| Overview : Project Title and Number Philippines: Climate Change Capacity Building Project in the Framework of the Low-Emission Capacity Building Programme (LECB PHL Project). Project ID No. 00079132. Project Description The Philippines is one of the participating countries in a global Low Emission Capacity Building Programme focused on climate change capacity building for low emission development, primarily of the public sector. The global programme is supported by the UNDP with funding assistance from EU, Germany and Australia over a four-year period. The Programme is being undertaken in the Philippines through the Low Emission Capacity Building Philippines Project (LECB PHL Project). It is executed by UNDP Philippine Country Office with the Climate Change Commission as Implementing Partner. The expected outcomes of the project are as follows: - Robust national system for preparation of GHG emission inventories have been established at a national level;
- Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and/or Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) sectoral road maps have been formulated within the context of national development priorities; and
- Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) systems have been designed to support implementation and evaluation of NAMAs and/or LEDS sectoral road maps.
The Project output under Outcome No. 1 is the establishment and/or institutionalization of the Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reporting and Management System (PGHGIRMS). The LECB PHL Project is building capacity for the preparation of GHG inventories through training and seminar/workshops for relevant government officials and staff involved in this activity. It is likewise undertaking the design and establishment of national systems for the national GHG inventory and institutionalizing mechanisms at the national and institutional levels to link GHG inventories to MRV-related activities for long term sustainability. The expected output under Outcome No. 2 is the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions or NAMAs which are set of policies and actions that the country can undertake to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to business-as-usual levels. NAMAs is increasingly becoming one of the fundamental concepts for promoting social, economic and environmental transformations in pursuit of low emission development. Low-Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) are national long-term strategies for reducing emissions while promoting sustainable development. They provide an overall framework for the development of NAMAs. The Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of the above actions is important in order to generate transparency, built trust on their effectiveness and facilitate decision-making. Thus Project output under Outcome No. 3 is the design of an MRV system for NAMAs/LEDS. It is also the objective to build capacity in MRV-related activities in order that government officials and local personnel can support mitigation actions and low-emissions strategies. The Project is also to develop national technology systems (NICCDIES) for information and monitoring. At the baseline, there is no formally established information/MRV system that could directly support NAMAs and LEDS/sectoral roadmaps implementation. Background Information Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed in the Bali Action Plan to consider a set of “measurable, reportable, and verifiable” (MRV) responsibilities: NAMAs by all developed and developing country parties; and technology, finance, and capacity-building support for those actions. These commitments, actions, and support would form the core of parties’ mitigation responsibilities under a post-2012 international climate change agreement. The requirement that these responsibilities be undertaken in a measurable, reportable, and verifiable manner suggests a level of specificity and significance beyond previous obligations under the UNFCCC. Taken together, measurability, reportability, and verifiability have implications for how obligations are defined, how they are financed and implemented, and how parties evaluate each other’s delivery on those obligations, making the concept of MRV a critical source of credibility and effectiveness in a post-2012 agreement. The Cancun Conference of Parties (COP) in 2010 and Durban COP in 2011 have progressively clarified the mitigation framework for developing countries and distinguished between internationally supported actions and domestic supported actions depending on whether they are implemented with or without international support. The decision at Cancun also clarified that ‘internationally supported mitigation actions will be measured, reported and verified domestically and will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines to be developed under the Convention.’ Further, ‘domestically supported mitigation actions will be measured, reported and verified domestically in accordance with general guidelines to be developed under the Convention’. Another of MRV purposes is to help generate information for reporting to the UNFCCC – through National Communications (NCs) and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) – on NAMAs either planned or implemented. The main challenge therefore when implementing NAMAs is the requirement for Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) in ways that are consistent, transparent, comparable, complete and accurate. MRV is not a new concept and has been widely used in many contexts at national and international levels to ensure transparency and help in effective implementation of a given activity. In simple terms with regards to the implementation of NAMAs, MRV is defined as: - Measurement - collects relevant information on progress and impacts;
- Reporting - presents the measured information in a transparent and standardised manner; and
- Verification - assesses the completeness, consistency and reliability of the reported information through an independent process.
MRV is applied in 3 areas: (1) MRV of emissions (estimation of emissions at national, regional, sectoral levels); (2) MRV of NAMAs (MRV of the impacts of mitigation policies and actions); and (3) MRV of support (MRV of financial flows/technology transfer/capacity building and their impacts). MRV frameworks provide assurance to stakeholders that projects and programs meet clear standards; that their implementation is carefully monitored, and that progress is reported and the results are verified. It will be the task of the MRV system to keep track of the overall performance of the NAMAs. Scope of Work The LECB PHL Project requires the services of an Individual Contractor referred to herein as “Consultant” that shall undertake the following tasks: 1. Conduct of a Scoping Study. While the scope of work under this TOR is focused on MRV of NAMAs, the Contractor is expected to collect, review and categorize relevant documents and data on MRV systems in general that provide country context, including a description of the socio-economic context, information on GHG emissions, government priorities and climate change-relevant actions in the AWIT-FE sectors. The following NAMAs-related documents or studies conducted by the CCC and other government agencies and private institutions may be considered in the conduct of this activity: - Development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): First Interim Report conducted by the CCC-LECB PHL Project through Berkman International, Inc.
