National Climate Change Response Strategy Action Plan, Kenya Subcomponent 6: National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework Inception Report MEMR/RFP/043/2011‐2012 6 April 2012 If you have to print, we suggest you use, for economical and ecological reasons, double‐sided print‐outs as much as possible. LTS International Ltd, Pentlands Science Park, Bush Loan, Penicuik, EH26 0PL, United Kingdom Tel. +44 (0)131 440 5500 | Fax. +44 (0)131 440 5501 | Email: [email protected] Website: www.ltsi.co.uk Registered in Scotland Number 100833 and LTS Africa, P.O. Box 217 00606, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 266 4787 | Email: [email protected] Website: www.ltsi.co.uk Registered in Kenya CPR/2009/8504 Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report Acronyms AFOLU
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
CBOs
Community Based Organizations
CCAP
Climate Change Action Plan
COP
Conference of Parties
DANIDA
Danish International Development Agency
DDO
District Development Officers (M&E officers seconded from NIMES)
DECC
Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK government)
DEFRA
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK government)
GoK
Government of Kenya
KNBS
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
LEDS
Low Emissions Development Strategy
LGAs
Local Government Authorities
MDA
Ministries, Departments and Agencies
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MoAg
Ministry of Agriculture
MoF
Ministry of Finance
MEMR
Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources
MPND
Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030
MRV
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
NAMA
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
NAP
National Adaptation Plan
NCCRS
National Climate Change Response Strategy
NEMA
National Environment Management Authority
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
NIMES
National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System
NPBMF
National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework
OPM
Office of the Prime Minister
PU
Planning Unit
SC
Subcomponent
ToR
Terms of Reference
TWG
Thematic Working Group
UNCCD
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 2. Revised Scope of Work .................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Objectives, outputs and deliverables ................................................................... 3 Specific tasks .......................................................................................................... 5 Interpretation of the SC6 remit .............................................................................. 5 Interactions with other CCAP subcomponents ................................................... 6 Overview of collaboration modalities ................................................................... 9 Ensuring strong co-benefits via climate smart system design........................ 12 3. Approach and Methodology ........................................................................... 13 3.1 Stage 1: Identify Building Blocks for a NPBMF ................................................ 14 3.1.1 Activity 1.1 Review MRV system for mitigation activities................................. 15 3.1.2 Activity 1.2 Review adaptation performance indicators ................................... 17 3.2 Stage 2: Design of an Integrated NPBMF .......................................................... 20 3.2.1 Activity 2.1 Develop adaptation indicators ....................................................... 20 3.2.2 Activity 2.2 Identify key synergies and indicators for capturing them .............. 22 3.2.3 Activity 2.3 Design MRV+ system ................................................................... 24 3.2.4 Activity 2.4 Develop capacity development plan ............................................. 29 3.3 Project Management ............................................................................................ 32 3.3.1 Management principles ................................................................................... 32 3.3.2 Management arrangements ............................................................................ 33 3.3.3 Team composition ........................................................................................... 34 4. Work Plan and Reporting ............................................................................... 35 4.1 4.2 Work Plan .............................................................................................................. 35 Reporting Timeline ............................................................................................... 36 5. Quality Assurance Plan .................................................................................. 37 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Business Integrity Management ......................................................................... 37 Quality Benchmarks ............................................................................................. 37 Quality Management ............................................................................................ 38 Quality Control ...................................................................................................... 38 Quality Assurance Team ...................................................................................... 39 6. Contact Information ........................................................................................ 40 7. References ....................................................................................................... 41 Annex A. Original Terms of Reference.............................................................. 42 Annex B. LTS Original Technical Proposal ...................................................... 45 Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 1.
Introduction
The main objective of subcomponent 6 (SC6) of the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) of
Kenya’s National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) is to develop a National
Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework (NPBMF). This dynamic process is
being led and coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources (MEMR)
through a dedicated task force and secretariat. The multi-disciplinary consortium carrying
out SC6 comprises of three international partners led by Land, Trees and Sustainability
(LTS) Africa Ltd (Kenya), AEA Technology plc (UK) and Le Group de Baastel (Canada).
The present Inception Report represents the first deliverable of this assignment. The
contract was signed on 20 February 2012. The preparation of the Inception Report is a
collective effort involving five of the ten team members contracted under SC6. The
information and analysis in this document stems from initial visits to Kenya, a review of
NCCRS documentation, and incorporation of opinions expressed by a range of key
stakeholders.
In broad terms, during the short inception phase the following has been achieved:

Mobilisation of the LTS Africa consortium and core members of the team –
Conducted extensive planning, briefing and inception meetings in Nairobi, as well as
selected meetings elsewhere in Kenya.

Agreement on the conceptual approach - based on clarity gained from the other
six subcomponents already underway and integration of international best practices
in mitigation reporting, adaptation planning and risk assessment.

Re-scoping of the assignment – to best align the work programme with the budget
available and timeframe required.

Initial engagement with key stakeholders – Initial meetings were held with key
ministries and other partners to introduce SC6, and consultants also participated in
NCCRS task force and coordination meetings as well as post-Durban and media
briefings.

Introduction to the Thematic Working Group (TWG) - Discussed how they can
advise and support the work of the SC6 consultants and solicited initial input from the
TWG convenor from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).

Agreement on the communication and quality processes such as types of formal
and informal communication between the team, Government of Kenya counterparts,
and other subcomponents.
The structure of the Inception Report is as follows:

Scope of work

Approach and methodology

Work plan and reporting

Quality assurance

Annexes providing supporting information
In its approach to this contract, the SC6 team appreciates that climate change is both a
significant threat and huge opportunity for Kenya’s development. Kenya needs to help its
people adapt to climate change. At the same time, low carbon development, carbon trading
and carbon finance offer significant potential for Kenya given the agricultural focus of its
economy and its wealth of renewable resources. While it is difficult to predict outcomes with
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 1
confidence, there is a need to plan robust strategies to anticipate threats and seize
opportunities, rather than using uncertainty as a reason for inaction.
2.
Revised Scope of Work
This section summarises how the original scope of work proposed by the SC6 consortium
has been revised to accommodate the reduced budget available for this work as well as a
shortened timeframe of delivery.
Annex A of this document contains the original terms of reference (ToRs) for subcomponent
6 – The National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, while Annex B
contains the original methodology proposed by LTS in the technical proposal submitted in
December 2011.
The timeframe and funds originally requested by LTS to deliver SC6 were reduced yet the
methodology was not revised as a result during the contract negotiation period. The project
duration was reduced from 12 months to 6 months and the budget was reduced by
approximately 40%. Taken together, this has meant the time available to complete the
contract was reduced by over 200 days input. The reduced budget and duration of the
project has resulted in a revised scope of work. While we have attempted to preserve the
core work programme, there has necessarily been some reduction in scope and ambition.
Table 1 below summarises the reduced scope of work.
With respect to Stage 1 activities:
 Outputs (I) and (II) will be reduced in scope. Specifically, there will be limited
information collected regarding the characterisation of data and indicators which will
mean a stronger reliance on SC4 analysis on mitigation sectors for (I) and a
stronger reliance on the SC3 emerging outputs on adaption in order to develop
adaptation indicators for (II).
 Output (III), namely the country coordination report and its accompanying workshop
cannot be produced within the current budget.
With respect to Stage 2 activities:
 Outputs (I) and (II) will be reduced in scope by reducing the depth of analysis, and
omitting the indicators workshop.
 Output (III) will be simplified from a toolkit to a matrix.
As the scope of work has been reduced, part of the proposed outputs for the revised scope
of work is to identify any further activities that would be required to operationalise the
NPBMF, then to describe these further activities in brief ToR annexes.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 2
Table 1. Scope of work for requested funding and reduced scope of work given
allocated funds
Note: A  indicates the task is retained, with the effects of the reduced scope shown in parenthesis. A 
indicates the task has been deleted in the current work programme.
Tasks under the
original requested
funding
Stage 1. Identify building blocks for a NPBMF
I.
MRV system for mitigation actions (and
workshop)
II.
Performance indicators for adaptation actions
III.
Country Coordination Report (and workshop)
Stage 2. Design of an integrated NPBMF
I.
MRV system for mitigation actions (and
workshop)
II.
Performance indicators for adaptation options
report (and workshop)
III. Adaptation – mitigation synergies toolkit
IV. Capacity development plan
Effects of allocated
funds on the original
tasks
 (limited data)
 (limited data)

