, USEPA, and LEAD will be considered. Complementary technical training not already addressed through the South East Asia (SEA) GHG program on energy, transport, forestry, and land use will be given by USEPA. Subtask 6.3 is to enhance data system management for the energy sector. Here the LEAD team will support assessing existing national GHG inventory datasets needed for the Third National Communication and the Biennial Update Report for FY2013-FY2014. The subtask will support collection, standardization and digitization of data sets. LEAD and CEnergy are to collaborate to provide training to develop more reliable, country specific emission factors for the energy sector. As LEAD and CEnergy are collaborating on a number of activities, responsibilities for the two programs have been clearly demarcated. These are: CEnergy Program LEAD Program  Hire advisor/coordinator  Work with CCC/Department of Energy (DOE)/Department of Trade and Communication (DOTC) to fill workbook and energy questionnaires for GHG inventory  Work with USEPA and LEAD program team to identify and address gaps in GHG inventory  Help set up energy inventory database  Lead organizing of GHG inventory and LEAD related workshops/training.  Hire advisor/coordinator before term end for CEnergy advisor  Assist to fill data gaps in GHG inventory  Give technical experts and advisory support on GHG inventory and other MRV protocols in coordination with SEA GHG Inventory program.  Help design agenda for workshop on GHG inventory The project will develop a number of tools, protocols, etc. for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). Once implemented successfully they may have lessons for other countries to replicate. Emphasis has also been placed on building capacities and sharing of information through workshops and training activities. This will be very important for taking this effort forward, especially given the plan to have multi-stakeholder involvement in implementation. Document Name Enhanced Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies in India, Desk Study. Draft July 30, 2012. USAID 1. Overview The US-India Energy Dialogue was initiated in 2005. It is under this Dialogue that DoE-USA and the Indian Planning Commission had an exchange of letters on Low Carbon Growth (LCG) in March 2012, which focuses on India’s 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017). The Dialogue was initiated in 2005 and has 5 working groups – (i) power and energy efficiency, (ii) new technologies and renewable energy, (iii) oil and gas, (iv) coal, and (v) civil nuclear. The LCG is to cut across all 5 groups and also look at non-energy GHG emissions from sectors like agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. 128 This document being assessed, Enhanced Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies in India, Desk Study. Draft July 30, 2012. USAID was developed to identify ideas for the working groups. 2. Background and Introduction India’s actions for climate change are largely defined through the National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) and its complementary state level action plans. India also uses existing land use/cover maps for estimating land use emissions, except for wetland areas. State and sector level GHG inventories; the National Inventory Management Systems (NIMS), is being developed with donor agency support. This report has been developed after the USG and GoI engagement on Low Carbon Development, unlike that in other LEAD countries. Therefore, engagement between the two countries on Low Carbon Growth under the US-India Energy Dialogue has already been established. 3. Summary The report identifies a number of opportunities for collaboration between USG and GoI. The main areas discussed here can be broadly categorized under GHG inventories and emission estimation, energy efficiency, REDD+, the transport sector, modeling, and capacity building. Possible areas of opportunities for USG support are given below.  Collaboration with state governments, central ministries, and other international agencies in the development of sub-national inventories and help integrate procedures for Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). India has a QA/QC plan for the GHG inventory development process. Support from the USG could help improve this process and provide technical assistance for the planned modification of these Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) QA/QC procedures.  Technical assistance for efficient ways to collect data, its management and methodology. This may include the application of the “Developing a National GHG Inventory System template” workbook at sub-national levels, improvement of data consistency across years and raise awareness for data providers on GHG inventory methods like application of data to estimate emissions, and development of a central energy database in electronic format.  Training to use the Agriculture and Land Use (ALU) National GHG Inventory software tool. This may include development of land use maps and categorization approach to improve emissions estimates for LULUCF sector, including on the use of the ALU tool for producing maps to estimate GHG emissions.  There is also a need for training for inclusion of uncertainty associated with activity data and emission factors using Tier 2 approach that uses the Monte Carlo method.  Support enhancing India’s analytical capacity by establishing a stable funding source for a core group of modeling teams to maintain and grow their capabilities. This funding should support a mix of university and institute-based teams; and include the energy and climate modeling community. Both modelers and policy makers can help ensure that research is reflected in policy and included in decision making. It may also include generic regional or municipal level energy/environmental planning tools for local modeling teams to support local planning authorities and to improve existing models.  Support policy implementation to improve operationalizing the National Clean Energy Fund by supporting Ministry of Finance draft appropriate guidelines to ensure fund’s proper utilization.  Support improved implementation of energy codes, legislation, and its adaptation as support for low carbon growth in the building sector. 129  Train energy auditors through a collaboration between DoE and Bureau of Energy Efficiency through Indian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (IIPEC) to support compliance with International Standards Organization (ISO) 50001 Energy Management Standards. This is to help key Indian industries (like iron and steel, pulp and paper, chemicals and petrochemicals, cement and aluminum) decrease energy consumption between 10 and 25% through the use of best available technologies.  Capacity-building through university-based industrial assessment centers to enhance energy conservation in small and medium enterprises.  Provide support to an India-based Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Centre (AFDC) for the development, commercialization, and deployment of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles to support current transport sector. The initiative could be in coordination with the India Clean Cities program. Working on improved traffic demand management was also suggested.  Collaboration on forestry, agriculture, and land use management through the National Mission for Green India (GIM) and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The collaboration may support influencing REDD+ policies and mechanisms at the national level, establishing credible national baselines and methodologies associated with the GIM and REDD+ activities. This may include standardization of reporting systems and harmonizing of work in the unit level, development of sound MVR system at sub-national level, streamlining the stratification, and implementation of system for inventories and monitoring. Other possible areas identified include management of forest productivity, forest cover mapping, forest inventory and monitoring, estimation of carbon potential of different forest types, and improvement of genetic stock for afforestation.  India has been collaborating with the USG through the US-India Energy Dialogue through 2005.  This report identifies a number of areas of interest and collaboration for the USG. These range from energy efficiency to improved GHG accounting in industries and collaboration agriculture, land use and forestry.  The type of activities identified in the document include database development and management, GHG inventory estimation and tools development, QA/QC procedures, policy influence, support implementation of existing policies, modeling and policy influencing. This shows a wide area of possible collaboration between the two governments.  Some of the areas which have been suggested in this document are existing activities in the LEDS 2014 work plan. Therefore, some of the areas of collaboration have been well identified and opportunities have turned into actual activities. Document Name: USAID, 2013. Recommendation for LEAD’s Gender Program. Low Emission Asian Development Program (LEAD). USAID/RDMA 1. Overview The LEAD Gender Strategy identifies immediate and long-term opportunities for integrating gender￾related considerations into all LEAD activities to achieve the objectives of USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy and to enhance the effectiveness of the LEAD program in meeting the goals of this policy. 2. Background and Introduction To create long term improvement in gender equality in GHG mitigating activities in LEAD countries and integrate gender considerations in current and future LEAD activities the Strategy recommends: Capacity-building of LEAD team to understand the gender dimensions of GHG mitigation and incorporate gender considerations into LEAD activities. 130 The Strategy suggests integration of gender considerations into existing and future LEAD activities through:  Incorporating gender in LEAD training activities by increasing women’s participation in trainings and adding gender considerations into training curricula, and developing strategic partnerships with organizations like Women Organizing for Change in Agricultural and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) and Business and Professional Women (BPW) International.  Suggesting specific opportunities for strengthening women’s representation and leadership in the Asia LEDS Partnership and at annual Asia LEDS Forum events, and recommend gender-focused enhancements to the Asia LEDS Knowledge Portal.  Incorporating gender considerations into the LEAD monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and results framework.  Periodic reviewing and adjusting the gender strategy with the aim of increasing its effectiveness throughout the life of the project. The Gender Strategy suggests a Gender Activity Matrix for LEAD tasks be developed, with implementation timeline and with an appropriate tool set. Tools to help make the strategy operational include a Gender Integration Questionnaire for LEAD Activity Managers and a New Proposed Gender Indicator for LEAD. The LEAD Gender Strategy is to be distributed to all LEAD activity managers, country coordinators, and implementing partners to provide guidance in integrating gender considerations into all LEAD activities. The LEAD performance management plan (PMP) and data activity sheet with gender indicators should be made available. Referring to the USAID Guide to Gender Integration and Analysis (2010) the strategy suggests integrating gender in:  Program planning: taking into account gender roles and relationships in development of strategic plans and Assistance Objectives.  Project/activity planning: using gender analysis to determine how gender can be addressed in projects and activities.  Performance indicators: ensuring performance management systems and evaluations include gender-sensitive indicators and sex-disaggregated data. Because men and women experience climate change and GHG differently, gender inclusion must be a priority during the planning process and implementation of activities. 3. Summary The report suggests ways for LEAD to become more gender balanced. These are:  Including both men and women in decision making, in project design and implementation  Incorporating gender issues in policies  Promoting PES that include both men and women  Promote clean energy technologies that reduce traditional burden on women while promoting opportunities for small and medium businesses for them  Reduce gaps in training for both men and women in relevant topics, and enhance opportunities for women to participate in the GHG market  Having a gender focal person in LEAD 131 LEAD’s Gender Strategy identifies ways for gender inclusion in its agenda and for the Results Framework to incorporate gender in its activities. These include:  Capacity-building of LEAD team for gender integration, including creating resources like funds and a focal point in the LEAD team, and exchange of gender related information and experience within the team.  Integrating gender-responsive components into current activities, such as providing opportunities and encouraging women to participate in training activities and linking with agencies focusing on gender and women’s empowerment.  Incorporating gender-focused activities in work plans like gender inclusion in M&E framework – indicators, targets, PMP, gender disaggregated data for future analysis and monitoring of gender activities. Suggestions for monitoring gender inclusion are carbon offset activities impact on women, increase in female representation in training and other activities.  Increasing women’s participation in discussions and decision making within LEAD, and among private and public sector LEAD partners (regional and national organizations and agencies).  Promoting equal participation of women and men in LEAD activities.  Partnering with national, sub-national, and regional women’s organizations (including WOCAN and BPW), relevant government entities, and other international organizations and donors to leverage other work related to gender equality and women’s empowerment and maximize the impact of LEAD activities.  Using LEAD platforms such as the Asia LEDS Portal and the Asian Greenhouse Gas Management Center (AGMC) to educate stakeholders throughout Asia about the importance of gender considerations in LEDS development and implementation.  Measure improvements in gender equality and women’s empowerment using gender indicators in LEAD results framework.  Performing semi-annual review and adjustment of gender activities to promote maximum impact. The document has suggested a number of different activities and time plan to ensure gender inclusion in the project. For the 2014 agenda, the greatest focus is on training and capacity building activities, and inclusion of women in LEAD activities. The document also gives a proposed gender indicator reference sheet, which perhaps can be used to look at how gender fares on the LEAD activities. Document Name: Asia Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) Partnership, Work Plan for Calendar Year 2013. Version 1, March 15, 2013 1. Overview The Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP) is one of three regional platforms of the LEDS Global Partnership (GP). It was designated in the first annual meeting of the LEDS GP in March 2012. The ALP was launched in September 2012 at the Asia LEDS Forum at Bangkok. It has over 150 representatives from 17 governments in Asia, regional and international development organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private businesses. 2. Background and Introduction ALP’s vision is to create sustainable development, robust economic progress, and low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It envisages countries adopting and implementing LEDS and green growth practices across all sectors. 132 ALP’s goal is to support development of country-led strategic plans that promote economic growth while reducing GHG emissions in the Asia region, without creating environmental or social pressures. ALP has 4 objectives:  Coordination, collaboration, and partnerships: Facilitate enhanced collaboration various agencies in the region like governments, development organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, and academic institutions.  Tools and best practices: Identify and disseminate tools, models, approaches, and best practices in priority LEDS topics for peer-to-peer learning and application across Asia.  Capacity-building: Foster capacity-building to make Asia a leader in designing and implementing LEDS and green growth.  Leadership and awareness: Strengthen support for LEDS across Asia through leaders of change and raising awareness on benefits and methods of promoting LEDS. 3. Summary The benefits identified for ALP to its members are to provide:  A venue for regional peer exchange on lessons and experiences in fostering LEDS;  A venue to identify opportunities and collaborate to improve or tailor LEDS activities, tools, and resources to benefit members and the region;  A platform to access training, technical assistance, and capacity-building on key LEDS topics;  A platform to help access regional and global climate funds, and increase public and private sector investment in LEDS;  A platform to leverage resources and promote synergies;  A forum to cultivate and support champions for LEDS, to demonstrate Asian leadership in LEDS and in promoting green development pathways; and  An opportunity for South-South collaboration with other LEDS Global Partnership (LEDS GP) regional platforms (e.g., Africa, Latin America) and global work streams, as well as South-North collaboration (e.g., with development organizations, businesses). The ALP platform will help LEDS with planning through training and the development of tools. The streams of work identified by ALP are agriculture, forestry and land use, energy, transportation, and waste. The ALP has a similar leadership structure to that of the LEDS GP structure with a Secretariat, a Steering Committee, and two Co-chairs. The Secretariat is based at Bangkok and includes representation from the Asia LEDS Partnership, Latin America LEDS Partnership, and Africa Climate and Development Society. The two Co-chairs are Indonesia and USAID. The membership consists of Asian Development Bank (ADB), USAID, Cambodia, Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Clean Air Asia, CSTEP (India), GGGI, IGES, Indonesia, Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA), Lao PDR, Nepal, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UKFCO), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), Vietnam, World Bank, and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). ALPs 2013 activities were to establish its network, deliver selected activities, and assess LEDS successes, priorities, and needs at the country level. It was also to identify existing resources and capabilities to support LEDS among countries and international partners, and opportunities and potential ALP activities. 133 Suggested activities to be delivered by ALP include (i) regional and sub-regional peer-to-peer learning exchanges and forums, (ii) knowledge products, (iii) training, expert assistance and advisory services, and (iv) improved access, relevance, and usability of tools available to support LEDS. The ALP document has identified a number of platforms to share successes of LEDS in Asia globally, and two forums for learning and peer exchanges. It plans to review of 3 tools – the LEDS Self Assessment Tools, Country specific Geospatial Tools (GsT) and the 2050 Pathways Calculator and assistance for specific activities. ALP also planned to explore a number of events, tools, and services in response to its member interests. This Secretariat was also to hold the second LEDs forum at Bangkok. ALP was also supposed to map LEDS the successes, priorities, support needs, and expertise and resources available to support LEDS needs and interests as a part of the 2013 work plan. This document also identified the top 12 areas prioritized in the Asia LEDS 2012 Forum:  Financial linkages  Agriculture and Forestry sharing and strengthening of tools  Sub-national training  Exchanges and advice  LEDS technical tools strengthening for benefit assessment  LEDS technical tools strengthening for policy and planning  Finance – market based instruments understanding  Agriculture and forestry mapping initiatives and gaps in countries  Energy expert advice technical and for investment  Sub-national pilot project exploration  Energy technical resource and peer learning  LEDS tools GHG inventories  transport – peer learning and training. Document Name Asia LEDS Partnership Work Plan for Calendar Year 2014 – Draft 1 1. Overview This is a draft document with comments and not the final version. It describes what the ALP is planning for 2014. Identified activities are subject to change in the final version. 2. Background and Introduction The document describes a number of administrative activities it needs to undertake. These include meetings for the Steering Committee, coordination calls, identification of focal points, and elections for posts. The document discusses a membership drive and mentions that there have already been 53 new organizational members from around the world of which 11 are from South Asia and 18 from Southeast Asia. There is also a number of new individual members. The document mentions the need for undertaking a membership drive to further increase its membership in Calendar Year (CY) 2014. 134 As a part of its communication activities, the ALP will launch and maintain its website, have a branding strategy, send newsletters, etc. It also plans to revisit its logical framework developed in 2013 and actively participate in the LEDS GP results framework development and reporting activities to track global reach and impact. There is a detailed list of activities and actions planned in the document that fall under the areas of partnership creation, knowledge development and capacity building with specific actions identified for finance, budgeting and investments, the energy, ALOFU, and transport sectors. 3. Summary The ALP has been making efforts to create a large membership base, and its strategies and activities seem to have resulted in an increase in the total number of members. The draft work plan more or less suggests the same activities as were suggested in the previous document. It may not be possible to clearly gauge the reasons for this repeated list of activities from the existing information, and therefore it is not possible to say whether this was due to initial start- up delays or due to a demand to repeat activities that were perceived to be useful. However, given its focus on energy, ALOFU, and transport targets, the document falls within the areas that the LEAD countries are interested in. ALP seems to have an increasing number of people interested in being a part of the forum. This could be a sign of it being seen as a useful platform. Document Name: USAID Asia, 2012. LEAD Program, Regional Priorities and Opportunities for Promoting Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) in Asia. Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultation: Summary Report. USAID 1. Overview This report is a summary of consultation outcomes for various LED countries in Asia. The report starts with context and activities presently funded by USAID and other donors. It also gives an overview of government actions, programs, strategies, etc. on climate change. 