- Results of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) conducted by the CCC-LECB PHL Project in the selection and prioritization of NAMAs options for the solid waste, transport, energy, wastewater and forestry sectors.
- Philippines Mitigation Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted by the CCC through the USAID/B-LEADERS Project.
- Study on Low Carbon Scenario and Development Pathways for the Philippines conducted by the Asian Development Bank.
- Result of the Workshop on the Development of MRV System Framework which was conducted by the CCC thru the LECB PHL Project with the assistance or in cooperation with UNEP, SEAN-CC and DTU Partnership.
2. Develop the MRV System framework/roadmap for NAMAs/LEDS based on international accepted good practice including the corresponding activities, timelines and milestones; 3. Design MRV plan for NAMAs, including processes, arrangements, methodologies and expertise needed to facilitate reporting on their impacts. The plan should be able to address the following major aspects of MRV of NAMAs: - Indicators as basis for MRV. Individual activities of the NAMA should have their own indicators, whether they seek to measure GHG reductions or other benefits. The indicators will determine what gets reported and verified. The MCA conducted by CCC-LECB PHL Project identified multi-level criteria as well as indicators in the selection and prioritization of the sectoral mitigation options. These criteria and indicators may be considered in this activity.
- Methodologies to measure the progress or impacts of NAMAs. The following concerns/elements may be considered: How will benefits be measured (methodologies used)? How accurate must measurement be? Can measurement be conducted “on-site” or will official data sources be used to measure results? How will results be compiled and stored, and through which channels will they be reported? Is on-site verification required?
Measurement is a prerequisite for verification. Measurement requires a measurable unit to be identified and recorded, and those records made available for verification through reporting systems. Although MRV is considered a fundamental requirement for NAMAs, there is limited formal guidance as to its organisation and output. Presently the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) of the UNFCCC is tasked with the development of these guidelines on domestic MRV of domestically supported NAMAs. Internationally supported NAMAs will be subject to international MRV, which itself will be in accordance with the guidelines developed for international consultation and analysis (ICA). A starting point in understanding what to measure may be the international reporting requirements for BURs. These requirements describe two primary measurement parameters: a) progress of implementation, and b) results achieved, including estimated GHG impacts. Most MRV systems are designed to measure and report against either a standard for compliance, or a baseline. Since the inception of the UNFCCC, the concept of baselines has been central in climate change policy and is used to describe a business as usual development from which a deviation is desired. - Frequency of MRV. How often will particular activities of the NAMA be “MRV’d”? E.g. Performance monitoring annually? Reporting Biennially? Verification of reported information?
Reporting to UNFCCC by developing countries may be taken into consideration given that developing countries are required to submit BURs every two years. BURs will include information on GHG inventories as well as information on the progress and impacts of NAMAs implemented by the country. This in turn will require a certain level of coordination within the country on collecting information on NAMAs for preparing the BURs. - Institutional arrangements/structures for implementation. Who should MRV? The person /institution responsible for the M, R and V of the NAMA need to be identified during the design phase.
The MRV process starts together with implementation of the NAMA. For national NAMA oversight, it will probably be necessary to establish a central coordinating unit (CCU) which can handle the following: - incorporate reporting from all government agencies and their regulatory bodies and keep an updated registry of relevant policies and projects;
- report financial flows to policy schemes from both national and international sources (e.g. the Green Climate Fund), including actual disbursements;
- collaborate with the line ministries and record the effects of regulatory initiatives compared to baseline scenarios (e.g. policy NAMAs that are actions in themselves);
- oversee the application of relevant methodologies for assessments of emissions reduction from concrete project activities;
- support national and international verification teams;
- devise principles to avoid double counting of emission reduction for related NAMAs;
- builds a national emissions inventory system to facilitate biannual update reporting (BUR) to the UNFCCC Secretariat.
4. Create knowledge products on the final output for dissemination to stakeholders. 5. Assist in the conduct of necessary fora and workshops to raise awareness and build capacity on the Program. 6. Serve as resource person for the presentation of the output. Expected Outputs Based on the aforementioned Scope of Work, the Consultant has the following specific outputs/deliverables: 1. Inception Report with detailed approach/strategies and the corresponding work plan to be submitted two (2) weeks after receiving the Notice of Award. 2. 1st Interim Report (to be submitted one week after the 2nd month of engagement) summarizing the activities undertaken and outputs generated explaining variances from the TOR/Inception Report and identifying the specific work plan for the succeeding period. The 1st Interim Report shall likewise include the following deliverables: - Results of the Scoping Study;
- Draft of the MRV roadmap for NAMAs/LEDS; and
- Draft of the MRV plan for NAMAs.