 (reduced scope)
 (reduced scope,
no workshop)
 (Matrix only)

2.1
Objectives, outputs and deliverables
The main objective of this assignment is to develop an integrated framework for monitoring,
evaluating and reporting results of both adaptation actions and mitigation actions as well as
synergies between them. As per the SC6 ToR, this product will consist of the following
outputs:
1. National/sub-national system for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of
both emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and mitigation actions to reduce them
(including a national registry).
2. National/sub-national performance indicators for adaptation actions based on
outcomes.
3. Tools to measure, report and verify synergistic mitigation and adaptation actions.
4. Capacity development plan.
Due to changes in the timeframe and resources allocated for this work and upon closer
examination of our task, we suggest several changes to the SC6 outputs (highlighted in
yellow below).
1. Guidelines for developing a national/sub-national system for measurement, reporting
and verification (MRV) of both emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and
mitigation actions to reduce them, as well as a national registry.
2. Qualitative and quantitative performance indicators for adaptation actions based on
outcomes at the national and sub-national levels, integrated insofar as possible into
reporting structures for mitigation.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 3
3. Accounting framework and tools to identify, measure, report and verify synergies
between mitigation and adaptation actions.
4. Capacity development plan to enable operationalisation of this integrated framework.
These outputs will be provided in the form of the following deliverables:
1. Systems review report vis-a-vis monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) /
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for climate change in the Kenyan context
o
This overview document will provide high-level recommendations regarding
the type of monitoring and reporting system needed in Kenya, working from
the Government of Kenya’s vision of an integrated system while basing our
analysis on both current practice within Kenya and international best practice
2. Roadmap for establishing this integrated system
o
Guidelines, tools and templates on:

Conducting a greenhouse gas inventory

Developing a MRV/M&E system for Kenya’s climate change response
actions that fully incorporates mitigation actions, adaptation actions
and adaptation-mitigation synergies (i.e., “MRV +”)
o
Guidelines on how to meet international obligations regarding UNFCCC
National Communications (Nat Comm) and Biennial Update Reports (BUR)
o
A set of qualitative and quantitative outcome and impact level indicators for
estimating and measuring

Kenya-based adaptation actions (NAPs, other adaptation initiatives)

Kenya-based mitigation actions (NAMAs, carbon market initiatives)

Synergies between adaptation and mitigation outcomes
3. Capacity development plan to enable operationalisation of this integrated framework
4. Identification of tasks that fall outside the scope of the SC6 contract but that would be
needed for its successful operationalisation
This framework represents a critical component of Kenya’s NCCRS. Several uses can be
distinguished. First, the framework will help inform and guide the implementation of concrete
climate change response actions, whether in the form of projects, programmes or business
ventures. Second, it will help Kenya fulfil its international reporting obligations to the
UNFCCC. Third, it will demonstrate Kenya’s climate finance readiness and provide a strong
platform for attracting international climate finance flows. Following the end of the SC6
contract, this framework will be operationalised with help from a capacity development plan
developed by the SC6 consultants.
In all these ways, the integrated framework will be pivotal to helping Kenya operationalise
the NCCRS. As such, the framework will help deliver on the imperative regularly repeated
by Climate Change Secretariat officials, namely that the CCAP must not simply produce
reports or strategy documents, but must lead to practical results for Kenyan communities.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 4
2.2
Specific tasks
The work of the SC6 consultants will follow a two-stage approach:

Stage 1 will involve a high-level overview of the proposed integrated monitoring and
reporting framework.