2. Background and Introduction Bangladesh Bangladesh has the 8th largest population in the world. The agriculture sector in the country was identified as being the largest producer of GHG (52% of total GHG emission in the country). The second largest emitter is energy (about half that of agriculture). Bangladesh is also extremely vulnerable to climate change. Climate Change and Bangladesh Bangladesh has a clearly identified institutional system to address climate change and has also a number of policy documents. The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) published a National Adaptation Program of 135 Action (NAPA) in November 2005. Bangladesh updated its Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (CCSAP) in 2009. While emphasizing adaptation and disaster preparedness, the Strategy also addresses mitigation and contains many of the elements of a LEDS. GoB has not submitted any Nationally Appropriate Management Action (NAMA) to UNFCCC, though the MoEF is interested in doing so. The CCSAP includes five focus areas under the pillar of Mitigation and Low Carbon Development: (1) development of a strategic energy plan and investment portfolio, (2) expansion of social forestry, (3) expansion of greenbelt reforestation (mangroves), (4) technology transfer, and (5) reform of energy and technology policies and incentives. The CCSAP also describes 10 specific programs to address mitigation: 1. Improved energy efficiency in energy production and consumption; 2. Gas exploration; 3. Development of coal mines and coal-fired power generation; 4. Renewable energy development; 5. Lower emissions from agricultural lands; 6. Management of urban waste; 7. Afforestation and reforestation; 8. Expansion of energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs; 9. Energy and water efficiency in the built environment; and 10. Improved energy consumption in transport (including CDM access). To help identify discrete activities under the CCSAP, allocate funds for projects and serve as a financial mechanism, the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund was established in 2010. With a budget of approximately $300 million spread over four years (2009-2012), the fund identified six thematic areas including one on mitigation and low carbon development. This theme received approximately 30% of the total funding of USD100 million, disbursed to date. Projects that have been identified include programmatic CDM for waste utilization, baseline and GHG accounting for entrepreneurs to develop sound CDM projects, solar-power for irrigation and electrification purposes and use of biogas. Bangladesh plans to significantly increasing power generation capacity and reducing transmission and distribution losses. By 2021, Bangladesh plans to produce 20 gigawatts (GW) of electricity, which is four times the current level of production. Presently, Bangladesh’s ALOFU work is concentrated on mitigation and poverty alleviation, thought to a lesser extent on forestry. On energy Bangladesh is working on renewables. There are also some low carbon initiatives in the transport sector (convert rickshaws to low carbon technologies). In 2012 Bangladesh had 5 CDM projects concentrated on waste management and or industrial activities (mainly brickmaking). GoB is also perusing voluntary markets for REDD like projects. Bangladesh has a few CDM and a few PoA projects registered as of 2012. Donor Activities The MoU with the USG on EC-LEDS in September 2011, identifying four broad areas of cooperation: (1) national GHG inventory, (2) economic and emissions assessment research and analysis, (3) clean energy, and (4) agriculture. For sustainable landscapes, USAID’s Integrated Protected Areas Co-management (IPAC) Program focuses on a network of protected areas and supports capacity building, natural resource monitoring, 136 livelihoods, property rights for communities and community-based management, and policy formulation. The planned follow-on program that was supposed to start in June 2013 intended to expand beyond forestry and look at issues on an economy-wide scale, going beyond protected areas. The USG Clean energy program looks at (i) promotion of renewable, (ii) promotion of demand-side management and energy efficiency for industries, and (iii) improving enabling policy environment for renewable and energy efficiency. The two countries work on a program – Catalyzing Clean Energy in Bangladesh (CCEB), a five-year program to improve the enabling environment for low-emissions development and increased energy efficiency and conservation. The program will also work on industrial energy efficiency and will build upon existing work under the USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and the Environment (E3) “Industrial Energy Efficiency Opportunities Assessment” project. Through NREL the two countries are planning to conduct a wind energy potential assessment and develop a GHG inventory capacity-building program in Bangladesh. USAID/Bangladesh suggested that the LEAD program examine biomass burning as a significant emissions source and contributor to agricultural land degradation. USAID plans to support methods to reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in the agricultural sector as well as methane (CH4) emissions by introducing pelletized fertilizer and processes to dry fields in between rice irrigation periods. DFID chairs the Local Consultative Group and is active in the donor coordination process on climate change activities. Donors such as GIZ, UNDP, and others support natural resources management projects, typically with a focus on livelihoods and climate change adaptation. Mitigation-related funding includes support for energy efficiency and renewable energy. A national GHG inventory with support from UNDP was been completed in 2012, and the MoEF may receive UNEP support for updating this inventory. The country will also be undertaking training for sector specific baseline development without donor support. Cambodia Cambodia is one of the most climate vulnerable countries in Asia even though its global contribution to GHG emission is not very high. Cambodia’s initial national communication reports indicated that the country experienced a net sink in carbon in 1994 at -5.1 million tCO2e. LULUCF activities were responsible for approximately 79% of GHG emissions and even greater GHG removals. Therefore, the LULUCF sector is a net sink in Cambodia at -17.9 million tCO2e. Cambodia’s biggest emitter is agriculture. 2005 CAIT data indicate that the emission from agriculture were 16.2 MtCO2e and 4.7 MtCO2e from emission. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in Cambodia Cambodia has developed its National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) 2009–2013, Green Growth Roadmap, and National REDD+ Roadmap. The Cambodian Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (CCCSP) is currently under development and is to be an entry point for climate change policy development and integration. Ministry of Environment (MOE) is responsible for climate change and manages a National Climate Change Committee chaired by the Prime Minister. The Climate Change Department (CCD) was 137 established under the MOE to act as a Secretariat to UNFCCC as well as the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC). The MOE manages natural resources, including protected areas in Cambodia. Donor Activities UNDP Cambodia has established a network of international climate change practitioners called the “Solution Exchange for Climate Change in Cambodia.” Cambodia is part of ADB’s Greater Mekong Sub￾region initiative, participates in the World Bank’s FCPF, and is a part of the UN-REDD program. The Cambodia Climate Change Alliance (CCCA) a multi- donor initiative promotes institutional strengthening through capacity development. It also operates a grants facility to assist vulnerable communities and others to cope with climate change impacts and disasters. It is funded by UNDP, SIDA, DANIDA, and the European Commission (EC). The CCCA Trust Fund of USD 8.9 million is anchored within the NCCC to provide a unified funding platform accessible to relevant government agencies, NGOs, and civil society. India India, a member of the G20, is one of the largest emitters of the LEAD partner countries. The largest emissions in the country were from the energy sector at 58%, followed by industry 22%. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in India The MoEF, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) form the regulatory and administrative core on environment issues. The Climate Change Office in MoEF is the key point of contact for the UNFCCC and is responsible for submitting National Communication reports to the UNFCCC. The National CDM Authority (NCDMA) and the INCCA are housed in this office. The MoEF also works in collaboration with Ministry of Power, Ministry of Finance, and state governments on climate change issues. It launched the Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) in October 2009 and links more than 120 institutes and 220 scientists of the country. It has developed the Climate Change and India: A 4x4 Assessment to assess the impacts of climate change in the country in four climate sensitive areas for the country – agriculture, water, natural ecosystems and biodiversity, and health. In April 2012, India launched its 12th five-year plan for 2012 to 2017. India also has announced a “carbon tax” on coal to fund clean energy at a rate of USD 1/ton that applies to both domestically produced and imported coal. The Government of India’s (GoI) goal is to reduce its emission intensity by 20% to 25% between 2005 and 2020. Between 1994 and 2007, India’s emissions intensity declined by more than 30% due to ongoing schemes and policies. India’s support low carbon growth includes promotional incentives for renewables like accelerated depreciation, tax holidays, customs exemptions, and the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) trading scheme. India’s Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission aims to enable 1 GW of solar energy by 2013 and 20 GW of grid-connected solar energy in India by 2022. The National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE) promotes energy efficiency in industrial, agricultural and commercial sectors. The National Mission on Sustainable Habitat (NMSH) promotes energy efficiency in the residential and commercial sector, managing municipal waste, and promotes urban public transport as potential mitigation options for climate change. The Ministry of Power (MoP) and Bureau of Energy Efficiency 138 (BEE) have initiated programs under the NMEEE such as the Perform, Achieve, Trade (PAT) program, Market Transformation for Energy Efficiency, and Energy Efficiency Financing Platform. The National Mission on Green India aims at using forests as sustainable carbon sinks. The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) focuses on climate resilient agriculture development; the National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change is focused on conducting research, improving climate models, and strengthening data collection. India has been developing GHG inventories on its own. However, the NC2 reported that the main gaps to be addressed for Indian GHG inventory estimations are, the non-availability of relevant data; the inaccessibility of data for improving estimates; the development of representative emission coefficients; data organization constraints; and technological and financial support for continuous inventory estimation. India is an active participant in the GHG market. In addition to the CDM, India participates in a wide variety of carbon funds such as the Renewable Energy, Private Equity Funds, World Bank-managed Carbon Funds, and Private Carbon Funds. India does not plan to develop a domestic GHG emissions trading scheme and is moving ahead with the PAT energy efficiency trading scheme and the RECs scheme. The Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), in partnership with the MoEF, GOI, World Bank, and the International Emissions Trading Association, launched the India Carbon Market Conclave in November 2007. The conclave has participation from 30 countries and Indian project developers from 43 stakeholders. India also has a number of CDM and 3 PoA projects registered about 300 schemes under the VCS and some under the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance. Donor Activities In 2003, India announced that it would only accept bilateral development assistance from five countries. These were the EU, Germany, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and the USA. Therefore, most donor programs are funded either by designated development agencies from these countries or multilateral organizations such as the GEF, World Bank, UNDP, and ADB. USG, through agencies such as USAID, Department of State, USEPA, USDOE, supports a diverse portfolio of programs related to GHG mitigation in India, including the Partnership to Advance Clean Energy Deployment (PACE-D), Partnership to Advance Clean Energy Research (PACE-R), Partnership for Land Use Science (Forest-PLUS), Community Development with Solar Energy Illumination, Energy Conservation and Commercialization Phase III (ECO-III), and Water-Energy Nexus Activity (WENEXA). Most of the bilateral programs (e.g. GIZ, EU, DFID, JICA, and USAID/USEPA) focus on specific sectors such as power, transport, and forestry. Several donor assistance programs have focused on GHG inventory development. Key programs include:  WRI with two Indian organizations developed the Electricity Governance Toolkit to conduct pilot assessments of governance of the electricity sector in countries. 139  USG supports the Local Governments for Sustainability Association which developed the Harmonized Emissions Analysis Tool that quantifies GHG and air pollution emissions and provides emissions quantification support.  The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is working with Hyderabad to estimate GHG emissions from the city. ADB, EU, Japan (JICA and Japanese MOE), UNDP, and World Bank have supported CDM programs to help build capacity of the private sector to develop good quality CDM projects and the capacity of the government to develop the necessary institutional arrangements and technical expertise for CDM approval process. Indonesia Indonesia’s NC2 suggested that the net emissions in 2000 were 1,378.0million tCO2e. The main contributing sectors were LULUCF (including peat fire-related emissions-60%), energy (20 %), waste (11%), agriculture (6%), and industry (3%). Carbon dioxide accounted for 81%of total emissions, followed by methane at 17% and nitrous oxide at 2%. 2005 estimate of total emission by CAIT was 576.5 million tCO2e excluding LULUCF. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in Indonesia The Government of Indonesia announced an emissions reduction target of 26% below BAU levels by 2020 at COP15. The Government of Indonesia aims to reduce emissions by an additional 15% with support from developed countries. In 2008, Indonesia created the Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim (DNPI) and is the primary body for policy coordination on climate change. The Indonesian President chairs the DNPI. In 2011 the DNPI released a comprehensive roadmap; the National GHG Abatement Cost Curve, that outlines the abatement potential for key sectors looking at volumes and approximate cost. In 2011, the Government of Indonesia finalized its RAN-GRK47 to support mitigation activities across all major emitting sectors, to meet the Government of Indonesia’s commitments to International negotiations. RAN-GRK needs each province to produce its own GHG Action Plan. So far, three provinces (Central Kalimantan, Jambi, and Papua) have developed their own LEDS plans. A REDD Working Group has been established under the Ministry of Forestry to manage the implementation of REDD+ programs. Various multilateral and bilateral organizations are developing REDD demonstration activities, though coordination among agencies is weak. Currently, no comprehensive and easily accessible information is available on the status of the various REDD project. Donor Activities USG in Indonesia, through various agencies like USAID, the State Department, Commerce Department, USEPA, USDOE, USDA/FS, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, has a diverse and effective portfolio of projects that support EC-LEDS and climate change mitigation. 47 National Mitigation Plan 140 Bilateral donors and multilateral institutions supporting Indonesia include Norway, Australia, EU, UK, Germany, World Bank, and UN agencies. These organizations provide technical support, capacity building, financing for project implementation, and MRV activities. The US and Japanese governments have partnered in the development of the Climate Change Center. The Center will advance LEDS, MRV, and resiliency as well as high-priority mapping tasks in the peatlands sector. Indonesia has plans for a national GHG inventory system; SIGN, and a national monitoring, reporting, and verification system. USG is also engaging private companies in the Indonesian Forest and Climate Support, Indonesia Clean Energy Development, and Capacity for Indonesian Reduction of Carbon in Land Use and Energy projects. Laos Laos is one of the smallest and poorest of the LEAD countries. Its economy is growing fast, at 8% in 2011. According to the NC1, Laos was a net carbon sink in 1990. Gross emissions (not including sinks) are the highest from the forestry sector – at 72%, followed by agriculture at 23%. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in Laos In 2011, the Government of Laos (GoL) established a new Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), and is presently being restructured. The GoL has a National Strategy on Climate Change (NSCC) which suggests creating NAMAs, action plans for the NSCC, capacity building, and generation and mobilization of greater resources. Laos prepared a National Adaptation Program for Action (NAPA) and a National Capacity Needs Self￾Assessment in 2009. It has developed a REDD R-PP and Framework through its Department of Forestry. Laos’s NSCC’s goals are:  Reinforce sustainable development goals of the Lao PDR, including measures to achieve low￾carbon economic growth.  Increase resilience of key sectors of the national economy and natural resources to climate change and its impacts.  Enhance cooperation, strong alliances, and partnerships with national stakeholders and international partners to implement the national development goals.  Improve public awareness and understanding of various stakeholders about climate change vulnerabilities and impacts, GHG emission sources and their relative contributions, and how climate change will impact the country’s economy in order to increase stakeholder willingness to take actions. According to this document, GoL has a huge hydropower potential and plans to meet 30% of its renewable energy targets through this with support of the private sector by 2030. However, it is unclear what role, if any, carbon markets will play in this plan. At the international level, Laos is a part of the Copenhagen Accord and has identified a series of priority actions for NAMAs toward a low-carbon economy. Climate change has been mainstreamed into Laos’s national development planning process where both unilateral and internationally supported measures. 141 Laos has developed one NAMA at the concept stage on transportation in Vientiane. In 2012 Laos was developing 8 projects for voluntary carbon reduction largely using VCS. The national GHG inventory was under finalization in 2012 under finalization and no sub-national inventories had been made. Donor Activities GoL has a Round Table Process (RTP) co-chaired by GoL and UNDP which coordinates donor activities. Prior to each new Five-Year Plan, the RTP, development partners, and donors review the plan. Overall, the framework to link donor activity and the national development planning process is strong. Donor activity is largely focused on REDD and carbon markets. The IGES, ADB have supported market readiness work. ADB focuses on REDD (Global Carbon Funds), carbon neutral transport corridors, forestry, transport and energy. The ADB, along with the World Bank and the IFC, is developing the Forest Investment Program. Korean donors, including the Korean Forestry Research Institute and the GHG Institute, are interested in supporting forestry accounting measures. Japanese Ministry of the Environment has a capacity-building project involving four Asian countries, one of which is Laos. Activities include development of reference and NAMA scenarios, guidelines for NAMA selection, and MRV support. Malaysia Approximately 55% of Malaysia’s land area is covered by forests, yet deforestation is very high--an estimated 87,000ha to 250,000ha of forest area have been lost every year. Oil palm, commercial logging, agricultural production, construction of dams, and shifting cultivation are the major contributors for deforestation. Malaysia is a significant oil and natural gas producer. Its commercial energy supply in 2007 was dominated by natural gas and oil (84%), followed by coal (14%) and hydropower, and other renewable sources (2%). Emission estimates from the NC2 indicated that Malaysia was a net sink in 2000 at -26.8million tCO2e. The NC2 emission estimates of 2007, indicating that Malaysia became a net emitter by 2005 (38.7 million tCO2e) and would grow to 45.9 million tCO2e in 2007. This conversion from net sink to net emitter was driven almost entirely by growth in the energy sector, which contributed to 73% of emission in 2005 and 74.2% of total emission in 2007. Waste and LULUCG are other significant sources of emission accounting for 10.9% and 6.5% of the total emission respectively. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in Malaysia The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) is the focal point for climate change in the GOM. However, other ministries like the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (KeTTHA), the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) and the Foreign Ministry are also are involved in climate change issues. The National Plan on Climate Change was released in 2009 as a product of a policy study on Climate Change funded under the Ninth Malaysia Plan. The Tenth Malaysian Plan gives priority for climate change 142 adaptation and mitigation. Five key issues on identified by the Plan for mitigation are renewable energy, energy efficiency, solid waste management, forest conservation, and other emissions reductions options. Malaysia’s NC2 contains BAU projections for energy supply and demand and energy-related CO2 emissions for the period 2000 to 2020. These projections were generated by the application of the LEAP and Microfit models. Malaysia adopted a Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan as part of the Tenth Malaysian Plan. A green technology fund (RM 1.5 billion from the GOM through a 60/40 government/private sector co￾financing scheme) has been set up. More than half of the funds have already disbursed to a variety of green technology projects. The GOM is also emphasizing energy efficiency regulations for buildings and industry and intends to release a national master plan on energy efficiency in 2012. While plans are in place, there is a lack of data to allow good policy analysis of options. Modeling ability of power sector supply options is reasonably good, but modeling of energy demand in residential, commercial, and agriculture sectors needs improvement. Donor Activities There is no USAID mission in Malaysia, but the USG is active on low-emissions support via the SEA GHG Inventory Project and RDMA’s LEAF program. Other donors support a broad array of climate￾related work. UNDP has implemented programs over the past 10 years in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and biodiversity, while also supporting the NC process. The UNDP is currently providing assistance to Malaysia for a project on the economics of climate change which is expected to result in a roadmap to meet the national intensity reduction target. In addition, Malaysia is also getting support from ADB project on low-carbon growth, which will result in increased capacity on emissions modeling and low- carbon pathways. Other donors include DFID (support to International Climate Fund), UN￾REDD program and Japan and China (support to REDD+ activities) Nepal About 30% of Nepal’s population lives below the poverty line. Agriculture is the mainstay of the country’s economy. 