3. 2nd Interim Report (to be submitted 2.0 months after the submission of the 1st Interim Report) summarizing the activities undertaken and outputs generated explaining variances from the TOR/Inception Report and identifying the specific work plan for the succeeding period. The 2nd Interim Report shall likewise include the following deliverables: - Final draft of the MRV roadmap for NAMAs/LEDS; and
- Final draft of the MRV plan for NAMAs.
4. Draft Final Report (to be submitted 1.5 months after the submission of the 2nd Interim Report) integrating all the above-mentioned deliverables and results of the studies conducted. The Report shall likewise include the following deliverables: - Final versions of all reports/studies including hard and soft copies of information materials; and
- Report on the conduct of meetings, training, and workshops, if any, for the above deliverables.
5. Final Report to be submitted one (1) week after the deliberation of the Draft Final Report by the LECB PHL Project Management Team, the Core TWG, the Sectoral TWGs and the Climate Change Office of the Climate Change Commission. All deliverables shall undergo a peer review. The Consultant shall present the major findings on the subject deliverables in a consultation meeting to be convened by the LECB PHL Project for the purpose. The Consultant may be further required to attend additional consultation meetings to answer questions and clarify issues that may arise from the review of its deliverables. Institutional Arrangements The Consultant shall work closely with the following institutions/personnel: 1. The Climate Change Office of the Climate Change Commission for the overall management of activities and source of additional information/data; 2. The LECB PHL Project Manager and/or LECB Technical Officer for the execution and implementation of the Terms of Contract and for the approval and acceptance of outputs/deliverables; 3. The LECB PHL Project Management Unit for administrative and technical support during the conduct of the activity; 4. The UNDP Country Office for guidance of activities; and 5. The following groups established specifically to assist the Project achieve its objectives: - Core Technical Working Group for climate change mitigation for the review and endorsement of deliverables to the LECB PHL Project Manager; and
- The Sectoral Technical Working Groups (i.e., TWG for Agriculture Sector, TWG for Waste Sector, TWG for Industry Sector; and TWG for Transport Sector) for inputs/outputs of the study, review of deliverables and source of additional information.
The Consultant is expected to present and discuss its deliverables with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and other parties/experts that the PMU may find necessary, such as the Project National Steering Committee (PSC), CCC, and the UNDP. Duration of the Work The Consultant shall be engaged for a period of six (6) months. Duty Station The Consultant should be based in Manila for accessibility and availability should discussions/reporting on progress of activities is required by either the CCC or UNDP. Domestic travel contingent upon the scope of work may be required. Qualifications and Experience The Consultant should meet the following requirements: - Degree in agriculture, industrial engineering, energy engineering, environmental planning, environmental science, or related field. Advance or graduate degrees are preferable;
- At least 5 years work experiences on climate change mitigation, GHG inventory, CDM and/or related projects;
- Strong familiarity with environmental laws and regulations, planning processes and regulations at the national, subnational and local levels;
- Strong familiarity with 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Familiarity with international climate change negotiations issues would be an advantage; and,
- Strong communication skills, including demonstrated written and presentation skills and the capacity to relate to both internal and external constituencies of the project.
Scope of Bid Price and Schedule of Payments The contract price is all-inclusive, fixed and output-based regardless of extension of the herein specific duration. The Conractor shall receive payments based on the following schedule: - 10% upon signing of contract;
- 10% upon submission and acceptance of the Inception Report;
- 15% upon submission and acceptance of the First Interim Report;
- 15% upon submission and acceptance of the Second Interim Report;
- 20% upon submission and acceptance of the Draft Final Report; and
- 30% upon submission and acceptance of the Final Report.
The LECB Project shall cover the cost of the following activities as support to the deliverables of the Consultant: - Consultation meetings with the relevant stakeholders;
- Training and seminar workshops for capacity building for stakeholders; and
- Meetings and/or focus-group discussions with the Project’s various technical working groups (Core and AWIT sectors), program partners and stakeholders.
Presentation of Proposal The bid proposal should contain at least the following: - Consultant’s personal profile and/or CV indicating all past experiences;
- Understanding of the TOR;
- Plan of Approach and Methodology;
- Allocation of Resources/Facilities/Logistical Requirements;
- Implementation Schedule (Gantt Chart or PERT/CPM); and
- Financial proposal indicating all-inclusive fixed contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs.
Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal Qualifications/methodology – 70% - Track record in undertaking similar/related work – 20
- Practicality and appropriateness of the approach and methodology – 30%
- Qualifications of the Consultant – 20%
Financial Proposal – 30% | 