Stage 2 will focus on the design of this system, including guidelines and tools for
delivering it at both the national and county levels and the development of a capacity
building plan to enable operationalisation of the framework.
The following tasks will be performed as part of Stage 1 of the work programme:
(i)
Review of existing MRV systems and performance indicators relevant to adaptation
and mitigation actions in Kenya, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses
(ii)
Elaborate best options for an integrated monitoring and reporting system for Kenya
(iii)
Integrate all these findings into a draft systems review report vis-a-vis MRV/M&E for
climate change in the Kenyan context
The following tasks will be performed as part of Stage 2 of the work programme:
(i)
Elaborate best options for an integrated monitoring and reporting system for Kenya
(ii)
Elaborate guidelines, tools and templates for:
 Conducting a greenhouse gas inventory
 Developing a MRV/M&E system for Kenya’s climate change response actions that
fully incorporates mitigation actions, adaptation actions and adaptation / mitigation
synergies (in this work programme we have defined this system as “MRV+”, and the
term is further explained in Activity 2.3.
 Meeting international obligations regarding UNFCCC National Communications
(Nat Comm) and Biennial Update Reports (BUR)
(iii)
Develop a generic set of indicators for estimating and measuring
 Kenya-based adaptation actions (NAPs, other adaptation initiatives)
 Kenya-based mitigation actions (NAMAs, carbon market initiatives)
 Synergies between adaptation and mitigation outcomes
(iv)
Develop a capacity development plan to enable operationalisation of this integrated
monitoring and reporting framework
(v)
Specify tasks relevant to the integrated monitoring and reporting framework that fall
outside the scope of the SC6 contract, then provide a brief ToR for each such task
2.3
Interpretation of the SC6 remit
The proposed contract represents a new area of work, namely combining mechanisms to
assess both mitigation (i.e., MRV of GHG emissions and the impacts of mitigation actions)
and adaptation (i.e., performance indicators) under one framework.
Existing monitoring and reporting systems in other countries include aspects of these two
broad types of climate change response, and the Kenyan system will build on these
experiences wherever possible. Yet to date, no country has succeeded at fully integrating
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 5
and operationalising both types of climate change response. This work will therefore help
Kenya position itself as a leader and pioneer in this field.
This backdrop highlights how what Kenya has set out to do is very ambitious. Given the
scale of the challenge, even the original one-year timeframe for the initiative was short.
Given the new timeframe to carry the assignment over 6 months rather than the 12 months
originally envisaged, this concern is all the more pertinent. Kenya’s ambition to develop an
integrated framework for adaptation and mitigation is nonetheless eminently worthwhile,
given the intelligence of the questions it asks and the task it has set. The merit of this
integrated vision is reflected by the interest this work has spawned outside of Kenya.
As detailed above, the SC6 consultants will address this concern by delivering only a limited
set of products, namely those deemed feasible given the timeframe and resources allocated.
The consultants will address the outstanding tasks required to establish a successful
integrated monitoring framework by specifying them in the form of ToRs for follow-up work to
the SC6 contract.
The use of the term “framework” in the title of this subcomponent (SC6, The National
Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework) suggests the need for the consultants
to provide guidance for the monitoring, evaluation and reporting of mitigation and adaptation
actions. This interpretation mirrors the ToR of the ITT, which notes that the target of SC6 is
the “development of national climate change monitoring, reporting and verification guidelines
and performance indicators.”
However, the “objectives” and “outputs” in the same document listed on page 25 and 26 are
much more ambitious, envisaging the development of a “system” at national and subnational levels. We have interpreted this to mean three things. First, that the guidelines
provided should cover how to establish a climate change registry encompassing adaptation
actions, mitigation actions and data on greenhouse gas emissions. Second, that the
guidance provided should also cover establishing systems and processes to undertake
greenhouse gas estimation and reporting. Third, that the envisaged systems will be put into
place, spanning such tasks as establishing new or enhancing existing linkages between
institutions, building capacity of key stakeholders, and staff.
In order for the integrated reporting framework to be fully operational, all these tasks must be
successfully completed. Yet this is a very large task, some of which falls beyond the scope
of the SC6 remit, given the timeframe allowed and resources allocated.
2.4
Interactions with other CCAP subcomponents
The CCAP of Kenya’s NCCRS has nine interrelated subcomponents. Breaking down the
action planning process for climate change responses into these categories represents an
innovative approach by the Kenyan government, with many opportunities but also practical
challenges. This follows due to the need for different subcomponents to coordinate their
work and build on each others’ findings.
The nine CCAP subcomponents are as follows:
 Subcomponent 1: Long-term National Low Carbon Development Pathway
 Subcomponent 2: Enabling Policy and Regulatory Framework
 Subcomponent 3: National Adaptation Plan (NAP)
 Subcomponent 4: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 6
 Subcomponent 5: National Technology Action Plan
 Subcomponent 6: National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework
 Subcomponent 7: Knowledge Management and Capacity Development
 Subcomponent 8: Finance
 Subcomponent 9: Coordination
These different subcomponents are all related to one another in various senses. SC6 will
rely in particular on the work and findings of SC1, SC3 and SC4. That is, the NPBMF will
build on the low carbon development pathway developed by SC1, which will in turn be
informed by the NAP developed by SC3 and the priority areas for NAMA assessment across
the six UNFCCC mitigation sectors developed by SC4. Furthermore, the work of SC7 on
knowledge management and capacity development must be integrated with the work by SC6
vis-a-vis formulating a capacity development plan; see Figure 1 and Table 2, which highlight
key interlinkages between SC6 and the other CCAP subcomponents. Figure 2 then
provides an overall schematic on linkages between the subcomponents. Finally, we
summarise the different collaboration modalities envisaged by the SC6 team.
Given these linkages between CCAP subcomponents, the timing and quality of deliverables
from other subcomponents – including integrity of the data used in the baselines developed
by SC3 and SC4 – will be critical to the successful delivery of SC6. It is expected that
elaboration of priority adaptation actions for the NAP and mitigation options for the future
NAMAs will be defined by June 2012. By contrast, the work of SC1 has not yet started,
which undermines the capacity of the SC6 team to deliver a framework tailored to Kenya’s
eventual low carbon development pathway. The team will seek to address the latter
obstacle by designing a framework that builds on the adaptation and mitigation options
highlighted by the SC3 and SC4 teams, while also seeking to anticipate other future
adaptation and mitigation response actions.
These factors impact on what SC6 can deliver within its six month timeframe. SC6 will
nonetheless provide a set of indicators that spans adaptation actions, mitigation actions and
the synergies between them, as well as relevant MRV/M&E guidance documents. It will not,
however, be able to deliver indicators tailored to priority mitigation actions due to the fact that
such priority actions will not yet be defined during the contract period. Such elaborations will
have to be completed at a later date. The SC6 team will seek to partly compensate for this
obstacle by selecting mitigation indicators that fit with relevant Vision 2030 flagship projects.
In summary, the indicators to be developed for adaptation will be based on but not limited to
SC3 priority actions, across the nine government funding sectors. Meanwhile, indicators to
be developed for mitigation will be based on but not limited to SC4 mitigation briefs, across
the six UNFCCC reporting sectors. Indicators for adaptation-mitigation synergies will be
identified for the various adaptation and mitigation actions wherever possible.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 7
Table 2. Inter-linkages between SC6 and other CCAP subcomponents
Note: TBD = To Be Determined
Subcomponent
SC6 needs from it
SC6 provides to it
SC1: Conceptual
framework for a longterm low carbon
development pathway
TBD
TBD
SC2: Regulatory and
policies
SC2 to inform us of relevant existing
legislation and policies for completing our
task. Provide a quick legal brief on ways
to incentivise adaptation and mitigation
actions
SC6 to provide clarity on our
legal needs
SC3: Adaptation
SC3 to provide initial ideas on
performance indicators and assessment
of adaptation actions
SC6 to build on SC3 analysis,
help flesh out its performance
indicators and mitigation
synergies
SC4: Mitigation
SC4 to provide greenhouse gas
projections and mitigation scenarios as
well as low-carbon scenario
assessments in six sectors to allow SC6
to identify relevant mitigation indicators
SC6 to develop an integrated
framework spanning
mitigation, adaptation and
synergies between them
SC5: Technology
TBD
TBD
SC7: Knowledge
management and
capacity building
SC7 to seek feedback on overall
approach to capacity development;
synthesise SC6 requirements into overall
CCAP capacity development plan;
assess current capacity of relevant govt
departments to fulfil requested tasks for
SC6
SC6 to identify capacity
building needs for completing
SC6 and provide ideas on
knowledge management
SC8: Finance
SC8 to develop climate finance
evaluation criteria; consider what data
flows will be provided from funding
institution to central reporting system
SC6 to incorporate SC8’s
approach towards M&E of
climate finance into its
reporting framework (e.g.
feeding through to the
Biennial Update Report)
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 8
Figure 1. Schematic on the overall linkages between the CCAP subcomponents
Note: The numbers in parentheses refer to the Sub Components (SCs).
2.5
Overview of collaboration modalities
The SC6 consultants will seek the active participation of key stakeholders in developing its
deliverables throughout the assignment to advise the SC6 team and ensure ownership of its
deliverables. Most notably, it will seek regular input from members of the SC6 Thematic
Working Group (TWG) and other stakeholders deemed key to this task. This participation
will not be limited simply to ‘taking part in key events’. Instead, we envisage regular
engagement, including participation in planning and providing input into SC6 deliverables as
they are produced, including this inception report. This approach reflects the desire of the
consultants to build upon the expertise and experience of key stakeholders within Kenya and
to ensure that its products are fully owned by the government.
The SC6 team will seek to build on and complement existing work within Kenya wherever
possible. One key body of work is the outputs of the other CCAP subcomponent teams.
SC6 will work together with other CCAP subcomponents to develop the NPBMF, including