40% of the country is under forests. GHG emissions are the highest from the agriculture sector accounting for ab75% of all emissions (2005 CAIT inventory so not all uses there). Key National Institutions and Initiatives in Nepal The Multi-stakeholder Climate Change Initiative Coordination Committee (MCCICC) and Climate Change Council (CCC) are two leading institutional arrangements within the Ministry of Environment, Science, and Technology working on climate change. Both these committees are composed of high-level government officials, national experts representing civil society, and the representatives from bilateral and multilateral organizations. MoEST’s role is mainly limited to support and coordination and not actual implementation of projects. The Ministry of Forestry and Soil Conservation (MoFSC) houses the REDD Cell that oversees activities in the AFOLU sector. Government of Nepal (GoN) has a National Climate Change Plan (NCCP). The Plan’s objectives are: ▫ reducing GHG emissions by promoting the use of clean energy, increasing energy efficiency, and encouraging the use of green technology; ▫ adopting a low-carbon development path by pursuing climate-resilient socioeconomic development; 143 ▫ establishing a Climate Change Centre that would provide policy and technical advice to the government; ▫ preparing a national strategy for carbon trade to benefit from the CDM by 2012; and ▫ improving the living standard through maximum use of the opportunities created from climate change-related conventions, protocols, and agreements. The national policy also outlines specific policies in the areas of: ▫ Climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction; ▫ Low-carbon development and climate resilience; ▫ Access to financial resources and use; capacity building; ▫ Public participation and empowerment; study and research mainly in the areas of impact assessment; ▫ Reducing risks of climate change impact; ▫ Development and promotion of biofuels and creating a database, among others; ▫ technology development such as identifying appropriate technology to mitigate climate change impacts and develop best-available green technologies, transfer, and use; and ▫ Climate-friendly natural resources management. With the support of DfID Nepal also developed a low emission strategy in 2010. In 2012 the NC2 GHG estimates were under preparation. At the sub-national level some work was to be developed for Pokhra and Kathmandu on climate change adaptation. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLIE) South Asia is supporting some climate change initiatives in Kathmandu. Nepal does not have a domestic GHG registry or emissions trading platform. Nepal does not currently have any NAMAs under development or implementation, though potential exists of upgrading some PoAs to NaMAs according to a KfW study. The Designated National Authority (DNA) for the CDM market is the MoEST. Some of the challenges is faces include lack of emission baselines, low project volume, inadequate capacity and need for up-front finance. It is interested in REDD projects and carbon sequestration for Nepal’s forests. By 2012 Nepal had registered 5 CDM projects, and 3 PoAs under validation. Nepal has one voluntary market project on forestry and land use. Nepal in 2012 was in the first phase of implementing REDD+. Donor Activities The donor community in Nepal includes the US, Japan, the UK, the EU, Switzerland, and other Scandinavian countries. Donor climate change work is focused largely on adaptation and REDD. Some support is available for renewable energy development, in particular hydroelectric power for which interest in developing small-scale hydro resources is substantial. UNDP supports initiatives on forest conservation, environmentally friendly livelihoods, and clean energy alternatives aimed at reducing GHGs. The DFID, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the Government of Finland together are implementing a multi-stakeholder forestry program that will expand the role of forestry in helping Nepal to adapt to climate change and mitigate its impacts. The World Bank is the only other significant donor active in this sector in Nepal through its engagement in the REDD program. Additionally, the ADB is providing technical assistance through its program Mainstreaming Climate Change Risk Management in Development under the Strategic Climate Fund’s (SCF) Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). GEF is supporting work on appropriate technologies for adaptation and Denmark, Finland, and Norway have been supporting Nepal for 10 years under the Energy Sector 144 Assistance Program (ESAP) program. A new ESAP was planned through the Alternate Energy Promotion Centre. Despite a high hydro potential due to instability, it is not getting much funding from donors. The DFID and the SNV are in the process of helping Nepal to set up a Climate and Carbon Unit (CCU). The main focus of this unit would be LEDS and renewable energy. The Philippines It is a lower middle-income country with more than 7000 islands, most of which are low lying and the country is very vulnerable to climate change. Preliminary NC2 estimates show emissions from the energy sector (55%) and agriculture sector (29%) to account for the vast majority of gross emissions. LULUCF appears to be a large sink, offsetting much (or possibly all) of the country’s emissions. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in the Philippines Created in 2009, the Climate Change Commission (CCC) is the main policy making body tasked to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate climate change programs and action plans for the country. The CCC is headed by the President, who is joined by three commissioners with a fixed term of six years. The CCC’s advisory board is composed of 23 government agencies; local government units (LGUs); and representatives from academia, business sector, and NGOs. It is the mandate of the CCC to make the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change (NFSCC) and the NCCAP. In The Philippines it’s various plans and other documents contain with the country’s climate change strategies and action plans are. These include The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) (2011–2016) released in March 2011, NFSCC, National REDD+ Strategy, The Philippines Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation, and the draft NCCAP. The main means of implementing the NCCAP’s action plan is at the local level and through the promotion of “eco-towns” where the focus is on climate resilience and green growth in municipalities or groups of municipalities located near key biodiversity areas and areas highly vulnerable to climate change. Energy security and the use of domestic resources for energy are a high political priority for the Philippines. It is a regional leader in geothermal energy with a significant share of large and mini hydropower in its energy mix. However, the majority of recent and anticipated future capacity growth in the Philippines is in more carbon-intensive coal and natural gas for utility scale power and diesel for smaller scale distributed systems. It is planning to triple its renewable energy sources including hydro power. Under the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, the Philippines has identified and established policy mechanisms through which clean energy deployment can be accelerated. These mechanisms include a renewable portfolio standard, feed-in-tariffs, net metering, and a renewable energy market with tradable credits. Also these are areas where significant policy, technical, and capacity-building support will be required. In 2012 Philippines was also developing a REDD+ Strategy, and the effort was led by CoDeREDD, a coalition of NGOs, community organizations, representatives of indigenous communities, and others involved in environmental conservation and community development. GHP is presently reviewing its NC2 version of GHG inventories, and both NC1 & 2 have been prepared by a non-profit research agency the Manila Observatory for the Department of Environment and 145 Natural Resources (DENR). A sub-national GHG inventory for Makati City was under preparation with support of USAID CEnergy in 2012. The Philippines is yet to submit any NAMA and does not have a domestic carbon market. The DENR serves as the Philippines DNA for the CDM market. In 2012 it had 92 CDM projects of which 58 were registered. The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), a minority government￾owned lender, has a Philippine peso 60 million (USD 1.4 million) facility for supporting large CDM projects in the registration phase on an application basis. Of its 11 PoAs one was registered in 2012. There are also 2 voluntary market projects in the forestry sector. Donor Activities UNDP is supporting the development of the Philippines NC2 to the UNFCCC and is currently examining ways to supplement GEF funding with other UNDP programs to enhance the inventory process. In 2008 JICA completed a study for the waste sector on the development of the recycling industry in the three major urbanized areas of Metro Manila, Cebu, and Davao. The GIZ has developed a GHG emissions calculator specific to the waste sector that has been introduced to four regions so far. Through USAID/RDMA funding the USEPA has supported a SEA GHG Project. Through this program, the USEPA has conducted training on the ALU tool for compiling agriculture and land use data for GHG estimation. On November 23, 2011, the USG and the Government of the Philippines (GPH) signed a MoU to cooperate on low-emissions development strategies. The MoU identifies several areas of agreed cooperation and acknowledges the GPH’s ongoing work related to low-carbon planning. The USG Options Paper for EC-LEDS in the Philippines identified 19 options to support development of analytic tools for decision-making and 11 options to support measurable implementation progress in programs in energy and forestry, though suggested a more detailed discussion on specific sectors also be conducted. ADB provides some funds for Low Carbon Growth to the GHP. Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea (PNG) has the third largest tract of intact tropical forest in the world, and is also a leading proponent of an international regime for REDD+ as part of the UNFCCC. However, political conditions and economic instability hamper efforts towards creation of an enabling environment for REDD+, resulting in slow progress for its readiness activities and pilot projects. PNG has adequate environmental legislation but insufficient capacity to implement it. PNG’s largest emissions were from agriculture at 72% of total according to the NC1 1994 estimates, not calculating for waste. Key National Institutions and Initiatives in Papua New Guinea PNG has a National Climate Change Committee supported by the Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD) headed by the Prime Minister and Advisory Board and a Ministerial Committee. However, decision making on climate change involves a number of different agencies and departments 146 and primarily includes Ministers for National Planning, Forestry and Climate Change, Environment and Conservation, and Lands and Physical Planning. The PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) has the legal mandate to implement the Forestry Act of 1991throughthe National Forest Service, its operational arm. PNG desires to reduce its BAU emissions by up to 75% if enabling finance is made available, according to a letter to UNFCCC (Copenhagen Accord). The Ministry of Forests (MoF) Forestry and Climate Change Framework for Action, 2009–2015 states that PNG desires to be carbon neutral by 2050, while also achieving 7% annual growth rate. PNGs Vision 2050 suggests REDD+ is to be a significant contributor for both these (reduced logging impacts and management of secondary forests). While acknowledging limited institutional and other capacities and policy frameworks, PNG prioritizes the development of a MRV system along with fund disbursement mechanisms and benefit-sharing models. PNG has very few people who can handle LEDS and REDD policy and programs. However, these specialists also need to travel outside the country to get trained. Therefore, the availability of adequate and trained manpower is very limited and impacts implementation of climate change activities. GNP is revising its GHG inventories under NC2. However, data is usually underestimated due to poor or incomplete data. PNG does not have any domestic carbon trade or NAMAs. The OCCD is its DNA for the CDM market. However, there are some controversies due to its scrutinizing methods for projects on forest credits under REDD. It has 11 CDM projects. It had 1 PoA at the validation state in 2012. On voluntary forest markets it has 2 projects, of which 1 was validated by 2012. In 2009, PNG developed a National Joint Program proposal to participate in the UN-REDD, but this initial USD 2.58 million program was never implemented. A program review in October 2010 highlighted several issues, including stakeholder engagement, access to data, carbon measurement and monitoring, legal uncertainty, and policy inconsistency. A second PNG national commission (2010) has been criticized for lack of stakeholder consultation. Donor Activities Donor community focus in PNG is largely on the REDD. Ongoing political disputes and persistent corruption has been affecting donor confidence, and many donors are not disbursing funds. Bilateral and regional climate change funding for education and public awareness is provided by the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Project, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Climate and Agricultural Project funded by Israel, South Pacific Regional Environment Program, UN-REDD, and JICA. The JICA is supporting satellite surveillance of land cover changes. The EU is strengthening national forest inventory capacity and supporting certification of logging operations. The AusAID has undertaken four REDD pilot projects in PNG. Thailand The NC2 of Thailand reported national net GHG emissions in 2000 totaling 229.1million tCO2e. Emissions were driven by the energy sector, which is responsible for 67% of total emissions, followed by agriculture, emitting 22% of emissions in 2000. The LULUCF sector acted as a net sink, absorbing 7.9 million tCO2e. Key National Institutions and Initiatives 147 Thailand has established an internal structure to oversee the development and implementation of climate change policies. Key institutions include the National Climate Change Council, chaired by the Prime Minister and supported by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) of MNRE. The Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO), an autonomous governmental organization under the MNRE, also shares some responsibilities. ONEP is Thailand’s National Focal Point to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and acts as the Secretariat to the Office of Climate Change Coordination. TGO serves as Thailand’s DNA and provides a range of technical resources and services to support carbon market actors in Thailand. Thailand ratified the UNFCCC in 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. It is one of the few LEAD program countries to have already submitted a NC2. Thailand plans to develop both domestically and internationally supported NAMAs that will link to an MRV system. Thailand plans to seek financial support to develop a methodology for NAMA planning in the waste management sector. It is also developing a voluntary domestic carbon market called T-VER (Thailand Verified Emissions Reduction program. At the sub-national level, several initiatives are under way that promote low-carbon cities and include initiatives through UNDP, Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), the TGO, the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Energy. Thailand’s climate change policy and national economic development plan (NESDP) recognize linkages and the need for low-emission development. Thailand’s key climate change policies are presented in the National Strategic Plan on Climate Change Management (2008–2012) and the (Draft) National Master Plan on Climate Change (TCCMP), 2011–2050. The draft TCCMP identifies several priorities for mitigation including setting national and sector GHG reduction targets and identifying emissions reduction potential in 2020 and 2050. In the energy sector, the Ministry of Energy developed the 20-Year Energy Efficiency Development Plan (EEDP, 2011–2030) and the Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP, 2012–2021). The AEDP aims to increase the proportion of renewable energy to 25% of total energy usage. Policymakers have yet to fully understand the potential economic impacts of adopting LEDS-related measures. There is also an uncertainty of the impacts of LEDS measures in national and sub-national levels. In 2012, Thailand developed a model and conducted a study to assess economic impacts of several GHG scenarios. The preliminary results revealed that with a 30% to 50% GHG reduction target, the GDP is anticipated to decrease 0.5 to 0.8 percent in 2030. An attempt to visualize the economic impacts of the LEDS would be helpful in building support for the implementation of the LEDS. Donor Activities Donor funded initiatives include a MRV study supported by EU and establishment of a GHG reduction registry system supported by Korea. Thailand is also a part of the SEA GHG Inventory Project, Phase II, a joint initiative of the UNFCCC plus Japanese and US governments. The country is working with ADB on tools and models for energy and emissions. Thailand has also been involved with the World Banks PMR and FCPF, and the MAIN-Asia dialogue to develop, fund, and implement NAMAs as part of national sustainable development strategies. 148 Thailand is an active participant in collaborative initiatives with research institutes such as IGES, GGGI, and WRI. Japan, Denmark, and Germany, have provided technical support to enhance Thailand’s national capacity for GHG reduction projects. It is also working closely with UN agencies including UNDP on Energy Efficiency and the UN partnership framework. Additional donors include the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, USEPA, Toyota, SIDA, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and UNOCAL. Vietnam Vietnam is a rapidly growing economy and has been able to develop from one of the poorest countries to a lower-middle income country in the last 30 years. This dramatic economic growth has also contributed to a steep rise in GHG emissions. Between 1990 and 2005, GHG emissions grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent. The NC2 reported national GHG emissions in 2000 totaling 150.9million tCO2e, with agriculture contributing to 43.14% of the total emission, and energy contributing to 34.9 %. It is estimated that since 2000, there has been substantial growth in energy, waste, and industry sector. Key National Institutions and Initiatives Responsibility for climate change mitigation policy in Vietnam is spread across several ministries. The MONRE is the focal point for the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol engagement and has the lead on the National Target Program to Respond to Climate Change (NTP-RCC) developed in 2008. However, the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) leads the national Green Growth strategy, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) is responsible for REDD-related activities and mitigation efforts related to agriculture and forestry. Adaptation is the main focus in Vietnam and Under the NTP-RCC, each ministry and province is required to develop an action plan aimed at adaptation and poverty reduction, under the leadership of the MONRE. The Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), MARD, Ministry of Education and Training (MoET), and the Ministry of Health (MOH) have completed their action plans. The Government of Vietnam has a national Climate Change Strategy that was approved in late 2011 by the Prime Minister. It focuses on adaptation and aims at “facilitating the transition to a low-carbon economy and green growth.” The MPI is leading an inter-ministerial process to develop a national Green Growth Strategy extending to 2030. The MPI is also incorporating climate change indicators into national socioeconomic plans. Vietnam also approved a national “Power Master Plan VII” for 2015–2020 in July 2011 with an emphasis on energy security, energy efficiency, renewable energy development, and liberalization of the power generation market. Targets have been set for renewable energy (5.6% of total energy generation by 2020), but a low-carbon growth path is not a specific focus. Vietnam has relatively high capacity for economic and emissions analytical work, especially for modeling. However, the capacity is limited to a few ministries and government research institutes and usually with senior level staff. Consistency in methods and models across ministries and sectors is limited. The Institute for Energy under the MOIT plays a lead role in the LEDS and has a small team of modelers with good experience and capacity including capacity in LEAP. In addition, the CIEM (under the MPI) has staff with strong experience in economic modeling and analysis, although less so with emissions modeling. Each ministry uses its own GHG methods for planning and there is no harmonization. 149 The role of the private sector in Vietnam is still evolving. Vietnam has a business council for sustainable development, which pilots "green and clean" projects. Donor Activities USAID mission in Vietnam is providing assistance to Vietnam on both climate mitigation and adaptation through different mechanisms including two flagship programs- USAID/Vietnam Forests and Deltas and Vietnam Clean Energy Program Apart from USG/USAID, key donors and multilateral organizations that support GHG mitigation and low-carbon development efforts include the World Bank, UNDP, JICA, AusAID, AfD, Luxembourg, etc. Norway is a key donor for UN-REDD activities. The World Bank recently announced a USD 70 million loan for climate change actions, including USD 1 million for developing reference scenarios for several key sectors and support for emissions modeling. EU will provide significant support in the clean energy sector. Belgium is supporting Vietnam on green growth. The UK has established the Vietnam Climate Change Partnership covering capacity building for five partner key ministries, including adaptation and low-carbon growth analyses. Korea is supporting the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences in capacity building for green growth. ADB funds several energy efficiency and clean technology initiatives, and recently started a project focused on the energy and transport sector that includes top-down and bottom-up emissions reduction modeling. The ADB also supports the development of NAMAs, especially sector, provincial, and citywide action plans for implementation of the National Target Program to Respond to Climate Change (NTP-RCC). 3. Summary Bangladesh USAID/Bangladesh has a MoU with the government in Bangladesh for EC-LEDS and therefore a number of activities on low carbon growth are carried out under this MOU. However, few areas were identified for further support:  Support for development of international carbon market development  Explore opportunities for participation in training and technical support for AFOLU sector interventions.  Development of training programs for tools to assess emission impacts of land-use activities related to irrigation water management, fuel wood gathering, and brick kilns.  Support to create sector capacity on GHG inventory development, for the agriculture sector, and for creation of country-specific emission factors.  