its systems for MRV of mitigation actions, M&E of adaptation actions, M&E of adaptationmitigation synergies and diverse indicators. The first step towards delivering the NPBMF will
involve reviewing the documents produced by the other CCAP subcomponents, then
conducting a review of relevant literature produced by state and non-state sources within
Kenya. These other subcomponents are our boundary partners (BPs), and will contribute
data and information on issues such as laws that govern collection of climate data
internationally (SC2), climate finance evaluation criteria (SC8), adaptation indicators (SC3),
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 9
and mitigation measures (SC4). This literature search will also include relevant international
sources as well as examples from other countries.
Other SC6 interactions will be with our strategic partners (SPs), who include relevant
government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), the SC6 Thematic Working
Group (TWG), CCAP Task Force (TF) members, and key donors and development partners.
The interactions and inter-linkages between SC6 at this level will include (1) guidance from
the TWG and TF members on the identification and development of Kenya specific and
internationally relevant indicators, (2) guidance from donor partners on harmonisation of
reporting structures and formats for NPBMF outputs and assistance with addressing funding
gaps vis-a-vis the work of SC6; and (3) information and data from non-state actors (NSAs)
on relevant community-based and business initiatives, including their sources of data and
measurement criteria used.
Figure 2 below highlights the proposed interactions and inter-linkages between the SC6
consultants and both boundary partners and strategic partners.
Figure 2. Interactions between the different CCAP subcomponents
• MEMR CCS
• facilitating access to data
through meetings and
context and linkages with
other important key
government departments
and programmes/initiatives
SC6 summarized
UK laws that
govern collection of
UK GHG emissions
data and linkages
with EU emission
trading system. SC2
Following up with a
paper.
SC6 to incorporate
SC8’s approach
towards M&E of
climate finance into
its reporting
framework .
Outline capacity
requirements for
SC7 to investigate.
• NSAs (Private, CSOs,
NGOs)
• Contribute information on
community level initiatives
relating to adaptation and
mitigation
SC6 Interactions
SC2
Policy and Legal
Framework
SC3
Adaptation
Actions
Indicators
development
SC7, SC8
Climate Finance
Capacity
Development &
Knowledge
management
SC4 , SC1
Mitigation Actions
and Projections
Low Carbon
Pathways
• TWG/TF
• Entry point for some
ministries
• Guidance on information
sources, etc
• Technical input to SC 6
Work closely on
Indicator
Development
building on what's
existing through
Indicator Workshop.
Planned April 20th21st 2012.
SC6 to develop an
integrated
framework spanning
mitigation,
adaptation and
synergies between
them.
• Donors
• Paris Declaration,
Harmonization,
• Address Funding Gaps (e.g.
National and County
Coordination Report,)
Figure 3 shows current flows of data and information from national to sub-national levels and
vice versa. It also illustrates the linkages between various sources of data including state
and non-state actors.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 10
Figure 3. Data and information flows within and between national and sub-national
levels from both state and non-state actors
For the execution of SC6, the following assumptions have been made with regard to data
and facilities provided by the client:
1. The client will facilitate access to existing data, reports, and documents in a timely
manner, based on requests agreed with the SC6 consultants;
2. Key members of MEMR and its CCS, the TWG set up to guide the delivery of SC6, and
the Task Force will be available for discussion, information sharing and providing input
into draft deliverables during the period of this assignment;
3. The client will facilitate coordination of the activities of the SC6 consultants with the other
eight subcomponents while also recognising a CCAP coordination team is in place
(SC9);
4. The SC6 consultants will convene agreed workshops and produce relevant workshop
materials. Logistical tasks will include arranging the workshop venue and providing
meals during the workshop. They will not, however, include providing finance for local
transport, sitting allowances or accommodation for workshop participants. A travel
allowance of 2,000 Ksh per meeting has been set aside for each of the six meetings for
each member of TWG6. SC9 will administer this allowance once they are informed by
the SC6 team of the date, time and venue of meetings.
5. No major software or hardware will need to be procured as part of this contract:
6. Office space will be provided by the consultants at their local offices in Nairobi, and the
contract has been budgeted accordingly; and
7. Facilities provided by LTS include to the SC6 consultants include overall delivery, local
offices, support in the organisation of consultation events (e.g. workshops), backstopping
support, team management, and quality control.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 11
2.6
Ensuring strong co-benefits via climate smart system design
The integrated MRV/M&E system to be developed by SC6 will not only monitor changes to
greenhouse gas emissions, but will have regard for the need to monitor and evaluate the
economic, social and environmental impacts of mitigation and adaptation actions as a
means to help ensure that these actions deliver strong co-benefits. This is another way of
saying that the system will be designed to maximise adaptation – mitigation synergies as
well as other co-benefits.
Emphasis on social and environmental impacts fits with current trends within the carbon
market, which is significant in light of the fact that the carbon market is currently the most
advanced climate finance channel. Specifically, it is becoming increasingly common for
carbon projects and programmes to apply filters to help ensure they maximise social and
environmental co-benefits while minimising any adverse impacts. For example, the World
Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility now applies social and environmental safeguards
to its initiatives through strategic environmental and social assessment and its
Environmental and Social Management Framework. Similarly, many carbon market
initiatives seek to obtain Carbon, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance accreditation in order
to demonstrate their social and environmental credentials to prospective investors and
buyers.
As part of its commitment to strong social principles, the new framework will seek to ensure
that adaptation and mitigation actions do not exacerbate existing inequalities or increase the
vulnerability of particular groups. For instance, gender-sensitive indicators and benchmarks
will be incorporated into the framework and gender disaggregated data will be solicited
wherever possible to foster actions with positive gender impacts.
Since future adaptation and mitigation actions could have far-reaching impacts on Kenyan
communities, fully integrating social and environmental concerns into the new integrated
monitoring, evaluation and reporting system for Kenya is imperative.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 12
3.
Approach and Methodology
This section describes the approach the SC6 team will take to its work programme and the
methodology it will employ to generate its deliverables. The main outputs from each part of
the work programme are summarised at the start of each section. Figure 4 summarises the
key aspects of the work programme. It highlights how the SC6 activities will be carried out in
three phases: Inception, Stage 1 and Stage 2, and summarises the outputs from each
phase.
Figure 4. Schematic of outputs from SC6’s
Subcomponent 6
Inception Stage
• Inception
Report
Identify building blocks for a NPBMF
• Mitigation MRV
systems review
report
• Adaptation
performance
indicators review
report
Design of an integrated NPBMF
• Adaptation
indicators options
report
• Synergies matrix
• MRV+ system
design and
roadmap
• Capacity
development plan
• Tailored simple
guidance &
templates
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 13
3.1
Stage 1: Identify Building Blocks for a NPBMF
Outputs
MRV Systems Review Report (including mitigation indicators)
Adaptation Indicators Review Report
Activity 1 is in essence a situational analysis concerning both mitigation and adaptation. This
analysis has three major elements:
1. Defining the state of existing MRV systems and adaptation performance indicators in
Kenya
2. Identifying major weaknesses and gaps in these systems and proposing strategies to
address them, and
3. Analysing the capacity development and other support needs of key stakeholders.
The review will involve the full set of SC6 team members, namely both adaptation and
mitigation specialists. It will assess existing reporting systems and metrics that could
potentially form part of the NPBMF. This review will provide the foundation on which the
subsequent system development will build.
The review will cover both existing data generation mechanisms and indicators currently
being used by diverse state and non-state actors. Institutions to be examined will include
relevant ministries departments and agencies (MDAs), provincial governments, county
governments, formal private sector firms, informal private sector firms, CSOs, NGOs, and
research institutions. The review will also cover relevant international policy and academic
literature as well as selected case studies from other countries. Additionally, Vision 2030
flagship projects will be examined as a means to ensure that the indicators developed for the
MRV+ system are relevant to wide range of Kenya-specific climate change response
actions.
Examples of Government of Kenya source documents to be reviewed include the following:
 Poverty and Environment Indicators Report (GoK/MoP)
 National Reporting Framework of Indicators: The Vision 2030 First Medium-term
Plan
 National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES)
 Outcome mapping and Logframe analysis by the Department of Meteorology’s
Climate Change Unit
 Economic survey conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics
 Evaluation reports of planning divisions in each relevant sector
 Sector plans (along the 9 Government budget sectors)
Examples of source documents from non-state actors to be consulted include the following:
 CARE Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook
 Global Adaptation Index
 Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for Monitoring and Evaluation of
Climate Change Adaptation (WRI)
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 14
 Kenya-based carbon market initiatives
 Carbon market standards: CDM, VCS, Plan Vivo, Carbon Fix
 The Greenbelt Movement’s household emissions assessment methodology
 Evidence generated by county stakeholder groups during the County Consultations
conducted to inform the Climate Change Action Plan
3.1.1
Activity 1.1 Review MRV system for mitigation activities
The review of existing MRV systems will consist of two distinct phases: (1) a preparatory
literature review and (2) stakeholder interviews.
The literature review will involve research into existing MRV systems for mitigation actions
both within Kenya (at a national and sub-national level) and as set out in international
guidance documents. This will include both project level and policy level MRV frameworks.
The review will consider all elements of the MRV systems, from the monitoring guidelines
and reporting rules to the specific performance metrics that are used to measure outcomes.
In additional to the sources listed in the introduction to Section 3.1, key sources of
information will include:

Existing MRV systems in Kenya, including the report and original sources used in the
EU-UNDP capacity building initiative, and progress to date on 2nd National
Communication;

MRV systems from a maximum of two other developing countries, ideally countries
with similar national circumstances, i.e., a predominantly rural economy where a
majority of greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture. These countries will be
selected in collaboration with NEMA, and will include MRV systems for both GHG
inventories and NAMAs (the output of this task may be limited by the level of
publically available information about these MRV systems);

International guidelines (e.g. IPCC) and lessons learned from the experience of
UNFCCC Annex I countries on national inventory systems and data collection;

Emerging norms of international best practice for NAMAs and lessons learned from
policy evaluation in developed countries; and

The outcomes of the UNFCCC negotiations in Durban.
The literature review will also be used to scope out how best to capture the potential cobenefits of climate change mitigation actions, notably adaptation co-benefits, which will be
important to capture within the performance assessment framework. For example, AEA’s
recent work to develop factsheets on low carbon development for DFID identified the
following co-benefits: job creation through new green jobs; poverty reduction through
increased access to energy and reduced energy bills due to efficiency measures; and health
benefits through controlling air pollution.
Of particular relevance to this task will be the work AEA has been involved in to develop
reporting systems on the impacts of climate change mitigation policies for the European
Environment Agency. This project has developed guidelines for the reporting of climate
policies by EU countries, including approaches to quality check the information reported.
Whilst these guidelines do not capture all of the wider benefits of climate policies that are
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 15
relevant to developing nations, they do still represent best practice for the 27 member states
of the European Community on policy reporting.
For project-level appraisal the AEA’s recent review of the Clean Development Mechanisms
(CDM) for the European Commission provides an important reference for how project-level
MRV systems can be further developed. This included a review of the impact of the CDM on
sustainable development objectives.
This literature review will inform an initial report presenting tentative conclusions on the
strengths and weaknesses of the MRV systems and indicators that are currently used in
Kenya and that could be applied from international best practice to the situation in Kenya.
These conclusions will be tested through stakeholder interviews. The criteria for assessing
strengths and weaknesses will include:

Applicability: Methods are applicable to different policy instruments and sectors as
well as across sub-regions.

Consistency: Methods make use of existing national and international data sources
and data collection frameworks, including being consistent with National GHG
Inventories and NAMA Registries.

Transparency: Methods are transparent and simple, i.e. policy makers can
understand how impacts and measures are determined.

Complexity: Methods do not require a large amount of new data or expertise.

Flexibility: Methods are sufficiently flexible to deal with variable data quality and can
be adjusted to reflect updated assumptions.

Robustness: Methods do not require perfect implementation to achieve an outcome
close to that which was predicted.

Uncertainty and accuracy: Measures should have an acceptable level of accuracy
and uncertainty.
The stakeholder interviews should address the current situation and context in Kenya,
including establishing a clear baseline position of existing data availability, data quality and
collection processes, supporting national systems and priorities for future policy
development (in order to ensure that future systems are aimed at fulfilling those priorities).
The interviews should also help identify key data gaps as well as gaps in capacity, technical
skills and coordination arrangements. The interviews will also be used to explore potential
project or policies which may be suitable for piloting the framework.
The interviews will also provide the opportunity to engage with the team working on
elaboration mitigation actions under SC4. Discussions will help ensure the compatibility of
their proposed approach with likely international norms. They will also ensure that the
approaches for a national system recommended by SC6 are in line with approaches which
are being proposed for low-carbon scenarios assessments in six sectors.
Certain processes currently underway in Kenya are highly relevant to Activity 1.1, and will be
engaged by the SC6 consultants from the outset. Notably, the Australian Government’s
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is working with the Clinton Climate
Initiative to support the Government of Kenya to develop a system for measuring, reporting
and verification of all land-based emissions for Kenya.
One aspect of this work currently in its early stages of development involves the task:
“Develop models, time-series consistent inventory, reference emissions levels, and define
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 16
research needs and other data and methodological needs”. The preparatory work for this
initiative involves a review of existing sources of climate data, including temperature, solar
radiation, soil moisture, pan evaporation, wind speed, and cloud cover. Meanwhile, the
initiative’s institution building process is reviewing the climate modelling capacity of the
Kenya Meteorology Department (KMD) and Kenyan universities.
The SC6 consultants will convene a one (1) day Nairobi-based MRV Systems Review
Workshop to discuss the findings of this work. Participants will be invited from the National
Climate Change Taskforce, SC6 Thematic Working Group, Climate Change Secretariat,
relevant CCAP subcomponent teams, and other relevant stakeholders. The proceedings will
be documented in the form of a workshop note. Conveners will include John Watterson
(Emissions Inventory / MRV Specialist) and Gill Wilkins (Energy, Transport and Low Carbon
Specialist) from AEA, and the SC6 Team Leaders (Jules Siedenburg and Maureen
Wang’ati). The SC6 team will give ample notice to participants in advance of the workshop
(minimum 2 weeks) and will also provide relevant materials in advance of the workshop.
The main output of Activity 1.1 will be a MRV Systems Review Report. This will provide a
review of relevant experience and high-level recommendations regarding an appropriate
national MRV system for Kenya’s mitigation initiatives. It is envisaged that this system will
cover MRV related to mitigation and adaptation actions
3.1.2
Activity 1.2 Review adaptation performance indicators
The literature review will involve research into existing M&E systems for adaptation actions
both within Kenya and as set out in international guidance documents. This will include
community-level, project-level and policy-level M&E approaches. The review will consider all
elements of these systems, from the monitoring guidelines and reporting rules to the
performance metrics used to assess outcomes. In additional to the sources listed in the
introduction to section 3.1, key sources of information will include:

M&E systems from a maximum of two other countries with similar national
circumstances, i.e., a predominantly rural economy where a large majority of citizens
are acutely vulnerable to climate change impacts. These countries will be selected in
collaboration with key government partners.

International guidelines and lessons learned from the experience of adaptation
assessment across the world.