Training on other detailed inventory-related needs such as QA/QC, archiving and national inventory improvement planning.  Capacity building for all stakeholders for carbon offset project development that may include selectively advice on corporate-level carbon accounting capacity and tools to conduct rigorous MRV of energy efficiency and low-carbon initiatives.  Capacity building to expand knowledge on waste management to registered CDM projects in landfill gas to energy and composting.  Tapping of carbon credits for industries for energy efficiency in new buildings, brick kilns, textiles, and jute and steel manufacturing.  Addressing of climate vulnerability and adaptation through mitigation actions like carbon sequestration projects on wetlands conservation, forest management, and agricultural. 150  Targeted technical assistance to develop tools for assessing emission impacts of land use activities and peer review of documents related to applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners. Cambodia The report tries to outline the areas of engagement in different LEDS related areas. Some of the key opportunities identified below. However, no significant activities or opportunities were identified for sub-national GHG inventory and capabilities.  Technical assistance for agricultural and forestry experts in estimating emissions from the AFOLU sector by use of software and other land use tools like ALU develop by EPA.  Support MOE to complete EPA’s GHG inventory templates, including the templates on QA/QC, archiving, and national inventory improvement planning.  Provide selected peer review of documents related to applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners.  Support programs to develop and implement confidence-building measures to demonstrate the feasibility and long-term viability of REDD.  Model options for specific investments in concessions for plantations and forestry/timber extraction to address economic and environmental interests.  Provide technical assistance in identifying and developing possible program of activities and NAMAs. India  The document suggested that working at the state level may be more appropriate consider the size of many Indian states being larger than other LEAD countries. Areas identified for further collaboration were:  Identify and strengthen modeling capacity needs, especially in energy and transport, for areas like smart-grid modeling and integration of rapidly expanding intermittent sources such as solar and wind.  Expand the reach of the SEA GHG Project to provide technical assistance to the GOI on the National GHG Inventory Management System for systematic measurement and reporting of GHG inventory.  Provide technical assistance and training to Indian states in formulating and implementing LEDS – section on GHG inventories.  Encourage Indian officials and stakeholders share best practices and lessons through ALP, including on PAT and the RECs scheme.  Expand energy efficiency activities for industrial sectors not covered under PAT schemes.  Support expansion of India’s Solar Cities Program by sharing best practices, providing exchanges within India and other countries in Asia; technical support on baseline data gathering and GHG accounting, and create a South-South dialogue. Indonesia  Conduct scoping report to identify specific key capacity and institutional gaps within ministries to identify areas for engagement that may improve inter-ministerial coordination.  Assist and promote realistic modeling of mitigation portfolios, for NC3 or to revise RAN-GRK  Provide technical assistance and capacity building in policy analysis, estimation techniques, and modeling for scenario analysis and economic assessments for LEDS. 151  Promote timely decisions and follow through to creation the national inventory system and expand existing efforts on building capacity, in collaboration with other donors.  Provide additional technical assistance to improve national-level activity data and emission factors, especially for the AFOLU sector.  Provide additional training and capacity building for improving the institutional capacity to manage and produce more regular national GHG inventories, develop a QA/QC plan, documentation and archiving of data, and methods used to produce the national inventory report.  Provide training to use ALU software to estimate AFOLU emissions at the national and provincial levels.  Assist provinces data gathering to implement IPCC methodologies using ALU software.  Train project developers and verifiers to increase domestic capacity on market development.  Provide peer review of documents for carbon finance, especially those supported by USAID partners.  Provide technical assistance on emissions trading to ensure success of the NCS.  Provide support on NAMAs such as on issues of MRV and helping set up a registry system to tangible measure and help Indonesia coordinate efforts on NAMAs. Laos  Laos is considered a “crowded” donor space with most attention focused on REDD activities. Therefore, no early opportunities for engagement on REDD activities. Similarly, there were no early opportunities for LEAD engagement identified for carbon market development. No significant activities or opportunities were identified for sub-national GHG inventory and capability creation. The possible opportunities identified were:  Review the NC2 when released and conduct additional consultations.  Expands the SEA GHG Inventory Project to Laos and technical assistance and capacity building based on the NC2 review and additional consultations. This could help identify opportunities to refine GoL data collection, develop country-specific emissions factors, and introduce a KCA and QA/QC system to produce accurate and reliable GHG inventories. Malaysia The consultations in Malaysia identified a number of priorities and opportunities for engagement under Task 1. No significant opportunities were identified for work in the Carbon Market. Opportunities identified were:  Assist the government implement a policy process to create an action plan to meet national GHG intensity target.  Enhance capacity to use the LEAP or similar models that includes cross-sector analysis.  Provide technical assistance to build transportation-related datasets; improve modeling of agriculture policy options and improve energy demand-side analysis for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.  Support a transition to use the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.  Support improvement of communication with data providers.  Support implementation of higher-tier methodologies and country specific emission factors and data, as Malaysia is still using Tier 1 data.  Improved data for livestock, manure management, and rice cultivation.  Expand reporting of emissions from wastewater, petroleum refining, food and beverages, and potentially rubber. 152  Support improved coordination across agencies.  Provide targeted technical assistance to peer review documents for applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners.  Monitor Malaysia’s engagement with REDD and conduct required consultations. Some additional sub-national opportunities identified were provision of sector specific technical assistance on GHG inventory development, support in using ALU software, assistance in completing EPA’s GHG inventory templates and support exploring options for corporate support in inventories and reporting. Nepal No early opportunities for were identified for LEAD to support to international voluntary market projects, the domestic market development, or REDD activities. Neither were any significant activities or opportunities were identified for LEAD engagement to support sub-national GHG inventory and capabilities. Areas for engagement identified were:  Technical assistance to develop tools for assessing emission impacts of land use activities for irrigation water management, fuel wood gathering, and brick kilns.  Training to enhance technical expertise for emissions estimation in various sectors. These include improved data quality and consistency for forest and soil carbon data.  Technical assistance to develop estimates for CH4 and N2O emissions from energy consumption in industry and transport sectors, and, training to enhance technical expertise for emissions estimation in other sectors.  General capacity building to develop carbon offset projects (requested by government and civil society stakeholders).  Peer review of documents related to applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners. The Philippines No significant activities or early opportunities were identified to engage LEAD in the domestic GHG market development. Opportunities identified were:  Creation of an “ALU-like” model for other sectors, such as for energy or transport.  Provision of additional technical assistance to in-country agricultural and forestry experts in using the ALU software.  Provision of targeted technical assistance to develop tools to assess emission impacts of land-use activities and peer review of documents related to applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners. Also, technical assistance for development of country specific emission factors.  Provision of help to the DENR to complete EPA’s GHG inventory templates, including for QA/QC, archiving, and national inventory improvement planning.  Development of a quality assurance process using inventory experts across the ASEAN network for peer review and best practice dissemination.  Expansion of SEA GHG Project assistance to cover all inventory-related needs, and support to improve data management systems within sectors.  Conducting regional workshops on GHG inventory, GHG data management, and archiving.  Support for improving understanding of technical and economic potential for priority lower-carbon energy options through capacity building with the DOE, NEA, ERC, and distributing utilities. 153  Development of training and tools at the tertiary level on energy planning, energy economics, energy modeling and forecasting, and related fields that are critical for building capacity in the national government and private sector in achieving long-term LEDS objectives.  Support for data collection on illegal logging in the Philippines. The document suggested that the LEAD should continue close consultations with mission staff and seize opportunities identified through mission and country discussions. Papua New Guinea  The consultative process in PNG identified a number of areas for further action. These are:  Exploring the placement of a mentor/advisor working in the OCCD—and with its partner institutions and organizations to support the country implant its low-carbon growth strategy.  In collaboration with LEAF, work with the University of PNG and the PNG Government to improve the quality and availability of activity data and emissions factors in forests and agriculture.  Provide additional technical assistance to PNG agricultural and forestry experts in using the ALU software.  Help PNG complete EPA’s GHG inventory templates, including the templates on QA/QC, archiving, and national inventory improvement planning. However, no significant activities or opportunities were identified to support sub-national GHG inventory and capabilities.  Have LEAD work with other partners to strengthen the structure and function of a nested approach for the REDD that supports feed field demonstrations into a national MRV system.  Provide targeted technical assistance to develop tools to assess emission impacts of land-use activities and review documents related to applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners.   The document suggested that LEAD and LEAF could collaborate to work with holders of Special Agricultural Business Leases for emissions profiling and policy reform. Thailand The areas identified for engagement in Thailand were:  Provide training on basic concepts of the LEDS including design and linkages to policies.  Provide a peer review on the LEDS analyzing option methodologies and the results of the LEDS study to identify possible improvements.  Demonstrate the LEDS development at the national or sub-national level.  Provide a series of trainings and demonstrations to visualize impacts of the LEDS by using models to assess the economic impacts of the LEDS  Enhance capacity of the core GHG development team to move from 1996 IPCC Guidelines to 2006 Guidelines.  Provide training and assistance to expand inventory development techniques to corresponding governmental organizations.  Provide a MRV demonstration to the GHG development core team and to the associated governmental organizations and potential players.  Provide GHG accounting and reporting for provincial and city levels; and for the aviation sector.  Pilot LEDS at the sub-national level and demonstrate its economic impacts.  Coordinate with other donors to help the TGO establish the CITC.  Provide technical assistance to develop tools to assess baselines and emission impacts of land-use activities related to irrigation water management, fuel wood gathering, and brick kilns. 154  Provide peer review of documents related to applications for carbon finance, especially those sponsored or supported by USAID partners.  Demonstrate the Climate Registry, a voluntary registry.  Demonstrate MRV for forest cover baseline and changes for REDD.  Demonstrate LEDS in the AFOLU sector and develop case studies. Vietnam A number of opportunities for collaboration were identified in Vietnam. These are:  Provide technical assistance and training to develop capacity in LEDS planning and implementation at the city level that will support implementation of the Green Growth Strategy.  Promote the participation of the private sector in the Green Growth Strategy implementation.  Build capacity to analyze use of market-based mechanisms for achieving lower emissions growth in the transport sector.  Share information on how other countries approach green growth and the LEDS  Assist assessment of low-emission technology options to support LEDS implementation  Build capacities for the “next generation” of economic and emissions modelers in the MONRE, Institute of Energy, CIEM, ISPONRE, and relevant agencies.  Translate existing economic and emissions data into tailored data for the LEDS and look for proxy data to estimate the data requirements for the LEDS.  Assist with GHG inventory development by supporting and expanding the reach of the existing UNFCCC/USEPA SEA GHG Project.  Improve inventories in the agriculture and forestry sector; develop country specific emission factors; provide software for using software like ALU; Develop QA/QC for inventory development process  Assist major cities such as Da Nang or Ho Chi Minh to undertake city-level GHG emission inventories.  Provide targeted training on carbon market fundamentals to policymakers and other decision makers to build understanding on the basics of carbon market  Share experiences with and learn from countries more advanced in carbon market participation such as Malaysia.  Improve public awareness of carbon markets and understanding of the potential benefits for Vietnam.  Provide training and certification of GHG managers through the GHGMI suite of courses.  Provide training on how other countries in the region approach domestic emission market and how Vietnam could engage in regional markets.  Develop and implement confidence-building measures to demonstrate the feasibility and long- term viability of the REDD.  This document has identified opportunities through a consultative process. Therefore, it should have been able to identify country demands through discussions with various governments. There are a number of opportunities identified in each country showing the scope for working in the sector is high.   While many countries have broadly identified similar areas for support the challenges and requirements may vary. For example while Vietnam is interested in learning from more advanced countries on carbon markets, Thailand is interested in piloting LEDS e at the sub￾national level and demonstrate its economic impacts. Key areas identified for further assistance are summarized below. 155  In Bangladesh the focus is on technical assistance and training for data collection, country specific emission factor development, use of Agriculture and Land Use (ALU) software, development of CDM projects such as waste and industry. The other major area for support identified is the creation of GHG inventories. There is a lot of potential and interest identified in Cambodia for LEADs contribution. There is scope for technical assistance and capacity enhancement. However, there are a large number of donors in the country who are undertaking capacity building activities which may not be sustainable beyond the project period. LEAD needs to work very closely with the government agencies to ensure that it sets up a system for capacity building activities that are sustainable and are able to create local experts. The scoping report discusses that donor-funded training creates capacities and increases knowledge. However, often the ministry will not have adequate financing sources to utilize these skills well.   While in India a number of opportunities have been identified for further action, areas like PAT or its existing emission factor estimation, including Tire 2 & 3 estimate, could be useful for other countries.   For LEAD in India the document suggests area for further action to be largely focused on technical assistance for modeling, inventories and other similar activities.  Despite some initial need assessment, Indonesia’s needs and their willingness to be a part of EC￾LEDS/LEAD program seems unclear. For example it is not clear whether there were any feedback from the government agencies in terms of their needs and engagement opportunities to the LEDS assessment report conducted in 2013. Indonesia does have robust mitigation targets; and the LEAD activities there, if effective, could be sustainable beyond the LEAD program period.   Both of Nepal and Laos needs have been identified for the development of energy systems – and there is an emphasis on renewables. Therefore, exchanges and learning from one another could be useful for the two countries.  There seems to be a political willingness in Malaysia to LEDS related strategies and initiatives – and hence a good entry point for LEAD. Furthermore, the exponential growth in energy sector is driving the increase of GHG emission in Malaysia, creating a space for further work in the area. This is complemented by the fact that opportunities to work for LEADS were identified, such as strengthening data quality, for example by implementing higher tier methodologies. If successful, this could create institutional systems that may help achieve the goal of emission reduction. However, it is not clear whether the priorities and engagements identified in Malaysia, though based in the situational analysis, will be effective enough to change the emission scenario from energy sector in Malaysia, especially within the program’s timeframe.  While a number of possible initiatives for LEAD support were identified in Laos, it is considered a crowded donor arena. The possible areas for collaboration identified were focused on technical support and training and capacity building activities.  In the Philippines a large number of opportunities for working and collaborating were identified. Some of these activities are already underway – the training in the work plans. In fact the SOW for Philippines has already discuses doing some of this work – the TA for GHG inventories, carbon market 156 development, regional cooperation, which are also mentioned in the consultation report. Therefore, there seems to be a clear understanding already on what is required in the Philippines.   The consultative report identifies a number of areas for collaboration in PNG, but also mentions that most donors are hesitant to work in the country due to political instability and corruption. Therefore, work may be limited and likely to be extremely focused on a few activities that are possible to implement given these constraints. However, there is potential for a lot of collaboration if PNG wants to be carbon neutral by 2050.  Thailand is still in its initial stage in implementing LEDS and LEAD. Therefore, there are a number of opportunities to collaborate with the government and to create a case for LEDS with an emphasis on its economic impacts. The report suggests a need for capacity building especially in establishing system for GHG inventories, GHG registry and some political willingness. Vietnam is in the initial stage of designing and implementing LEDS like in many other LEAD countries. However, there is already a green growth strategy and a substantial buy in from the government. Considering that each province will be subsequently required to come up with a green growth strategy, there are potentials for LEAD to create long lasting impacts in Vietnam with national level and sub national level engagements. There is also interest and some capacity in energy and emission modeling in Vietnam, though there are capacity gaps in setting up national inventory systems and in general implementation of LEDS. Document Name USAID, 2013 (draft). Current Challenges and Priorities for Green House Gas Emission Factors in Selected Asian Countries. LEAD Program, USAID. 1. Overview Currently, Asia as a whole accounts for 40% of worldwide black carbon emissions, with Southeast Asia representing approximately 45% of Asian emissions. Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) include black carbon, methane and tropospheric ozone, are also analyzed in this report. SLCPs while have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, have a strong global warming effect. Reducing SLCP emissions is an opportunity to reduce the rate of climate change over the next few decades through by associated near￾term future warming. Six emission factors have been identified for estimation improvement:  Methane (CH4) emissions from rice cultivation;  Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), in particular, changes in woody and forest biomass, conversion of forestland to grassland, soil carbon. Specific LULUCF category(s) identified by each country depend on the country and associated land use types;  CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation;  CO2 emissions from mobile combustion;  CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas stationary combustion; and  Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from agricultural soil management. In addition to these GHG emission factors, the two areas of SLCP research that could benefit LEAD program countries are: 157  Black carbon emissions and emission factors in brick kilns and cook stoves; and  Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions and emission factors for HFC emissions from chillers, stationary air conditioning, and mobile air conditioning. 2. Background and Introduction The LEAF program (Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests) is supporting interventions in 6 countries Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia. It is sharing lessons learned and best practices to scale-up innovation in and/or from six other countries, namely Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines. LEAF has also undertaken training in Vietnam, Laos and PNG. It supports development of SOPs and toolkits for carbon estimation and REDD+ activities. LEAF has also started developing sub-national emission factors development for the forest sector in selected areas of Vietnam, Laos and PNG. India and Indonesia account for 67% of Southeast Asia’s black carbon emissions. The two countries emit 73% of the regions carbon monoxide, and also are the highest combined emitters of Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOC) – India (43) Indonesia (27). For NOx, 4 countries emit 90% of the substance in the region – India (47%), Malaysia (16%), Indonesia (15%) and Thailand (12%). There is very limited information on hydrofluorocarbons (HCF) in the region, with only Malaysia and India having estimates. Therefore, estimates are difficult to make. 3. Summary The document has identified priorities that have emerged through a consultative process in 10 of the 11 LEAD countries. This includes all but PNG. Bangladesh Bangladesh has submitted its NC2 GHG inventories in 2012 and used Tire1 estimations. There are presently no Tier 2 or Tire 3 emission factor emission estimation methodologies. There is an EPA SEA II project, but it is not working on Tire 2 or 3. Department of Environment emphasizes improvement of activity data for all sectors over emission factor, through the focus is more on agriculture and energy. Cambodia Cambodia submitted its NC1 to the UNFCCC in 2002 and is working on its NC2 and BUR. Cambodia’s NC1 uses entirely IPCC default/ Tier 1 emission factors for its GHG inventory emission estimation. No activities to develop country-specific emission factors are reported. India India submitted its NC2 in 2012 using Tire 2 & BUR estimations. It uses Tire 1 & 2 estimates. It is working towards estimate creation for Tire 2 factors in various sectors like transport and cement, and Tire 3 for the cement industry. Its emission factor estimates for imported coal, LULUCF (sources and sinks), IPPU and transport need to be improved. For IPPU (fluorinated gases from fast growing industries) poses a challenge due to data quality. Bangladesh and Nepal use emission factors from India for CH4 from enteric fermentation for their NC2. Indonesia 158 Indonesia has submitted its NC2 and anticipates starting work on its BUR and NC3. Indonesia’s NC2 mainly used Tier 1 emission factors. Tier 2 emission factors were used for CH4 emissions from rice cultivation and emissions from LULUCF categories. For the energy sector, electrical grid emission factors have been successfully developed at the provincial level and were used in NC2. Country-specific emission factors are also being used for IPPU CO2 emissions from cement and ammonia production. Efforts are underway to develop country-specific emission factors for categories in the agriculture sector (other than CH4 emissions from rice cultivation), peat lands, and the energy sector including stationary and mobile combustion. Country-specific emission factors are being explored for enteric fermentation and manure management emissions from cattle, buffalo, and other livestock. Laos Laos submitted its NC1 in 2000 using Tire 1 estimates, and is working on NC2 using BUR. Laos’s capacity for emission estimation is limited. LEAD and LEAF are conducting studies for emission factor estimate ion LULUCF. LEAF is also supporting some work for provincial level emission estimation (Houaphan Province). Laos is working towards Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), where accurate emission estimates would be very useful. Priority sectors identified for Laos are LULUCF and rice cultivation. Malaysia Malaysia submitted its NC2 in 2011 and anticipates starting work on its BUR and NC3. The NC2 used IPCC Tier 1 emission factors to estimate GHG emissions for all source categories. Many industries, especially oil and natural gas production, have emphasized the need to develop country-specific emission factors based on the GHG accounting methods adopted by the industry. LEAF has been supporting the standardization of National Forest Inventory practices across Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsula Malaysia. The Philippines NC3 and BUR are under development in The Philippines. NC2 primarily used Tier 1 estimates, though Tire 2 was used for CH4 from rice cultivation, CH4 from solid waste disposal, CO2 removals from woody biomass, and CO2 emission from changes in land use and forests. Currently a new inventory and data collection system is under development, but no mandate to improve or develop emission factors. Emission factors for power, transport, LULUCF are high priority areas. Support need to develop these emission factors include funds, training, capacity building and technical assistance. Power sector emissions factors have been developed through Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), but improvements to integration GHG computation and emission factors into models such as LEAP may be taken up. The DOE is also looking for assistance to collect regional surveys data and data on renewable energy, biomass, and fuel wood, and needs assistance to develop a data management system to find, gather, and store quality datasets. Thailand Thailand submitted its NC2 2011 and is beginning work on the NC3, which will focus on transitioning to the 2006 IPCC guidelines. Thailand’s NC2 used some country-specific emission factors such as for N2O emissions from animal waste management, GHG emissions from rice cultivation, forest management, and waste management. Efforts had recently begun on development of emission factors for fossil fuels combustion and wastewater treatment. 159 Vietnam Vietnam submitted its NC2 in 2010 and anticipates starting work on its NC3 and BUR. Nearly all GHG emissions estimates for Vietnam have been Tier 1 emission factors. A combination of country-specific and default emission factor was used for CH4 emissions from rice cultivation. JICA is currently supporting Vietnam to improve its national inventory, including development of country-specific emission factors. LEAF has provided training on emission factor development necessary for the creation of LULUCF reference levels and technical support necessary for both the development of EFs and a reference level in Lam Dong Province. Efforts have been undertaken to develop emission factors for CH4 emissions from rice cultivation, CO2 emissions from coal combustion, and fugitive CH4 emissions from coal mining. In addition with the support from IGES, Vietnam is in the process of developing a CO2 emission factor for the national electricity system. According to the report the areas identified for further work for SLCPs include:  Better development of emission factor estimation for SLPCs for all the LEAD countries, though areas and requirements may vary within countries. The main focus is on: ▫ Black carbon – brick kilns and cooking stoves need to be developed. ▫ Regional HCF emission factors for chillers and air conditioning. Additionally, there are some areas where higher priority was given in the LEAD country consultation for emission factor estimation. These are:  Methane emission in rice cultivation, enteric fermentation,  Emission estimation for LULUCF, through the areas identified differed according to the country.  Carbon dioxide emissions from mobile combustion, coal and natural gas stationary combustion.  Nitrogen oxides from agriculture soil management. In Bangladesh improving GHG estimations and creating Tire 2 and 3 still needs to be done. Priority sectors for emission factor estimation have also been identified namely, CO2 emissions from stationary combustion in energy industries (electricity generation), manufacturing industries and construction, and CO2 emissions from ammonia production. This will help create baselines for activities identified in the Bangladesh's Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan. The document also suggests that other USG and donor projects can be coordinated with to ensure that the most appropriate persons are trained for the activity. Considering is primarily using the Tier 1 emission factors, emission factor estimation is required. Priority areas include stationary combustion in the energy sector, transport (mobile combustion) in the energy sector, and livestock (enteric fermentation and manure management) in the agriculture sector were identified as priority areas in Cambodia. Emission estimation is also needed for mobile combustion￾related emissions. However, this is a challenge due to the diversity of the vehicle mix and the large number of second-hand vehicles used for road transport. In India, a few priority areas for emission estimation improvement were identified. These included CO2 emissions from stationary combustion for electricity generation, CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and N2O emissions from agricultural soils. Indonesia too is primarily using Tier 1 emission factors, and has identified priority areas for development of country-specific emissions factors. These are livestock (specifically, enteric fermentation and manure management); drained peatlands, oil palm plantations on peatlands and the use of fertilizers on peatlands; 160 and changes in soil carbon stock. Emission factor estimates for the iron and steel industry also need to be improved. Given its significance to Laos’ emission profile, LULUCF, particularly CO2 removals by forests, is a priority for any future emission factor development. Laos plans NAMAs, action plans for the National Strategy on Climate Change (NSCC), capacity building, and generation and mobilization of greater resources. Currently Malaysia is using Tier 1 emission factors and there is an interest and a need for developing country specific emission factors for all emission sources and sinks. Priority sector for emission factor estimation is the energy sector--particularly oil and natural gas industries. Presently Nepal is using Tier 1 methods. Therefore, refinement of estimation of GHG emissions is required. The high priority is being given to CO2 emissions from forest land converted to cropland. This is followed by CO2 removals from changes in woody and forest biomass, and CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation. A number of areas have been identified for collaboration with the Philippines – database creation, management and updating, making estimates, capacity building, technical assistance, etc. For emission factor estimation the highest priorities identified are improvements to the emission factors related to CO2 from forest and land use change (both emissions and removals). Secondary priorities identified are emission from cement production, iron and steel production, manure management and mobile combustion. Thailand has started using some country-specific emission factors and there are some undergoing efforts to develop more Tier 2 emission factors for different sectors. Emission factors for the energy sector, rice cultivation, enteric fermentation, manure management, and LULUCF categories were identified as priority areas. Vietnam uses Tier 1 emission factors except for rice cultivation emissions, where a combination of Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors are used. Currently, a few donors are helping Vietnam develop Tier 2 emission factors in several sectors. Priority emission factors for further development identified in Vietnam are emissions from coal combustion and emissions from livestock (enteric fermentation and manure management), given their contribution to GHG emission. Document Name USAID, 2012. A Data Quality Assessment for the Regional Environmental Office of the Regional Development Mission of Asia. 1. Overview The report looked at 11 activities that address climate change and natural resources and biodiversity. All implementing partners (IPs) are expected to collect and report data to the REO on standard and custom indicators included in their Performance Management Plans. 2. Background and Introduction The assessment looked at the M&E system and REO & USAID. It identifies the strengths and weaknesses and areas of improvement for data quality, which in turn is important for the project M&E. 161 Field visits for this report were conducted in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, USA and Vietnam. This document includes the LEAD project and other REO projects in the region. 3. Summary According to this report data collected by the IPs for identified indicators met with data quality standards for timeliness, validity, precision and integrity. However, there are many data quality issues identified. These are listed below:  The data quality procedures, processes and methods of analysis were not standard and therefore reliability was being compromised.  Some Performance Management Plans indicators had issues of data quality, quality, management or analysis. Uncertainty to measure emissions reduction of GHG from energy and landscape existed. Many indicators were imprecise, varied over time or place or had other problems.  Some required baseline values were missing. Therefore, estimates of magnitude of change or benefits may not be easy to measure, like changes in GHG emissions.  Some verification or support documents were missing  Some IPs reported full achievements or partially completed targets, and there were problems of indictor definitions. This is likely to impact what is measured and how.  Consistency on what the indicator consisted off was missing – e.g. some reported training as capacity building, while others not. Equally, what and how to measure was often not clear to IPs. Some used sign-in sheets that were used at the start of a workshop. However, trainees tended to thin out over the days, so his was not very precise measure.  Attention to undertaking M&E among the IPs was seen as being variable  Not all indicators used were good reflectors of the planned outcome Issues of indicators with reference to the REO and USAID identified were:  Wording of some indicators were not appropriate and had idiosyncratic wording, resulting in inconsistency for monitoring. Therefore, IPs have variations in indicators.  Attribution and causality of some indicators was a problem  Indicators focus more on output than outcome. Therefore, there are very few indicators measuring improved livelihoods, protected environments, or meaningful adaptation to or mitigation of climate change.  There are no indicators reporting sustainability of activity results  The REO has been making little use of indicator’s data for data quality assessment According to this document the M&E system could be made more robust. The assessment made a number of recommendations for improving the M&E system. These are briefly discussed here. Recommendations made for the REO were:  Centralized coordination for data quality to ensure consistency of data quality, use of same wording and definition for indicators, compatible meanings and methods used for data collection.  Greater emphasis on the indicators for outcomes and impacts – especially for 4 or more year activities.  Development of indicators to measure performance at all levels and for sustainability.  Proper review of M&E documents and prompt feedback and comments by the REO.  Standardized format for M&E reporting, performance monitoring etc.  Use of indicators that lend to disaggregating should be used – so that activity details can be captured. 162  Data quality standards to be specified and agreed in contracts. The document also makes recommendations for the IPs. These were:  Need to increase resources for data quality and the M&E system  Need to strengthen performance management plan and indicator reference sheets so that issues of data quality, baseline etc are addressed.  Need to make indicator definition precise and methods for calculating and collating information need to be improved, and limitations of indicators too need to be explained.  Need to provide sufficient information in data sheets as, information in the sheets was often very brief and superficial.  Need to provide support sub-partners for data quality improvement. The document also suggests that USAID review the directions it gives the REO to ensure as far as possible that good indicators are used for M&E. Document Name Name of file: REQ DQA Final Activity Reports_2012_IFC_LEAD. Name on document: Annexure I: IFC International. Low Emission Asia Development Program (LEAD). Activity Period September 27, 2011 to September 26, 2016 1. Overview This document seems to be part of the Data Quality Assessment for the REO. 2. Background and Introduction According to this document at the time the DQA was conducted there was no proper Performance Management Plan (PMP) in place so it was not easy to make a proper assessment of LEAD. This draft PMP was supposed to had to be developed by ICF and submitted to the REO. There were also no approved indicators, or indicator reference sheets in place. This has resulted in an unsatisfactory rating for timelines for ICF. 3. Summary While the document suggests that ICF integrity and M&E structures were satisfactory, there were a few problems it needed to address on its M&E system. These were:  High turnover in the project – with the M&E officers leaving. Baselines were also not completely established, and there was no baseline institutional capacity with IFC was not sure on how it would measure change in capacity.  Indicators were not necessarily there to measure changes – e.g. impact on policy. Similarly, no indicators were proposed for change in GHG emissions.  A number of indicators proposed which are vague and therefore open to interpretation. The document also suggests that ICF develop procedures to ensure the validity, reliability, and integrity of data once responsibility for data collection and M&E was handed over to host-country nationals. 163 Document Name IFC, 2014. USAID LEAD Programme Data Quality Audit Verification 1. Overview This letter is from Jack Wells, CoP and addressed to Khun Ke. The letter revises data based on changes on an indicator – Person hours of training completed in Climate Change (indicator 14). The letter suggests that, based on the recent Data Quality Audit, there has been a revision on completed number of hours of training which was being underreported so far by about 120 hours in FY 2013. This also resulted in a policy change in ICF’s way to calculate person hours spent in training. According to the new method used, only those who have completed at least 80% of training events were counted, as opposed to its earlier calculation where only those who completed 100% of the training events. The document gives a disaggregation of number of hours of training according to gender. The data source used is the sign-in sheets. The letter also suggested that other minor discrepancies identified by the USAID/RDMA DQA on training documentation have also been corrected. 2. Background and Introduction This is a one page letter that revises the data based upon the understanding of how the indicator is to be measured. 3. Summary The data source is a sign-in sheet for a training. The revised training indicator breaks up attendees according to gender and also has shown that there is an effort to respond to feedback. There seems to be an obvious effort to make changes based on feedback. However, as mentioned in the DQA report, ICF needs to address a few more M&E issues like indicators and the its database. Data collection method used – the sign-in sheet, has in the DQA report been identified as being unsatisfactory. Therefore, this may not be the best indicator to use. However, this letter also indicator also suggests that ICF is improving its M&E system based on the report suggestions. Document Name USAID, 2013. Fast Out of the Gate: How developing Asian countries can prepare to access international green growth finance. Volume 1. LEAD Programme, USAID. 1. Overview This document reviews the main public and private funding and finance available for low emission projects. It discusses the critical role of monitoring, verification and reporting for GHG emissions for funding. The report is based on a review of more than 200 climate related funds and financing mechanisms in the Asian region. It reviews financing mechanisms for GHG mitigation measures in the energy and forestry sectors, with the aim to (a) help prepare developing Asian countries to access 164 available financing, and (b) identify necessary elements of such preparations, among them improved GHG inventory systems and accounting, participation in carbon markets, and MRV of emissions reductions. This report is to help a wide range of stakeholders acquire and manage finance for undertaking low￾emissions development. These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, Asian governments and policymakers, public and private fund managers, project developers and proponents, and local communities. The information from the report on climate financing mechanisms is to be converted into a database and to be made available online. 2. Background and Introduction Private and public funding have very different objectives. Public funding is primarily driven by public goods and development goals and private funding for maximizing profits. Therefore, public finance is to play a critical role to help identify innovative ways to leverage private funding. Generally carbon financing is directed towards climate change adaptation and GHG mitigation measures. Historically, carbon financing has historically been focused on mitigation and mainly agriculture, energy and transport. Carbon financing –financiers and recipients can be from both developing and developed countries. Estimates suggest that investments required to transform into a low carbon economy globally is several orders of magnitude greater than those volumes currently deployed. According to HSBC; the British multinational banking and financial services company, estimates, for the decade 2010–2020, USD 10 trillion in cumulative capital investments, or USD 1 trillion annually will be required for clean energy. This estimate is to meet the target threshold of 450 ppm atmospheric C02 concentrations that will limit the global temperature increase to 2°C. Given a typical debt-equity ratio of 60:40 for capital investment, this amounts to an annual need for approximately USD 600 billion in bank loans or bonds and USD 400 billion in equity. Of this, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, India and Southeast Asia alone will require USD 144 billion per year of climate investment, 14.4 % of global requirements. The Green Climate Fund, which is financed by a combination of donors and governments aims at funding worth 100 billion USD a year by 2020. However, raising this is a bit of a challenge. Even after this USD 100 billion there will still be a need for another 800 to 900 billion USD from private sector sources to fill the gap in climate financing. UNFCCC suggests that about 85% of all finances for climate change will need to come from the private sector. However, at present only about 20-30% of existing requirement is fulfilled, and the key challenge here is to mobilize the private sector. Presently, the private sector is supports three quarters of the total climate finance, through it needs to be further increased and innovative ways to create public-private partnerships identified. 3. Summary  The highest contribution for carbon finance comes from Japan – contributing USD 15.3 billion or 44% of the total of USD 34.6 billion. U.K at USD 4.9 billion (14%) is the second highest contributor with the US following at USD 2.4 billion (2.4%). Germany (USD 2.2 billion) and Norway (USD 1.8 billion) are the other two major contributors for climate change financing. 165  In LEADs countries a total of USD 1.6 billion are approved from 12 international public climate funds. However, estimates suggest that the countries require USD 90 billion annually, reflecting a huge gap in allocation and needs. Of this a third has gone to India, with a large chunk (USD 263 of USD 491 million) being from the Clean Technology Fund (CTF).  The CTF is also the largest contributor for Indonesia with USD 125 of USD 325 million from the fund. In Indonesia the other big contributors are Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative – USD 87 million, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative – USD 20 million.  Overall too in LEAD countries, the CTF contributes almost half of the total climate financing the countries receive. This is followed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) at 18%. The other major contributors are Germany - International Climate Initiative (9%), Australia - International Forest Carbon Initiative (6%) and Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (5%).  