Emerging norms of international best practice for NAPs; and

The outcomes of the UNFCCC negotiations in Durban.
To set the context for Activity 1.2, it is notable that one of the tasks of SC3 is to “develop
performance indicators to assess impacts of adaptation actions”. This activity thus spans
both SC3 and SC6. In light of this fact, consultants from both teams will work together to
deliver this output. In practice, this collaboration will be largely sequential. This follows
because the SC3 consultants began their work six months before the SC3 SC6 consultants
with similar mandates to develop indicators for adaptation actions, which meant that their
indicator development work was scheduled to be conducted before the indicator review work
of the SC6 team was complete. This initial indicator development by SC3 will nonetheless
be done in consultation with SC6. The SC6 consultants will subsequently build on the
foundation laid by the SC3 team to develop an integrated assessment system that fully
reflects their indicator review work in a consultative process
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 17
Indicator methodology
SC3’s has already proposed a methodology to be used for this work, which categorizes
adaptation indicators into several broad groups defined by the following questions:
 Outcomes – Is Kenya becoming more or less vulnerable to risks from current
and future climate change? Two sub-groups of indicators may be distinguished:
o Impacts: Actual damages from climate change on society, economy and the
environment. The problem with this type of indicator is that without a long
time-series of observations, it may be difficult to distinguish year to year
variability from long-term trends.
o Vulnerability: Given the difficulties with impact indicators, a useful proxy for
assessing adaptation outcomes is to assess if underlying vulnerability to
climate change risks is increasing or decreasing. Using vulnerability indicators
to track trends in vulnerability can provide a baseline against which adaptation
outcomes can be measured.
 Actions – Are adaptation actions delivering implementation of low-regret/noregret adaptation actions? This is a minimum objective for adaptation, since these
options represent ‘low hanging fruit’ that deliver net benefits across a broad range of
alternative climatic futures, including no observed climate change. Indicators will be
developed that monitor uptake of these actions and their results.
 Decision-making – Are long-term decisions systematically accounting for
climate risks? Low-regret options are not always available for more complex and
long-term decisions that involve trade-offs, either in time or against other objectives.
To ensure successful adaptation, we need to complement monitoring of outcomes
(changes in impacts and vulnerability) and actions (low-regret/no-regret options,
among others) with monitoring changes in decision-making processes. Such
changes are required to embed climate risks and appropriate responses into decisionmaking processes.
The SC6 team plans to elaborate these indicator categories to include indicators and
methods for rapid assessment of adaptation action benefits as follows:
Indicator definition
Defining indicators for development interventions can be done on the basis of diverse
criteria, and a wide literature exists on this theme. M&E for adaptation requires defining
indicators by the nature, breadth, and degree of changes in response to climate change
adaptation actions, ideally over long periods of time. As such, adaptation indicators must be
developed based on a narrower set of criteria. UNDP suggests the following parameters for
defining performance indicators for adaptation actions:
(i)
Coverage: The extent to which projects reach vulnerable stakeholders (e.g.,
individuals, households, businesses, government agencies, policymakers).
(ii)
Impact: The extent to which projects reduce vulnerability and/or enhance
adaptive capacity.
(iii)
Sustainability: The ability of stakeholders to continue the adaptation process
beyond the project lifetime, thereby sustaining development benefits.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 18
(iv)
Replicability: The extent to which projects generate and disseminate results and
lessons of value in other contexts1
Indicator selection
Selecting indicators to support M&E for adaptation presents challenges because many
different options exist. The utility of many process level indicators (outputs and activities) is
limited by the focus of M&E for adaptation practice, on longer term results (outcomes and
impacts) which aims is measure and assess the ultimate, end-term effects of interventions in
addressing specific climate change risks. Conversely, process level indicators can often
apply well in the short term, and provide a good fit with the role of M&E in supporting
ongoing service delivery, learning and capacity development. However, they may be limited
in providing hard evidence of long term changes and effects of adaptation actions (e.g. lives
saved, damages averted, or cross cutting effects on poverty alleviation and environment
amelioration).The balance between formative and summative indicators in a given M&E
system will reflect distinct priorities and expectations for adaptation: do the interventions in
question focus more on establishing an adaptive process or on securing certain substantive
outcomes?
The SC6 team will build upon the SC3 process such as the Indicators Workshop to take
place in April 2012 which is the natural progression from the SC3 Climate Risk Report and
SC3 Adaptation Prioritisation Report. The SC6 team will enrich the process through
discussion on data characteristics, local, regional and international practice on indicator
definition, selection, application and reporting opportunities through existing government
frameworks such as NIMES/KNBS.
1
UNDP. 2008b. Community-based Adaptation (CBA) Country Programme Strategy (CPS) – Namibia. Available at:
http://www.undp-adaptation.org/projects/websites/docs/Namibia_-_CBA_CPS_-_FINAL.doc. Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 19
3.2
Stage 2: Design of an Integrated NPBMF
Outputs
Adaptation Indicators Options Report
Synergies Matrix
MRV+ (system design, roadmap)
Capacity Development Plan
Stage 2 involves the design of an integrated system for assessing climate change response
actions. This design work spans five distinct components, namely adaptation actions,
mitigation actions, adaptation-mitigation synergies, designing a MRV+ system, and drafting a
capacity development plan to prepare Kenya to operationalise this system. Each of these
tasks is discussed in turn. The integrated framework will be called “MRV+”, to highlight its
relevance to both adaptation actions and mitigation actions as well as to synergies between
them.
The SC6 design work will build on diverse existing initiatives and experience. These
foundations include the priority adaptation actions and draft indicators developed by SC3,
the baseline data and mitigation options defined by SC4, and the indicators currently
available within Kenya at national and sub-national levels from both state and non-state
actors. Indicators from international sources will also be consulted. Throughout this
process, the SC6 team will solicit guidance from the CCS, TWG6 and TF on the suitability of
proposed indicators and systems.
Assessment of mitigation indicators is included in part of Activity 1.1.
3.2.1
Activity 2.1 Develop adaptation indicators
In Activity 2.1 the SC6 team plans to elaborate indicators for rapidly assessing the benefits
of adaptation actions relative to a counterfactual, as discussed below.
The SC6 team, in partnership with the SC3 team, will define a set of adaptation indicators for
Kenya as part of the CCAP process. These indicators will fall into five broad categories,
namely impacts, vulnerability, no regrets/low regrets, decision making, and benefits.
The latter category will define options for making approximate yet highly conservative
estimates of the quantitative benefits of adaptation actions relative to an appropriate
counterfactual. The premise for doing this is that many adaptation actions are thought to
deliver large benefits relative to the counterfactual case, yet these are neglected by analyses
that focus only on the costs of climate change impacts or the costs of remedial adaptation
actions. Such one-sided analyses are problematic however, since they fail to make the most
potent argument for adaptation actions, that of significant net benefits. Simply put, the way
governments, donors, businesses and households make decisions is broadly similar, since
all seek to maximise benefits, other things being equal. Such quantitative estimates could
provide a strong basis both for demonstrating the value for money of resilience building
investments and for obtaining adaptation finance.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 20
The indicator development work of the SC6 team will build on the early indicator
development work conducted by the SC3 consultants. Notably, the SC3 team will convene a
two day Adaptation Indicators Development Workshop in Naivasha (21 April) which will:
1. Craft draft indicators and review their measurability and appropriateness using an
indicator analytical framework (see Box 1 below).
2. Interrogate sources of information / data collection methodologies for the indicators.
Invitees to this workshop will include members of the National Climate Change Task Force,
the Climate Change Secretariat, the SC6 consultants, and members from the SC3 Thematic
Working Group, and Task Force, among others. A workshop note will document
proceedings.
The main output will be a Performance Adaptation Indicators
Identification/Design Report defining a set of draft adaptation indicators for Kenya. The
indicator development work of the SC6 team will build on this foundation based on an indepth review of existing indicators in use across Kenya, while also paying special attention
to adaptation-mitigation synergies.
Box 1. Indicator Analytical Framework
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
Are the proposed indicators SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant
and Time-bound)?
Are they neutral?
Do they allow a monitoring of all proposed outputs for achieving the identified
outcomes? Do they need modifications for reflecting the proposed outputs?
Can they describe how the achievement of the results will be measured?
Are they easily measurable and monitored at reasonable cost and effort? Will the
data be gathered?
Are they clear and easily understood?
Are they gender sensitive? Can the gender approach be easily reflected within the
proposed indicators?
Can they be disaggregated according to age, social condition, where necessary?
Are the data available?
How does data flow within the national and subnational context?
Currently, LTS in collaboration with Baastel are delivering M&E support to the Enhancing
Community Resilience Programme in Malawi funded by DFID. Several of the adaptation
indicators being used for this programme are listed in Box 2 below.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 21
Box 2. Examples of Adaptation Indicators from Malawi
Result 1: Increased capacity of local authorities, communities and individuals to sustainably
manage natural resources and mitigate the impacts of climate change
Some avenues for indicators
- level of awareness of households with respect to their contributions to the causes and
impacts of climate change on individual and communities
- % of households using key NR management practices (define list before baseline)
- % of reduction in fuel used from improved cook stoves
- % of HH using solar equipment
- land area reforested (ha)
- No. of NR management structures (specify) at local and community level
- Extent to which they are providing the following services (from Service Charter) (agree on
scale)
Result 2: Increased capacity of communities and individuals to adapt their livelihoods to
climate variability and the impacts of climate change and to manage disasters
Some avenues for indicators:
- Structures put in place at local level by communities and information available to
them to support decision-making on adaptation options
- Level of knowledge of climate change adaptation and DRM issues
- % of households using a combination of the following adaptation options
- Diversified and/or drought resistant crops
- Irrigation and water harvesting
- Smart agriculture (conservation ag, agroforestry, use of manure, etc)
- % of households (% women) using micro-credit (access & control by women)
Maureen Wang’ati (M&E Specialist) will lead on this task, in partnership with Jules
Siedenburg (Team Leader). The main output will be a Performance Indicators Option
Report defining adaptation indicators for Kenya.
3.2.2
Activity 2.2 Identify key synergies and indicators for capturing them
Activity 2.2 is both forward thinking and ambitious, since most existing guidance documents
and tools for climate change responses focus either on adaptation or mitigation, but not both
at once. Moreover, these documents often fail to examine how best to maximise cobenefits, despite the fact that such co-benefits can be large.
The most recent IPCC Assessment Report, published in 2007, broaches the subject of
synergies between adaptation and mitigation actions as an emerging topic. It says that this
theme merits greater attention given the significance of such synergies, and bemoans the
fact that they have been largely neglected to date due to the adaptation and mitigation
communities having divergent origins and perspectives.
The IPCC suggests that at the national level, mitigation and adaptation are often seen as
competing priorities by policy makers. Yet where national responses to climate change rely
largely on developing renewable energy options and land-use innovations involving trees
and soil management, there are important overlaps between adaptation and mitigation
outcomes. Simply put, actions in these sectors typically deliver both adaptation and
mitigation outcomes simultaneously. The scope for precisely such responses tends to be
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 22
large in developing countries. It follows that adaptation-mitigation synergies are likewise
potentially large in these countries.
While treating adaptation and mitigation as separate issues may be reasonable in developed
countries, in agrarian countries with large renewable energy potential it is a glaring and
unfortunate oversight. In such countries, it would be preferable to explicitly recognise the
linkages between adaptation and mitigation, and to view them as two aspects of an
integrated response to climate change.
Recent work by Ayers and Huq (2009) has identified several synergistic activities, such as
the transformation of waste into compost as a way to improve soil quality (adaptation and
increased income) while also reducing methane emissions (mitigation). This example
illustrates the potential of certain actions to deliver a ‘triple-win’ to communities namely
adaptation and mitigation coupled with development gains. The literature on ‘win-win-win’
outcomes is large, highlighting a range of sectors and technologies where adaptationmitigation synergies are evident, and where these synergies tend to occur simultaneously
with higher incomes or greater food security. It should be noted, however, that it is also
possible to obtain ‘win-lose’ or even ‘lose-lose’ outcomes with certain climate change
responses, particularly if they are poorly designed.
The LTS team will conduct a literature review to identify frameworks and tools applicable to
the Kenyan context. LTS has two ongoing programmes that are assessing synergies
between adaptation and mitigation actions in Malawi and coastal Kenya. These initiatives
will provide useful inputs for the synergies work of the SC6 consultants.
An important part of this work will be the development of a table listing climate change
response actions relevant to the Kenyan context then highlighting their synergistic
adaptation and mitigation potential. See Table 3 for several illustrative examples.
Table 3. Examples of adaptation-mitigation synergies relevant to the Kenyan context
Activity
Adaptation
Mitigation
Conservation tillage
Reduced runoff and soil
erosion; increased resilience
due to improved waterholding capacity of soils
Soil carbon sequestration,
reduced NOx emissions
Substitution of compost for
chemical fertiliser
Increased resilience to erratic
rains and drought due to
improved water-holding
capacity of soils
Sequesters carbon in trees
and soils
Agroforestry
Trees provide diverse
marketable products even
when rainfall is erratic;
reduced wind erosion
Sequesters carbon in trees
and soils
Improved biomass stoves
Reduced deforestation and
land degradation; greater
access to hardship foods
Reduced emissions from
biomass burning
Lesley King (Adaptation and Mitigation Synergies) is well-placed to perform this assignment,
as she is currently working as a researcher for the CDKN Innovation Fund ‘Achieving Triple
Wins: Identifying Climate Smart Investment Strategies for the Coastal Zone’, which seeks to
identify actions that deliver adaptation-mitigation synergies in coastal Kenya. Dr Emma
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 23
Tompkins, one of the authors of the IPCC, is a co-PI on this project. This ongoing initiative
provides SC6 with an opportunity to draw upon lessons learned for its synergies work.
Jules Siedenburg (Team Leader) will complement Lesley’s work with input on synergies in
the agriculture and forestry sectors, where synergies are likely to be strong in the Kenyan
context.
The focus of the CCAP on these synergies will not only help contribute to the relevant body
of knowledge, but also put the Government of Kenya at the forefront of this critical debate.
3.2.3
Activity 2.3 Design MRV+ system
This activity includes a number of components and each of these represents a significant
piece of work. The following components are brought together in the MRV+ system:

The adaptation indicators as developed in Activity 1.2 and 2.1

The mitigation indicators as developed in Activity 1.1

Integration of the co-benefits as identified in the synergies work in Activity 2.2
The integrated framework will be called “MRV+” to highlight its relevance to both adaptation
actions and mitigation actions as well as to synergies between them.
The design of the MRV+ system will be informed by international best practice, and there is
a review of MRV and M&E systems in selected countries to help identify this best practice.
Review of MRV and M&E systems in other countries
This is an ambitious work programme that is attempting to combine mechanisms for
assessing both adaptation and mitigation and synergies between them under one
framework.
Existing monitoring and reporting systems in other countries include aspects of these two
broad types of climate change response (i.e. mitigation and adaptation), and the Kenyan
system will build on these experiences wherever possible.
Countries that have been identified for potential review are Ghana and Mexico (mitigation)
and Malawi (adaptation). The choice of these companies has yet to be agreed with the
Government of Kenya.
Inclusion of mitigation aspects in the MRV+ system
The treatment of mitigation within the MRV+ system is likely to be more complex than
adaptation as the MRV systems for mitigation are more advanced and they lead through into
existing international reporting obligations such as National Communications and the
forthcoming Biennial Update Reports (BURs). Therefore the treatment of mitigation is
discussed in detail below.
A comprehensive national programme for mitigation actions consists of the following
elements:

A national GHG inventory system: producing an accurate and complete estimate of
emissions of current and historical greenhouse gases across sectors and capable of
being updated regularly;
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 24


A low emissions development strategy (LEDS) including
o
projections of future emissions under a business as usual reference case;
o
estimates of emissions reductions potential and their costs in different
sectors;
o
a long term target for future reductions and proposed pathway towards that
target; and
o
identification of policies aimed at delivering the shorter term measures
(usually by 2020) based on political priorities.
More detailed NAMAs including individual mitigation policies and programmes of
activities aimed at delivering the reductions set out in the LEDS.
Ideally, each element of this programme can be subject to measurement, reporting and
verification and the level of scrutiny can be adjusted according to national and international
requirements.
In adapting this to the requirements of the Kenyan context, it will be necessary to design a
flexible system which can be adjusted to local ambitions and international reporting
requirements.
The area where there is least national discretion is likely to be that of inventories, where
subject to the detailed outcome to emerge from the UNFCCC, Kenya may well need to
develop and update a GHG inventory on a biennial basis. As mentioned above, our
understanding based on review of the ToR is that the development of Kenya’s national
inventory is outside the scope of this work. However, we will provide simple guidance on
how to improve the accuracy, completeness, transparency and consistency of the Kenyan
GHG inventory.
In terms of a Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), Kenya has already announced
its NCCRS. Moreover, it is our understanding that SC1 will include the development of a
long term Low Carbon Development Pathway in combination with activities in SC4 (NAMAs),
including projections of emissions and analysis of abatement opportunities. Best practice in
the preparation of LEDS is evolving and, while conceptually there are aspects of an LEDS
which are capable of being reported and verified (e.g. projections of future emissions), there
are no international requirements or norms yet in place. Therefore, while the NCCRS and
SC1 will provide the backdrop for the project, it will not be considered as part of the
mitigation MRV systems design. Therefore, a key step for Activity 2.4 will be to prepare a
Roadmap for MRV of National Mitigation Actions which provides for a high-level design of an
appropriate MRV system (including a national registry) to consolidate information on the
NAMAs which Kenya is developing. The level of detail required will depend on the outcome
of international negotiations but emerging norms of best practice suggest that as a minimum
NAMAs receiving international support will be required to report the following minimum
information:

Description

Timeframe

Estimated cost

Nature and type of support required

Capacity building requirements
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 25