The Asia Pacific region having a total of USD 104 million approved and USD 543 million approved globally for climate projects. Benefits of some of these projects also come to the LEAD countries.  In 2012, USD 148.6 billion was invested in renewables. Of this, USD 8.2 billion (5.5%) was invested in the 11 LEAD countries, of which a majority was from the private sector.  Between 2009 and 2012 the LEAD countries received a total of 6.7% of the global total allocations of private sector for renewable energy. Of this India (75%) and Thailand (15%) represent 80 to 90% of the total for energy investments for the LEAD countries.  India and Thailand’s investments are largely resulting from favorable regulatory environments, investment climate and market readiness.  In India, the greatest focus is for wind energy and for Thailand it is solar.  Globally, USD 35 billion contributions have been approved through 25 funds. Of this, USD 9 million worth projects were approved in 2010-12, and were more than 6 times that of 2008-09. This estimate is only for public funds.  The private sector has mainly been financing mitigation, that too renewables. Adaptation funds nearly completely come from public sector funding.  Carbon markets are being used to leverage private funds. In the period from 2004 – 12 there was an investment of USD 229 billion in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. However, Certified Carbon Emissions (CER) was only worth USD 3.5 billion.  Discussing MVR, the report states that while for private sector funding a range of MVR requirements are in place, where not monetized there is no single MVR standard and all funders use their own methods.  Multi-lateral development banks are developing an initiative to track GHG initiatives and climate finance flows, with a harmonized approach.  Apart from private equity and venture capital, climate bonds also exist, though their use in the LEAD countries presently very low and can increase substantially.  Presently there are very few commercial banks that provide climate financing. Most of those undertaking climate financing use some form of partial risk guarantee. In order to further promote this, the public sector could identify similar underwriting mechanism that creates incentives for commercial banks take up public financing.  Similarly, private banks can also be made aware of opportunities; regulations, etc. that may help them increase their financing of climate related activities, and create their capacity to be able to do so.  Another concern identified is the disconnect between government officials, development professionals, and entrepreneurs identifying projects, and those providing resources such as financing and technical assistance. Therefore, capacity building for project proponents is required to help them develop successful proposals to attract appropriate financing.  Within the government system, there are a number of ministries and agencies involved in carbon financing, making monitoring and tracking difficult. Therefore, a cross government steering group 166 lead by finance and planning ministries for climate public expenditure and institutional reviews may be considered.  Another issue identified is the need to build capacity and consult with local and state level agencies who are stakeholders to the project at the time of developing proposals.  Similarly, there is an urgent need for building the capacity of government officials for creation of policy frameworks, regulatory development and implementation that may result in removal of barriers to invest in the sector.  Another issue identified was barriers for small scale infrastructure investments that result in climate benefits, and once removed could create more take up of such projects.  Scope for the countries to increase the funding they receive for climate related activities is there.  The LEAD countries also have various areas where they can learn from one another, specifically from India and Thailand.  To increase investments from climate funds, countries need to have a better regulatory system, investment climate and market readiness.  Capacity building for MVR, creation of projects worthy of finance, policy and regulation development is seen as key to access the carbon finance market.  Robust institutional systems need to be in place to support development of bankable projects and create the right environment for climate finance in the LEAD countries. Document Name ICF-International, 2012Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) Program, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory and GHG Mitigation Plan, First 150 days 1. Overview According to its contractual agreements with USAID/RDMA, LEAD is to prepare an annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory and GHG Mitigation Plan. This report summarizes LEAD’s GHG inventory for the first 150 days, starting from September 27, 2011 through February 24, 2012, and the proposed GHG Mitigation Plan. The GHG Mitigation Plan outlines strategies to reduce LEAD’s GHG footprint through. 2. Background and Introduction Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries aim to reduce their collective emissions from six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. The GHG emission inventory of the LEAD program considers these six GHGs to the degree they apply to the program’s activities. The Inventory also follows the accounting and reporting principles suggested by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), ensuring a true and fair representation of the GHG emissions of program activities. 3. Summary To fulfill its task, LEAD has identified a methodology to develop the inventory:  Defining organizational boundary: LEAD uses the control approach, which accounts for 100% of GHG emissions from operations over which it has control. The inventory identifies LEAD program staff as those employed by ICF and subcontractors working with ICF in support of the LEAD program, but does not include USAID/RDMA staff involved in the LEAD program. 167  Setting operational boundaries: Following the GHG Protocol Corporate standard, LEAD identifies emissions from three different categories. These are: ▫ LEAD Program Scope 1 - direct GHG emissions: According to this activity, entities need to report GHG emissions from on-site fuel combustion (not in first 150 days) and company-owned vehicles. ▫ LEAD Program Scope 2 - Electricity indirect GHG Emissions: Entities require reporting emissions from the generation of purchased electricity that is consumed in their owned or controlled operations. LEAD staff moved into the permanent program office after the 150-day period, therefore activities after this period are included in the inventory. Office electricity usage in the program office is to be reported every month, and is to be used in conjunction with the electricity grid emission factor for Thailand to calculate Scope 2 emissions for the program. ▫ LEAD Program Scope 3 - Voluntary reporting of indirect GHG emissions: on a voluntary basis as Scope 3. Activities to be reported under scope 3 include LEAD program start-up travel and operations, LEAD-organized workshops and events in program countries, workshops and events attended by LEAD staff but not organized by the LEAD program, and other program activities that generate emissions (i.e., LEAD temporary office, program staff housing).  Tracking emissions over time: The program is to develop a baseline for its GHG inventory, which will consist of emissions from the first 150 days which will be used to track program GHG emissions, and to prepare inventories at the start of each fiscal year of the program. The first 150 days were seen not be those of normal functioning of the program, and therefore not a part of the regular monitoring activities but were used for the development of the baseline.  Identifying and calculating GHG emissions: The procedure to calculate GHG emissions for each source has been identified in the document. LEAD has also developed a spreadsheet to assist collect data, apply emission factors and aggregate values. The procedure to calculate GHG emissions identified are: ▫ Step 1: Determine the required activity data for each emission source ▫ Step 2: Collect the activity data ▫ Step 3. Select appropriate emission factors based on the activity data. Where possible local emission factors are to be used for estimation of emissions ▫ Step 4. Calculate GHG emissions by multiplying activity data by the appropriate emission factors ▫ Step 5. Convert emissions to metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) to obtain total emissions In the first 150 days, 100% of emissions were from Scope 3 – voluntary reporting. These emissions were estimated at 66.58 MTCO2e. They were caused by road and air travel, hotel accommodation, temporary office energy use, and staff temporary quarters subsistence allowance or long-term living quarters allowance. In the first 150 days, carbon dioxide contributed 65.96 MTCO2e, or about 99% of emissions during the inventory period. Methane accounted for 0.04 MTCO2e, or 0.06% of total emissions, and nitrogen oxide accounted for another 0.58 MTCO2e, or 0.87% of total emissions. More than half of the total GHG emissions were from general program travel by LEAD staff, followed by GHG emissions due to LEAD organized events, and building energy consumption. 168 The main sources of GHG emissions across program activities was from international air travel (77.41%), local travel using road transport (1.65%), and electricity usage in staff housing (29.29%) during hotel stays (0.12%), in the LEAD temporary office (0.53%). Future inventories will include a fourth GHG, 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or HFC-134a from LEAD program office refrigerant usage. The LEAD team identified a number of mitigation measures reduce GHG emissions. These were:  Selection of office near the public transport and within walkable distance from the USAID/RDMA office  Energy efficiency in office was planned through use of efficient light bulbs, maximization the use of natural lights and the use of energy-efficient office equipment. LEAD also focused on behavior transformation by customizing power setting in different devices and setting office protocols on turning off equipment and lights when not in use.  The LEAD team created an excel based tool to estimate emissions arising from holding a LEAD workshop/event in one of the 11 LEAD countries. Staff and participant air travel from various countries to the event site, local transport, hotel accommodations, and venue power consumption are considered, so an informed decision can be made to reduce GHG.  Energy efficiency measures and green initiatives were to be identified as criteria for selecting venue for events. These included written policies of sustainability, walking distance from public transportation, protocol of energy saving, encouraged use of local products etc.  LEAD was to identify opportunities to hold webinars, teleconferences, and virtual meetings or events, when possible, to mitigate emissions that would result from travel to in-person meetings or events.  LEAD was also to identify various mechanisms to offset GHG emissions resulting from program activities, such as through obtaining sponsorship for purchased offsets. Document Name LEAD, 2012. Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies in Cambodia Pre-Scoping Desk Study 1. Overview This is a desk study to identify opportunities for support from the United States Government (USG) to the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) for collaboration on low emission development strategies (LEDS). This support is primarily to be through the US Government’s Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies (EC-LEDS) initiative. 2. Background and Introduction The desk study was a pre-scoping exercise and had three objectives. These objectives were:  To analyze the current status of efforts and assess existing capacity of the RGC and donors in developing and implementing LEDS  To identify opportunities for the USG to better integrate and improve support to the RGC to enhance its internal capacity to develop and implement LEDS  To develop a report for internal use by USG agencies to identify areas for support to RGC. 169 This report was seen as a summary report and, if required, further studies could be taken up USG agencies to formulate a joint US-RGC program that would support furthering mutual goals. The document analyses Cambodia’s existing situation for LEDS and identifies gaps, priorities and opportunities for engagement. 3. Summary A number of national level strategies and plans were identified that could support or complement and LEDS. These include the Rectangular Strategy, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the National Strategic Development Plan. Cambodia was also developing a climate change strategy through the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC). This committee was coordinated by the Cambodian Climate Change Department (CCD) under the Ministry of Environment (MoE). The NCCC developed a number that USG could support, such as:  The Climate Change Trust Fund where mitigation actions to be undertaken, which could benefit from additional funding for mitigation support,  Program of Activities (POAs),  Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), and  Activities to promote Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+) the conservation, sustainable management, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks readiness. Cambodia has a Green Growth Roadmap (GGR) which was developed in consultation with 17 ministries and was chaired by the Prime Minister. The country also has various other documents and strategies which are relevant for LEAD type activities. These include,  REDD+ Roadmap  National Program for Sub-National Democratic Development  National Forest Program 2010-2029  National Policy on Rural Electrification for Renewable Energy (2006)  Strategy and Action Plan for Development of Rural Electrification in the Kingdom of Cambodia  Initial and Second National Communications The inter-ministerial structure identified that could support LEDS related activities were Ministry of Environment, National CC Committee, Climate Change Technical Team, Cambodia Climate Change department (MoE), National Committee on Green Growth Technical Working Groups, Government￾Donor Coordination Committee, REDD+ Task Force, National Climate Change Network. A number of challenges for implementing climate change initiatives were also identified. These included:  RGC’s understanding of climate change was limited. While some limitations were due to the lack of reliable data for time series and economic calculations to predict, there were also issues of staff capacities and inter-agency coordination.  Capacity for GHG mitigation analysis and identification of cost-effective options was limited. Therefore, knowledge transfer was time consuming and expensive and difficult. Efforts had been made to raise basic awareness, but there was still a need for further work to create uptake and a national consensus for a low emission path.  Capacity building initiatives were largely donor and NGO driven and were often targeted to specific sector without much thought applicability or sustainability. Post training application of skills for government staff was limited due to the lack of funds and opportunities. A number of opportunities for US funded initiatives through EC-LEDS were identified. These were: 170  Integrate low emissions strategies into existing national, sub-national and sectoral strategies and plans.  Provide technical assistance to CCD to develop a database with projects and help calculate the emission savings and development of Voluntary Emission Reduction or Clean Development Mechanisms.  Enhance in-country capacity building on GHG inventories development and tracking; and support MRV efforts.  Develop sustained analytical capacity for complex analyses and modeling by designing curricula for universities and training workshops for agencies.  Assist the development/refinement of current RGC macroeconomic models and tools through research and partnerships with local universities, institutes, and others.  Promote regular publication and reporting of specific sector data to encourage increased capacity in complex modeling and analysis and limit the use of default activity data for emissions inventory assessments. Assessing the national greenhouse inventor for the Cambodia a number of gaps and opportunities were identified. These were:  Limited capacity for baseline development for NC communications existed. To fill this gap baselines studies cost benefit analysis were required that could recommend appropriate mitigation options  National communications developed to date had largely been through foreign consultants with some involvement of the Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC). Therefore, capacities to develop NCs in Cambodia were extremely limited. This provided an opportunity to work with ITC and the Royal University of Phnom Penh to focus on energy with LEAP, agriculture and forestry.  There was no comprehensive assessment on the causes of deforestation in either the UN REDD Country Program or the FCPF Readiness Preparation Proposal. USAID could support such an analysis in collaboration with GIZ or other donors through its LEAF program. The desk study also identified a number of sector specific areas of collaboration for the forestry, agriculture, energy and transport and industry and waste sectors. The opportunities identified were:  A comprehensive and conclusive study including desk review and stakeholder consultation for REDD+ activities in Cambodia.  Integration of regional programs, such as conducting cross visits with the USAID projects in other countries in agriculture.  Strengthening capacities to implement land use planning and land allocation/administration at subnational levels for rationalizing estate crops like rubber, while reducing emissions from deforestation  Providing support to conduct opportunity cost analyses of different land allocation options for economic land concessions (ELCs) and social land concessions (SLCs) in agriculture  Providing support to assess the potential for shifting commercial livestock operations to more intensive management practices that reduce methane emissions through improving manure management, use biogas digesters as a cleaner energy options for farms  Providing support/training for the development of appropriate incentives, such as feed-in tariff in the energy sector  Providing support to existing implementation arrangements on the renewable energy strategy.  Supporting development of feed-in tariff structure for decentralized renewable energy generation including different costing mechanisms  Supporting the development and implementation of a renewable Energy Strategy with specific focus on off-grid options such as cook stoves, and biomass  Cooperating with the EU in the energy efficiency policy development program 171  Initiating cooperation between MIME and MoE to develop and implement renewable energy policy  Focusing on the 30% rural and remote households that are not part of the renewable energy strategy.  Supporting ITC or University of Cambodia to further develop its curricula for renewable energy  Developing an industrial LEDS energy supply and demand program that include options for gasification, solar, feed-in-tariff, reasonable prices for small-scale electricity producers.  Supporting Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy (MIME) to set up a low emission/energy efficiency department to manage and regulate industrial energy generation. Cambodia has already developed a number of relevant policies that can guide climate change actions and programs for the country. The study has also identified a large number of areas where USG can collaborate with RGC on low carbon development pathways, and also suggests that there are already a large number of donors working in the country. However, it also suggests that donor projects are not necessarily sustainable. Opportunities identified are mostly related to capacity building and specific technical assistance such as modeling. Some of the areas of collaboration identified in the desktop review may not entirely fall within the scope of LEAD activities. Document Name USAID, 2012. Cambodia Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies (EC-LEDS) Scoping Report (Draft) 1. Overview The US Government identified Cambodia as a potential EC-LEDS partner, and was followed by an interagency USG team conducting a week long in-country scoping mission in October 2012. Technical experts conducted consultations with government, development partners, and other stakeholders to understand country needs and interests and provide recommendations for collaboration with Cambodia on LEDS. This report is based on these consultations a desktop based pre-scoping report. It provides recommendation on potential engagement opportunities and engagement for EC-LEDS in Cambodia. 2. Background and Introduction Cambodia is a Least Developed Country (LDC) and receives a large amount of donor funding to support economic development and poverty reduction. There are a number of policies developed in Cambodia of which the Green Growth Roadmap (GGR) is especially relevant to the EC-LEDS. Cambodia is also developing implementation strategies, though not all seem to be well formulated and financing plans are non-existent and financing is not identified. Also, related to LEDS activities, the first organizational frameworks are in place; committees and stakeholder participation have been organized. Carbon dioxide emissions reported from land use change and forestry (LUCF) in Cambodia’s First National Communication (INC) was 5.35 million tons (Mt) CO2e, or 79%t of the national total, based on 1994 data). Agriculture contributed another 1 Mt CO2e, 18%. This was offset by 7.3 Mt CO2e sequestered into growing forests. Therefore, Cambodia was a net carbon sink with almost 1 million Mt CO2e tons being absorbed more than emitted. 3. Summary 172 The scoping report has assessed the existing situation of Cambodia, and listed a number of recommendations based on the situation analysis for the collaboration with EC-LEDS. These are summarizes below. Policies, strategies and institutional actions related to LEDS  Cambodia’s capacity for GHG mitigation analysis and identification of cost-effective options both in the government and private sectors was limited  Climate-related activities were project and donor financing based. There was no overarching strategy and integration pf plans. However, government officials acknowledged the need to coordinate.  The Green Growth Roadmap was a direct opportunity for USAID to engage with the RGC on LEDS.  Cambodia was making progress in building institutional capacity for knowledge and analysis. This was through planning and decision-making using mathematical models, methods, and tools specifically designed for local, sectoral, and national policy and strategy development.  Capacity and skills varied, and several ministries and universities continued to work to adopt new tools and decision-making frameworks, and to improve data inputs and research capacity. National GHG inventory  Donor focus was largely on land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) data and activities than on other sections of a GHG inventory such as energy, transport, and waste. A National Forest Inventory was suggested to create a solid foundation for the LULUCF section of a GHG inventory.  USEPA was working with the Climate Change Department (CCD) for creating GHG inventories. However, the work had stalled after a workshop July 2012, post a request to Cambodia to fill out worksheets with data for its GHG inventory. The reasons for the work stalled were not known. Nonetheless, the MoE reaffirmed interest and commitment to participate in Phase 2 of the project. Sector specific need assessments  Planning for emission reduction on land use is at a more advanced stage in comparison to other sectors in Cambodia. The country has developed a REDD+ roadmap with support of UN-REDD and World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).  Developing GHG inventories in the forest sector and designing an MRV system for REDD+ are supported by many donors. However, here are gaps in the knowledge needed to design an effective REDD+ strategy, especially related to understanding and mitigating forest degradation.  Capacities of forest management committees are low and preventing many community forests to become operational. Areas identified for further assistance were to support community forest (CF) committees identify appropriate livelihoods options (e.g., timber, NTFPs, REDD+, etc.), to conduct feasibility and opportunity cost analyses, and to provide technical training.  Knowledge to upgrade GHG inventories from Tier 2 to 3 needs to be improved to understand assess agricultural and other non-forestry land use emissions, requiring research in the area.  Research capacities of national universities in Phnom Penh are weak, resulting in insufficient support to develop or implement new technologies or innovations in the land-use sector.  Institutional links between universities and the government’s units on policy/planning related to climate change are weak. University collaboration with the climate change support program and the green growth processes is limited to the participation of a few individuals on the relevant technical committees. But due to limited capacities of Cambodian universities, their support through research and technical inputs is extremely limited. 173 Based on its analysis of the gaps in policy, institutional arrangements and knowledge to implement actions leading to low emission development pathways the scoping report identified a series of areas for interventions for EC-LEDS interventions. These are:  Capacity building, with preference for and train-the-trainer and long-term engagement for Ministry of Environment (MoE) and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Key partners suggested for the activities were the MoE and Forest Administration (FA).  Comprehensive economic assessment of climate change impact and response measures at macro level. The key partners suggested were National Committee on Climate Change (NCCC), National Green Growth Commission (NGGC) and MoE (Climate Change Department).  Economy-wide and sectoral planning tools like development impact assessments, Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC) forecasting impacts of policies, in partnership with MoE, Ministry of Planning (MoP).  Putting in place an EC-LEDS in-country coordinator either as a part of the MoE or as a consultant.  General capacity building on data management and analysis in partnership with MoP.  Developing of university curricula and government training workshops across sectors on national energy balance, economic cost benefit analyses, and economy-wide and sectoral planning tools. The key partners would be MoP, Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy (MIME), MoE, MAFF.  Training in GeoSpatial renewable energy resource assessment with MIME and MoE as partners.  Supporting communication and data dissemination between CCD and line ministries. Key partners would be the CCD and Cambodia Climate Change Alliance (CCCA).  Identifying key activity data and emissions factor gaps in existing data and mechanisms to fill those gaps in partnership with MAFF, CCD and MIME.  Strengthening ties with universities to ensure they have the capacity to support GHG inventory activities. This would be undertaken through a partnership with MAFF, CCD and Royal University of Agriculture in Cambodia (RUA).  Supporting implementation of the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and address data and skills gaps through partnerships with FA, GDAN CP, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and UN-REDD.  Conducting or supporting research to collect activity data and/or emissions factors from forest degradation; such as from fuel wood, fire, illegal logging, for GHG inventories. Suggested partners were FA, MoE, JICA, FAO and UN-REDD.  Strengthening community forest (CF) committees to manage agreements and implement CF activities as part of LEDS implementation in partnership with FA and CF committees.  Supporting additional aspects of the National Forestry Program (NFP), like demarcation and increasing numbers of CFs, to sustainably manage forests.  Building capacities in universities for (i) research to support low-emission development in the land use sector, and (ii) specific skills in remote sensing and GIS. This could be done with RUA and Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP).  Addressing data gaps in activity data and emissions factors for GHG inventory. These could include agricultural land use maps, updated soil classification maps, emissions from crops other than rice, crop residues management. Key partners suggested were MAFF, MoE, and FAO.  Supporting analyses of possible low-emissions activities like mitigation potential and economic feasibility in agriculture and land management, including livestock in partnership with MAFF and MoE.  Scaling up training and implement biogas programs for livestock waste management and crop residue, organic fertilizer use, and other low-emissions options in collaboration with MAFF and the private sector.  Building research capacity in agriculture universities related to climate change and agriculture through partnerships with RUA, RUPP and other appropriate agencies as identified. 174  Promoting clean energy financing with key partners being the private sector, GERES and other NGOs.  Assessing clean energy technology needs with key partners MIME and MoE.  Building technical capacity on development of a national energy balance in partnership with MIME.  The scoping report has done what seems to be quite a comprehensive assessment of the situation’ analysis and gaps on climate change in Cambodia, including looking at donor funding in various sectors. It has identified major challenges and needs in Cambodia.  Some of the major gaps for implementing a LEDS approach in Cambodia identified seem to be focused on weak capacities both within the government and local researchers and universities, comprehensive GHG inventories and technical knowledge and tools.  On the other hand, Cambodia has already identified a Green Growth Strategy, which clearly shows its intention to work to direct its development on a low emission trajectory.  While the list of stakeholders for consultation has been included in the scoping report, a methodical stakeholder analysis for selection of these stakeholders is lacking. Document Name USAID, 2014.United States-Thailand Cooperation on Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies (EC-LEDS) -Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 (draft) 1. Overview The work plan for Financial Years 2014 and 2015 provides a framework for the Royal Thai Government (RTG) and the United States Government (USG) to work together for EC-LEDS and advance the goals of an agreement established through an exchange of letters in May 2014. The agreement is between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Thailand International Development Cooperation Agency (TICA), and includes broad scope of collaboration on: 1. Low emission development strategies (LEDS) analytical, decision making, and management tools 2. Greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, accounting, and registry systems 3. LEDS implementation; and 4. Regional engagement and leadership on LEDS and green growth. 2. Background and Introduction On October 10, 2013, the USAID Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program, as the USG LEDS program integrator, organized a workshop to refine the scope of collaboration and jointly develop an EC-LEDS work plan between the RTG and USG partners. The output of the working session formed the basis for further detailed discussions with key governmental agencies in November and December 2013. EC-LEDS promotes green growth and address climate change, build capacities in partner countries, provides targeted technical assistance, and builds a shared global knowledge base on low emission development. EC-LEDS initiative is the only USG joint Agency Priority Goal (APG) for the Global Climate Change Initiative, which is set as a part of the Joint Strategic Plan process of USAID and the US Department of State. Thailand is not a formal recipient of development assistance from USG. Therefore, USG and RTG 175 have committed to contribute to the EC-LEDS partnership through technical, in-kind, or financial resources. 3. Summary Thailand’s concern to proactively work on low emission development pathways is visible through some of its policies and initiatives. These include:  11th National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) for 2012–2016 that includes a green policy calling for climate change to be addressed more rigorously.  National Strategy on Climate Change 2008–2012 of the MNRE, which is based on the NESDP vision, and creates a strong foundation for the draft Thailand Climate Change Master Plan, 2012–2050 (TCCMP).  Sector level targets for the forestry and energy sectors. EC-LEDS has attempted to analyze the Thailand’s emission priorities and identified key activities to fulfill them. This section summarizes the analysis: Needs assessments in consultation with USG and RTG were done for Thailand in 2012. This identified a few broad areas for further collaboration. These were:  Improving understanding and application of LEDS Analytical, Decision‐Making, and Management Tools  Establishing and strengthening Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Accounting, and Registry Systems  Supporting LEDS Implementation including strengthening MRV systems and mobilization of finance  Supporting Regional Engagement and Leadership on LEDS and Green Growth Further discussions between 10 RTG agencies and 7 USG agencies and programs identified six priority areas in October, 2013 for the EC-LEDS partnership agreement. The identified activities would be delivered through either regional or country specific support. The areas identified for actions were broadly divided into 6 areas of action. These were:  Improving MRV and Thailand’s GHG emissions registry system through, ▫ Development of MRV system and GHG registry  Developing the GHG inventory ▫ Improvement of agriculture, forest, and other land use (AFOLU) components of national GHG inventory ▫ Improvement of Energy components of national GHG inventory ▫ Training and support for national GHG inventory system ▫ Training and support for emission factor improvement methods ▫ Development of annotated carbon stock assessment for forested wetlands protocol  Collaborating on LEDS and LEDS-related training programs ▫ Training on 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) courses ▫ Development and dissemination of LEDS-related tools and best practices, in collaboration with the ALP ▫ Participation in the Asia LEDS Forum ▫ Accessing finance for green growth and LEDS ▫ LEDS energy sector focus through training on GeoSpatial Toolkit (GsT) ▫ LEDS energy sector focus through trainings on Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP) model 176 ▫ Introduction to LEDS for policymakers ▫ Exploring Co-benefits of LEDS for Thailand  Implementation of the LEDS program at the sub-national level ▫ Development of a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) tool to assess trade-offs between different triple bottom line (TBL) objectives ▫ Development of management plan for Maesa Kogma Man and Biosphere (MAB) Reserve ▫ Development of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation decision support tool ▫ Promoting Grassroots equity in forest management by enhancing capacity  Activities for technology for GHG mitigation ▫ Training and promotion of Private and public sources for clean energy investment ▫ Training and workshops on forest monitoring methodologies  Assessing development impacts. No activities were identified under this head. The key USG partners identified who could be involved with the program were U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service (USDA/FS), and US Department of Energy (USDOE), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), USAID, LEAD, LEAF, the SEA GHG Project, the PFAN-Asia program, Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI), USAID Grassroots Equity and Enhanced Networks in the Mekong (GREEN Mekong) and SilvaCarbon South East Asia Program (SilvaCarbon). From Thailand’s side key partners identified included Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO), Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (STI), Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), Royal Forest Department, Ministry of Energy, Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) and The Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University (KU). The work plan also identified 4 program components and a total of 10 activities under these program components along with milestones and agencies from both the USG and Thailand responsible for the actions. These are given in the table below. All but program component 4 have activities identified for 2014 or 2015. 177 Milestones and Targets for FY 2014-2015 Program Component/ Activity Milestones achieved as a result of USG assistance, each reflecting significant, measurable improvement in the national framework for LEDS USG Agency/ Program Thailand Counterparts FY 2014 FY 2015 Program Component 1: LEDS Analytical, Decision‐Making, and Management Tools Activity 1: Development of a triple bottom line multi￾criteria analysis (TBL-MCA) tool48 MCA tool to assess trade-offs between different TBL objectives developed, tested, and refined MCA tool adopted and used in LEDS planning USAID LEAD DNP, TEI Activity 2: Development of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation decision support tool Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation decision support tool developed Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation decision support tool tested USAID LEAF DNP, Thailand’s representatives to ARKN-FCC Activity 3: Training and workshop on forest monitoring methodologies Capacity on forest monitoring methodologies built through regional workshops Forest monitoring methodologies adopted and used in LEDS planning and implementation SilvaCarbon USFS MNRE Program Component 2: Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Accounting, and Registry Systems Activity 4: Development of MRV and GHG registry MRV and GHG registry developed and tested MRV and GHG registry adopted. Demonstration effect of setting up a registry in a selected Asian developing country facilitated. USAID LEAD TGO, ONEP 48 Another tentative activity “Target setting and scenario planning for sustainable landscapes in Thailand” has also been mentioned in the work plan - but it is mentioned as incomplete and no specific details are given. 178 Activity 5: Development of GHG inventory Capacity on GHG inventory development built, technical assistance provided and national GHG system developed GHG inventory for AFOLU and energy sectors, and emission factors improved. National GHG system adopted USAID LEAD, USEPA, USFS TGO, ONEP, Thailand GHG Working Groups, KU Activity 6: Training on 2006 IPCC course 20-25 Thai delegates completed 2006 IPCC training courses. Capacity built 2006 IPCC guideline adopted and national GHG inventory improved USAID LEAD TGO, ONEP, Thailand GHG Working Groups Program Component 3: LEDS Management and Implementation Activity 7: Development of management plan for Maesa Kogma MAB Reserve Management Plan established for Maesa Kogma MAB Reserve and endorsed by DNP Management Plan for Maesa Kogma MAB Reserve implemented USAID LEAF DNP Activity 8: Promotion of grassroots equity in forest management through capacity enhancement Capacity built through one country specific event and 9 regional activities related to grassroots equity Grassroots equity practice adopted USAID GREEN Mekong IMPECT Activity 9: Promotion of private and public sources for clean energy investment Trained and promoted clean energy investment Clean energy invested USAID PFAN-Asia JGSEE Program Component 4: Regional Engagement and Leadership on LEDS and Green Growth Activity 10: Development and Dissemination of LEDS￾Related Tools and Best Practices, in collaboration with the ALP 10 Thais participated in Asia LEDS Forum and up to 5 participated in each additional LEDS activity. 15 Thais participated in Asia LEDS Forum USAID LEAD RTG 179 Key points:  The work planning process in Thailand has included different steps including desktop review, workshop with 10 Thai governmental agencies (the list is not included in the work plan) and finalization with three key governmental agencies-RTG, ONEP and NESDB.  Partners from the USG side include government agencies and USG/USAID programs, while from the RTG side they include government and academic agencies mainly.  In Thailand, there is no single focal agency identified for coordination and collaboration with LEAD. It may lead into some coordination challenges  Thailand is still in its initial stage in implementing LEDS and LEAD. Therefore, there are a number of opportunities to collaborate with the government and to create a case for LEDS with an emphasis on its economic impacts.  There are a large number of areas identified for action for FY 2014 and 2015. They are mainly focused on areas of clean energy, biodiversity and forestry, GHG inventories and MRV.  The milestones identified for Thailand are expected to reflect “significant, measurable improvement in the national framework for LEDS.” The identified milestones (such as number of Thai participants in a particular training or “clean energy promoted”) which fail to reflect a higher-level outcome like improvement in the National framework for LEDS. Document Name ICF-International, 2012. Thailand Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies - (EC-LEDS) Pre￾Scoping Study, September 6, 2012 1. Overview This document presents an analysis of opportunities to support the Royal Thai Government (RTG) through the USG Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies (EC-LEDS) initiative. 2. Background and Introduction The report is a result of a review of documents and consultations by ICF, the prime contractor for USAID/RDMA for LEAD. It identifies opportunities for USG to better integrate and improve its support to the RTG on LEDS. The agencies consulted included TGO, Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation (DNP), Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), and the ONEP. The highest GHG emitter in Thailand is the energy sector, accounting for 69% of total emissions or 229.08 million ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2000. This is followed by agriculture at 22%. The land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector acted as a net sink, absorbing 7.9 MtCO2e. Carbon dioxide accounted for 70% of total emissions, followed by methane (CH4) at 25% and nitrous oxide (N2O) and other fluorinated greenhouse gases a combined 5%. GHG emissions increased to 326 MtCO2e in 2009, with an average growth of 3.9% per annum. 3. Summary On the basis of desk study and stakeholder consultation, the document provides an analysis of institutional framework and stakeholder engagement of LEDS, the current situation in Thailand and offers opportunities for engagement. 180 Following the ratification to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the National Committee on Climate Change (NCCC) and the Climate Change Office (CCO) were established by order of the Prime Minister and a cabinet resolution in 2009. The key Government agencies in Thailand that work on climate change include the Office of National Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) and the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO), a public organization. Both ONEP and TGO are under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). Thailand has a very active donor community, many of whom support climate change mitigation efforts including capacity building in Thailand. These donors and organizations include USG programs, the United Nations Climate Change Joint Team, multilateral organizations like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, and the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), and bilateral donors such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and Korea. The 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) 2012–2016 developed by Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development Board includes a green policy that suggests the need for more rigorous attention to be paid on climate change. This NESDP is the basis of the National Climate strategy developed by MoNRE. Thailand also has a climate change master plan - the Thailand Climate Change Master Plan, 2012–2050 (TCCMP). The master plan aims to:  Enhance managing capacity to achieve resilient socioeconomic and ecosystem development,  Shape economic development toward a low-carbon society,  Set GHG reduction targets without compromising quality of life and economic security,  Support international cooperation to achieve the common goal of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and  Promote development based on Thailand’s sufficiency economy philosophy. The Plan divides measures and activities into three periods: short term (1 to 5 years), medium term (6 to 10 years), and long term (more than 10 years). TCCMP’s outputs of relevance for climate change mitigation include:  Putting in place climate change action plans for the short, medium and long term  Reducing GHG emissions in all sectors  Increase in the share of alternate energy to 20.3% of the total energy supply  Decrease in GHG emissions from the energy sector by 25% by 2050 Both the NESDP and the (TCCMP) support and provide direction for developing LEDS in Thailand. In FY2012, TGO was allocated USD 3.58 million for climate change from Thailand’s budget, 0.004 percent of the national budget. Climate change activities managed by other agencies and ministries in Thailand do not have an explicit budget allocation. In addition to the RTG mandate specified in the energy plans and the national forest plan, climate change-related activities include a number of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, low￾carbon cities and carbon labels. Some of the planned initiatives in 2012 were a few Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), the World Bank’s Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR), 181 the Climate Change International Training Center (CITC), and the Thailand Voluntary Emissions Reduction (TVER) and Thailand voluntary emission trading system (TVETS). The pre-scoping exercise identified a number of areas for further work on climate change mitigation and low carbon development pathways in Thailand, priorities and potential opportunities. These were broadly categorized into stakeholder engagement, establishment of LEDS process, national and sub￾national goal achievement, GHG inventories, assessment and evaluation of LEDS pathways, prioritization and development of action plans, implementation and monitoring support, carbon market development and development of monitoring systems for carbon markets. Potential opportunities under each category are given below. 1. Stakeholder engagement Engagement identified included that with the RTG and its various agencies and donor agencies. Government agencies identified for collaboration with included ONEP, TGO, the Ministry of Energy (MoEn), and DNP. The priority areas were:  Promoting donor coordination through national level mechanisms to avoid duplication, ensure coordination, and contribute to mutual benefits and outcomes  Collaborating with the World Bank to assist the RTG and TGO on Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR) preparation and implementation.  Ensuring the Asia LEDS Training Facility at the Asian Institute of Technology; supported through LEAD, is coordinated closely with JICA and TGO, who were establishing a Climate Change International Training Center  Collaborating with Korea to assist TGO on the TVER and establishing the carbon market registry system  Collaborating with the UN Climate Change Joint Team, as and when required  Pursuing possible direct collaboration opportunities with the TEI on community-based activities.  Offering technical or financial assistance to the Thailand Research Fund, particularly on climate change studies. 2. Support for establishing LEDS process In order to make LEDS more effective it would need to be integrated in the national, sector, sub￾national and corporate policies and plans. However, the LEDS concept and process were seen as being relatively new to policymakers and stakeholders in Thailand. Therefore, specific support areas were identified to address these issues. These were:  Providing capacity building to policymakers and LEDS implementers to understand LEDS and address its key concepts  Demonstrating LEDS development at the national, sub-national, and sector levels  Building in-country capacity to translate the TCCMP into implementable action plans  Developing and demonstrating tools to assess potential economic impacts resulting from emission reductions due to LEDS in Thailand. 3. Support to achieve national and sub-national goals While RTG has articulated climate change strategies, implementation pathways, monitoring and evaluation, and institutional arrangement have been poorly addressed. Therefore a number of areas of collaboration were identified, based on the draft TCCMP. These were: 182  Providing technical assistance to develop climate change action plans for short, medium and long terms for key GHG emissions and sink sectors at the national and sub-national levels.  Collaborating with the Ministry of Energy (MoEn) and the Department of National Park (DNP) to draft a workable implementation plan that achieves energy reduction and forest cover targets as identified in the energy and national forestry plans, respectively.  Providing technical assistance on alternative energy and energy efficiency including identification of appropriate technologies and estimation of GHG reduction potential.  Providing technical assistance in monitoring the effectiveness of the TCCMP.  Building capacity of identified RTG officials and other relevant Thai stakeholders on climate change 4. National GHG Inventory National GHG inventories for NC1 and NC2 (National Communications 1 and 2) were developed by experts specifically hired for the activity. To create GHG inventory development capacities within the RTG areas for further collaboration identified were:  Supporting establishment of the Change International Training Center (CITC) in TGO in coordination with other donors  Reviewing Thailand’s national GHG inventory and inventory system to identify areas for strengthening  Improving national and sub-national GHG inventory data management systems  Using national GHG inventory information to identify near-term priority opportunities for emission reductions to include in future revisions of Thailand’s National Strategic Plan on Climate Change Management (2008–2012) and the (Draft) Thailand Climate Change Master Plan (2011–2050)  Building capacity for GHG inventory systems at the provincial, local, entity, and sector levels.  Building capacity of the responsible ministries, academia, TGO, and ONEP for the preparation of the NC and BUR reports; and  Supporting design and reporting systems and a national GHG registry. 5. Assessment/Evaluation of the LEDS Pathway TGO has developed a comprehensive LEDS study framework to develop GHG mitigation strategies that includes modeling possible impacts of LEDS pathway compared to business as usual scenarios. These scenarios need further refinement and it is not clear how much this study has been taken into considerations in developing TCCMP. To strengthen the analytical tools and climate-resilient policies practices, and planning, areas for collaboration identified were:  Providing peer review of LEDS analyzing option methodologies and results of the LEDS study framework to identify possible improvements  Building capacity on the LEDS process and methodologies for executives of the climate change￾related agencies, policymakers, policy analysts, and academia  Identifying options for designing a system or multiple systems to address data collection, data management, data integration, and data distribution needs for economic, energy, and environmental decision making and policy analysis  Improving analysis of key programs or policies on renewable energy, waste, forestry, land use, and other GHG mitigation initiatives for co-benefits and design  Building capacity of Thai experts to use models and their results to address energy, industry, construction, transport, land use, and waste sectors and analyze sector-specific mitigation policies and activities 183  Building in-country capacity to use analytical and science-based tools and approaches for decision￾making to support knowledge and technology transfer, as suggested in the Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) study  Collaborating with the RTG on selected LEDS pathways. 6. Support prioritization and development of action plans The priorities and opportunities for engagement for action plans were identified the draft TCCMP. These were:  Participating in an international collaboration development plan, as suggested in the TCCMP’s cross cutting issues strategy;  Providing technical assistance and building Thailand’s capacity on national and sector target setting  Providing technical assistance and build in-country capacity to use analytical tools, including sector￾specific tools (e.g., LEAP and EFFECT for the energy sector, ALU for the forestry sector, and econometric for macroeconomic analysis), including to interpret and leverage outputs in decision￾making.  Building Thailand’s capacity on stakeholder engagement techniques, particularly for decision-making processes to determine priority options for the country  Providing technical assistance and building Thailand’s capacity on climate change education, especially on curriculum development  Providing technical assistance and building in-country capacity on policy evaluation tools. 7. Implementation and monitoring Priorities and opportunities for engagement for strengthening implementation and monitoring identified were:  Building Thailand’s capacity for developing a baseline for LEDS related activities, so that implementation of any related projects can be monitored effectively  Building in-country capacity for project monitoring  Building in-country capacity on project emissions calculation  Providing technical assistance to setup an IT system for tracking emissions 8. Carbon market development The areas identified for support on carbon market development were:  Providing peer review of documents related to applications for carbon finance  Demonstrating the Climate Registry functions in Thailand that would be helpful for preparations of NAMAs, Thailand’s voluntary reduction in emission (TVER), and carbon trading  Demonstrating MRV for forest cover baseline and changes for REDD  Sharing lessons learned on the success and failure of carbon market development in USA 9. Enhancing monitoring systems for carbon markets  Participating in and providing training and technical assistance to implementation plan development  Providing technical assistance, building in-country capacity, and engaging with pilot projects to demonstrate how MRV works  Building in-country capacity on GHG inventories at the sector, project and program, city, corporate, and entity levels  Demonstrating The Climate Registry approach and Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). 184 Key Points:  The pre scoping report is based on the desktop review and consultation with three Thai government agencies. While the report contains a detailed stakeholder analysis, and recommends further consultations with identified stakeholders, the number of stakeholders consulted is very limited.  The pre-scoping report has clearly identified the policy and institutional landscape relevant for Thailand.  Thailand is still in its initial stage in implementing LEDS and LEAD. Therefore, there are a number of opportunities to collaborate with the government and to create a case for LEDS with an emphasis on its economic impacts. The report suggests a need for capacity building especially in establishing monitoring system for LEDS related work and broader capacity building on designing, implementing and monitoring action plans.  There are some policies that are broadly relevant to LEDS in Thailand, but Thailand does not have a national mitigation plan and is yet to set national standard for emission reduction. This maybe a reflection of a government buy-in and added with some overlapping of responsibilities among the Thai organizations for mitigation may affect the operation and sustainability of LEAD in Thailand.  Some LEDS relevant activities have taken place in Thailand including the LEDS study and modeling to assess different LEDS pathways. However, these need to be refined. Document Name ICF International, 2012. Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) Program-Integrated Program Work Plan FY 2012 and FY 2013 (draft) 1. Overview In September 2011, the USAID Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) initiated the Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program to support Asian governments, businesses, and institutions develop frameworks for sustained low-carbon, climate-resilient development. In order to achieve its goals, the LEAD program developed work plans according to its financial years (FYs), which outlined activities under different project components. This work plan has listed activities and actions to be undertaken in FYs 2012 and 2013. In addition, possible activities in the future to create project sustainability have also been discussed in the work plan. The work plan outlines activities for the ICF team and other USG partners to deliver for each of the seven tasks of the LEAD contract grouped under 3 program components as follows: Program Component A: Initial Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations Task 1: Initial Regional Analysis and Stakeholder Consultations on Program Priorities and Opportunities 185 Program Component B: Low Emissions Development Strategies Task 6: Regional Support for LEDS Development and Implementation Subtask 6.1—Ad Hoc Secretariat for the Asia LEDS Partnership. Subtask 6.2—Asia LEDS Forum. Subtask 6.3—Asia LEDS Knowledge Portal. Subtask 6.4—Asia LEDS Training Center. Subtask 6.5—Program Integration for USG Agencies. Subtask 6.6—Technical Assistance, Training, and Capacity Building for LEDS. Program Component C: GHG Accounting and GHG Market Readiness Task 2: Regional Support for National GHG Inventory Capacity Building and Development Task 3: Regional Support for GHG Accounting Protocols and Tools Development, Capacity Building, Pilot Demonstrations, and Replication Task 4: GHG Market Development Task 5: Emissions Factor Identification and Development 2. Background and Introduction LEAD’s long term objective is to establish the enabling conditions for achieving sustainable, low￾emission, climate-resilient development in Asia’s developing countries. To achieve this it’s development objective is to strengthen or establish institutions, platforms, and initiatives to catalyze LEDS in Asia. This LEAD expects to deliver through 3 intermediate results (IR) and their sub intermediate results (Sub-IR). The intermediate results and their sub intermediate results are given below. One cross cutting area for action was also identified: to strengthen the capacity of LEDS, GHG inventories and accounting and GHG markets. Intermediate results Sub intermediate results IR 1: National and sub-national LEDS created or improved ▫ Sub-IR 1.1: Strengthened implementation of LEDS ▫ Sub-IR 1.2: Improved data and analytical tools used for low emission planning and implementation IR 2: Strengthened GHG inventory and accounting capacity ▫ Sub-IR 2.1: MRV systems implemented or improved ▫ Sub-IR2.2: Strengthened GHG accounting protocols and tools IR3: Catalyzed GHG market development ▫ Sub-IR 3.1: Strengthened institutions to support GHG market development ▫ Sub-IR 3.2: Strengthened participation in GHG markets As a regional program, LEAD has a project office in Bangkok, Thailand. LEAD also engages a network of in-country consultants, based in the LEAD countries, to work on a variable, part-time basis.  3. Summary Activities for FY 2012 and 2013 were identified under the various project components and their tasks. The identified activities under these components and tasks are given below. Program component A is initial analysis and stakeholder consultations. The expected results from this component is a regional analysis of priorities and opportunities for addressing LEDS planning and implementation, GHG inventories and accounting, and GHG market development—regionally and across the applicable focus countries. There is only 1 task under it. This is Task 1 is Initial Regional 186 Analysis, Stakeholder Consultations on Program Priorities, and Opportunities. The regional analysis will involve desktop research and analysis as well as consultations with key stakeholders at the regional and country level. This analysis is to provide specific suggestions for implementing tasks in FY 2012, FY 2013, and through the five-year period of performance. It will also inform the development of the Project Management Plan (PMP). Program component B, low emission development strategies, has one task with 6 subtasks attached to it. Identified as Task 6 the task under component B is - Regional Support for LEDS Development and Implementation. This component and its tasks and subtasks deal with the development of the institutional structure and systems for LEDS. Details of the subtasks and activities under them are given below. Subtasks 6.1 is Ad Hoc Secretariat for the Asia LEDS Partnership. LEAD serves as the de facto Secretariat of the Asia LEDS Partnership, in part to help USAID/RDMA fulfill its role as Co-chair. LEAD’s first role for the Asia LEDS Partnership will be to organize the development and approval of the regional Asia LEDS Partnership work plan. The Expected results from this activity were:  Develop a governance and operational framework for the Asia LEDS Partnership;  Develop a work plan for the Asia LEDS Partnership;  Develop o a communications plan, along with communications and outreach materials, for the Asia LEDS Partnership; and  Support for the training, technical assistance, and information sharing activities of the Asia LEDS Partnership. Sub-task 6.2 is Asia LEDS Forum. According to this subtask LEAD was to organize the first Asia LEDS Forum, scheduled for September 18–21, 2012, in Bangkok, Thailand. LEAD would also help organize a second Asia LEDS Forum in Q4 2013. The results expected from this activity were:  Build a regional network of partners and practitioners working to advance and implement LEDS  Facilitate regional coordination among governments, multilateral organizations, donors, NGOs, and others actively promoting green growth and LEDS  Share resources, tools, models, approaches, and best practices in LEDS and green growth planning and implementation  Chart a commonly defined path forward for the Asia LEDS Partnership under the LEDS Global Partnership through input from and dialogue with regional and country-level government partners, building on a shared vision and mission. Sub-task 6.3 is Asia LEDS Knowledge Portal. LEAD anticipates that an outcome of the Asia LEDS Forum will be agreement on the need for a regional, web-based knowledge portal to facilitate dissemination and access to LEDS information relevant for Asian developing countries and to support peer-to-peer communication and collaboration among partners, practitioners, and others. This subtask therefore has focused on a knowledge portal to communicate and exchange information on program themes. The expected results were to:  Develop and provide access to Asia-specific case studies and good practices on policy and practical measures to support LEDS (e.g., LEDS tools and models);  Host dynamic communities of practice; facilitate peer-to-peer communication and information￾sharing within Asia;  Help stakeholders keep track of what is happening related to LEDS in the region (both at the country and regional level); facilitate exchange of innovative initiatives; and provide a news aggregation service. 187 Sub-task 6.4 is Asia LEDS Training Centre. LEAD was to launch the Asia LEDS Training Center, hosted and managed in Bangkok by AIT. This centre was to serve as a regional Asia-based institution to provide world class training and educational services and foster the creation of a cadre of leaders and service providers to support LEDS and green growth initiatives. The expected results from this effort identified were to establish the training center. This would then be used by LEAD as a primary channel to deliver its training and capacity building programs under Tasks 2-6. The Asia LEDS Training Center planned to use both classroom instruction and distance learning techniques. Sub-task 6.5 is – Program Integration for USG EC-LEDS Partners. LEAD is to serve as program integrator for EC-LEDS work and other regional LEDS-related work of USG agencies in the 11 LEAD countries. The expected results for this subtask were:  An integrated work plan that captures the full USG program of support for LEDS in the 11 LEAD countries;  An integrated performance management framework and reporting of results;  Well-informed design of EC-LEDS assistance agreements through LEAD assistance for desktop scoping reports and participation in scoping missions;  Coordinated launch and management of LEDS-related technical assistance activities through offering to convene and support annual country-level EC-LEDS workshops and an annual regional workshop that includes all USG agencies providing LEDS-related technical assistance in Asia; and  A program website that serves as a key tool for sharing information about EC-LEDS activities and for interagency program integration. Sub-task 6.6 is Technical Assistance, Training and Capacity Building for LEDS. The expected results under this is to provide additional technical assistance, training, and capacity building for LEDS, particularly in LEDS modeling, decision-making tools, and other specific details as identified in LEAD’s consultations conducted for Task 1 and during Asia LEDS Forum in 2012. Program Component C is GHG Accounting and Market Readiness and has 4 tasks under it. While Task 1 was allocated under Project Component 1, tasks 2 to 5 were to be under Program Component C. Of these, Task 2 is Regional Support for National GHG Inventory Capacity Building and Development. Under Task 1 of Program Component A, it was found that all 11 LEAD program countries would benefit from a strengthening of technical and institutional capacity to develop national GHG inventories. This task therefore addresses the concerns identified in Task 1. The approach identified by LEAD for this task was to consider ongoing and anticipated technical assistance provided in the 11 LEAD program countries by the SEA Project, UNDP, US Department of Agriculture and Department of Forest Services and Silva Carbon programs, UN-REDD, WGIA, the Government of Australia, and others agencies that support individual countries in the region. Task 3 is Regional Support for Protocols and Tools Development, Capacity Building Demonstrations, and Replication. Under this scoping assessments had already been conducted in six countries for GHG accounting, including India and Thailand. These assessments were to prioritize national capacity needs by partnering with government agencies, business, and civil society organizations. Therefore, the LEAD activity under this was to conduct training on the use of the existing tools such as the GHG Protocol, and other standards for carbon accounting such as ISO 14064 and the California Climate Action Reserve’s GHG accounting protocols. The LEAD team was to develop innovative demonstrations that would encourage entities like private companies and sub-national governments use the protocols, GHG reporting, and GHG registries. 188 Task 4 is GHG Market Development. Many LEAD program countries showed an interested in earning carbon finance revenue and to develop a project pipeline, by scaling up through approaches such as Programs of Activities (PoAs). Given this opportunity LEAD was to support the countries through identified market mechanisms such as:  The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS)  The World Bank (through its BioCarbon Fund, Community Development Carbon Fund, and others funds and programs)  The Asian Development Bank (post-2012 CDM certified emission reduction (CER) purchase fund)  Japan (Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism (BOCM)  The new Australian emissions trading scheme (ETS)  New Zealand may generate some demand for international offset credits Task 5 is Emission Factor Identification and Development. The SEA Project has been working on emission factor development for Livestock Emissions in Thailand, including convening a technical workshop in March 2012. LEAD would therefore collaborate with this project and other regional and country-level partners in developing needs assessments and capacity building to improve the availability of key emission factors required to estimate GHG emissions and develop LEDS. Specific considerations would inform LEAD’s selection of emission factors of interest. These would be:  The USDA/FS had requested LEAD support for organizing and conducting a regional training event on the Mangrove Carbon Protocol. This was a part of its global roll-out of this new protocol developed by the Institute for Pacific Islands Forestry in collaboration with CIFOR.  To reinforce the work of Task 3 (building capacity and demand for GHG accounting services) and of Task 4 (generating interest in GHG markets) LEAD anticipates working with industries and supply chains. Based on the regional priorities identified in the Task 1 Report, LEAD was to engage with the teak industry in collaboration with the association TeakNet, which is based in Kerala, India.  USAID/Philippines had requested LEAD to assist the development of emissions factors for the Philippines.  The work plan has clarity on its goal and major areas of work, such capacity building on different areas related to LEDS such as GHG inventory, market systems and emission factors.  The work plan provides abundant contexts on the needs and the agenda of USG, USAID/RDMA and their related projects with an objective of making LEAD play a role of regional program integrator.  The program is largely concentrated on regional capacity building. Therefore it needs a robust discussion on regional contexts and needs, which is lacking. The work plan does include a task on regional scoping based on stakeholder discussions. It is not clear how the results of the scoping or understanding the regional context would be addressed or accommodated in the work plan.  Capacity building initiatives, working approach through the regional trainings and some regional partners like AIT and other Bangkok based institutions were identified in the work plan before the regional scoping (Task 1). It is not clear then whether they effectively address the regional needs and priorities.  Sustainability of task completion is discussed after each task, and the activities of AGMC (Asia Greenhouse Management Center) and Asia LED partnership (ALP) are expected to continue beyond LEAD program activities. U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523