Estimated mitigation results and co-benefits
The intention is that the information will enable a consistent understanding of the NAMAs
that have been implemented in different regions. However, further guidance is required on
the specific definitions of the reporting variables, how to collect the information, and how to
ensure consistent reporting.
In addition to the above list it will be important that the list of reporting variables takes into
account the specific local and regional factors e.g. on emission factors. It will also be
important to consider the wider benefits within the framework (and the methodology for
assessing this).
A key output from Activity 2.3 will be a Roadmap for MRV of National Mitigation Actions. This
will include a summary of a national MRV system that the Kenyan government need to
implement (including roles and responsibilities in the reporting systems, and suggested
implementation timeframe). This will be in the form of text for the NCCRS Action Plan, as
well as text in the Roadmap itself.
To help implement the roadmap the following tailored simple guidance and templates will be
provided:
(i) Guidance documents on how to measure and report the impact of policies and
measures, considering both supported NAMAs and unilateral (nationally funded)
NAMAs (adapted to the Kenyan context from existing European guidance)
(ii) Guidance on how to set up a NAMA registry, with a spreadsheet template to capture
information
(iii) Guidance on how to improve the accuracy, completeness, transparency and
consistency of the Kenyan GHG inventory
(iv) Guidance on the National Reporting System (including roles and responsibilities for
preparing an Inventory and a BUR with a spreadsheet template to capture data)
Preparation for operationalization
In order to be operationalized, the strategies described above for assessing mitigation,
adaptation and synergies between them must be situated in an overall system. The present
section suggests a design for Kenya’s new integrated MRV+ system.
The initial thoughts of the SC6 team regarding the design of the new integrate NPBMF are
elaborated below. Figure 5 presents a schematic of this early vision for the design of
Kenya’s MRV+ system. The schematic shows the flow of raw data as well as the data
describing the characteristics of these raw data (i.e., descriptive metadata), tracing these
data flows from diverse data providers on the left through to various data uses on the right.
Data uses include informing Kenya’s climate change responses, meeting international
reporting obligations, and demonstrating Kenya’s climate finance readiness. The middle of
the diagram shows measures to ensure the supply of relevant data (e.g., via Memorandums
of Understanding or Data Supply Agreements), to conduct data processing and quality
control, and to analyse findings, including via assessment of selected indicators
The
system as a whole would include a set of complementary legal, institutional and procedural
elements.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 26
Figure 5. Schematic of the draft design for Kenya’s new MRV+ system
Data supply
Data processing, quality control
National / subnational planning and monitoring
• V2030
• T21
• MTP
• NIMES
• KNBS
• County (47)
Mitigation, NAMA
analysis
Data pre‐processing and Indicator calculation “engine”
Basic QA/QC
MoU’s / Data Supply Agreements
MRV
Adaptation, NAP analysis
M&E
Development projects analysis
Possibly missing?
Feedback from uses to help determine inputs
Reporting
Data/metadata – official and other sources. National and subnational
System
Uses
(MRV, M&E)
Other components
(climate finance, GHG inventory).
Climate Change obligations
• UNFCCC
• Nat Comms
• BURs
Climate finance readiness
• National registry A&M
• Carbon market
Indicator and baseline definition
This MRV+ system sits within the wider framework of Kenya’s National Performance and
Benefit Measurement Framework (NPBMF). Figure 6 shows this relationship.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 27
Figure 6. Schematic of the relationship between MRV+ system and Kenya’s NPBMF
FRAMEWORK
Ministries of state
Ministry of Finance
MPND&V2030
NIMES
KNBS
Possible data flow
Data supply
Department
Agency
Department
Agency
KNBS
KNBSAgency
KNBS
Adaptation, NAP analysis
M&E
Development projects analysis
Possibly missing?
Detailed information
National / subnational planning and monitoring
• V2030
• T21
• MTP
• NIMES
• KNBS
• County (47)
MRV
MoU’s / Data Supply Agreements
Information
Data/metadata – official and other sources. National and subnational
Ministry
Uses
Mitigation, NAMA
analysis
Feedback from uses to help determine inputs
Reporting
Line ministries
Data processing, quality control
System
Data flow
Data pre‐processing and Indicator calculation “engine”
Basic QA/QC
Economist
?M&E? expert
(MRV, M&E)
Other components
(climate finance, GHG inventory).
Climate Change obligations
• UNFCCC
• Nat Comms
• BURs
Climate finance readiness
• National registry A&M
Carbon market
•
Indicator and baseline definition
County data District A
District B
“Exploded” view of MEMR (to be developed)
The framework will need to consider the relationships and roles and responsibilities of a
range of organisations, including:
1. Government bodies including Ministries, Departments and Agencies
2. Non-state actors, including community-based organisations, civil society
organisations, international non-government organisations, private firms, the
media
The design of this system and framework will be informed by the reviews of the MRV and
M&E systems currently in place in selected countries facing similar climate change
challenges and opportunities. The suggested design is based on elements needed to
establish a GHG inventory system for reporting to the UNFCCC.
Institutional hosting
During the inception period the concept of “institutional hosting” evidently became very
important. Each of the key elements of the proposed system – and parts of the wider
framework – will need to be “hosted”, or owned, by some part of the Government of Kenya.
The SC6 team will make recommendations regarding institutional hosting arrangements
based a set of key criteria. One key consideration is the anticipated restructuring of Kenyan
government offices, notably by seeking to ensure that recommendations are robust enough
to withstand any future restructuring. Other likely criteria for the system will involve
characteristics such as resilience, independence, flexibility, scalability, resourcing and
capability.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 28
3.2.4
Activity 2.4 Develop capacity development plan
The SC6 consultants will collaborate with their SC7 counterparts to agree a strategy for
identifying capacity gaps that will need to be addressed in order to operationalise the MRV+
system developed by SC6. Capacity in this case is defined broadly to include human skills
and knowledge, critical infrastructure and technologies, and required institutional and
organizational structures.
The SC6 team will assess existing capacity on these various levels. Particular attention will
be paid to capacity with regard to data generation, processing, analysis and reporting. For
instance, this will include skills vis-a-vis data collection and processing, including statistics
and social science, and critical materials such as computers, software and speadsheets.
Capacity gaps will be assessed in partnership with the SC7 consultants to ensure a
comprehensive analysis focusing on priority concerns vis-a-vis operationalization of the new
MRV+ system. The resulting information will be used to develop a plan for addressing
remaining capacity gaps, which will be summarised in a capacity development plan report.
In order to formulate a Capacity Development Plan, the LTS team will adopt a simple and
light-touch capacity needs assessment methodology under Activity 4. Viable capacity
development strategies nurture and reinforce existing capacities. The 3 main steps are
noted in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Capacity assessment process
1. Define Desired Future 1. Define Desired Future Capacities Capacities 2. Define Level of Desire 2. Define Level of Desired Future Capacities Future Capacities 3. Assess Existing capacity level Future capacities within the scope and scale of the assessment Capacity targets
Current capacity levels • Define desired future capacities by articulating questions • Define timeframe over which future
capacities are to be achieved • Note: it is the type or category of capacity that is articulated in this step, not the level of that capacity • Define rating system (quantitative and/or qualitative); ensure consensus rating system and determine how ratings will be assigned and used • Gather data and information
• Answer q uestions a rticulated in step 1 • Assign ratings to existing capacity • Leverage global best practices into local capacity development context Define desired future capacities
As noted in Stage 1, a review of systems for monitoring and reporting on mitigation and
adaptation will be outlined. Building on this, Activity 4 will look at capacity development
needs for these functions.
The adaptation process requires the capacity to learn from previous experiences to cope
with current climate, and to apply these lessons to cope with future climate, including
surprises (Brooks et al., 2005). People and organisations certainly adapt better to changing
conditions if they can anticipate changes, observe how current changes take place, and
assess the outcomes of adaptive efforts. In short, they can adapt better if they, either
formally or informally, monitor and evaluate their actions, the outcomes of these as well as
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 29
the conditions to adapt to2. Monitoring and evaluation enhance opportunities to learn from
experience and to anticipate change.
Setting up a complete performance indicators for adaptation can be used to create
awareness about the way stakeholders organise themselves to achieve adaptive behaviour,
identify individuals, organisations and/or institutions that can help improve adaptive
performance. It can be used to assist actors in identifying opportunities and in specifying
proposals to improve adaptive decision making and processes.
In addition, these M&E systems that support the development and utilisation of performance
indicators can contribute to social learning for adaptation by probing and selecting specific
proposals for adaptation actions. M&E with relevant partners can guide inquiry and learning
into the social organisation for adaptation. As noted previously, the M&E system is not part
of this assignment, only the indicators. We however have reiterated the need to link the
performance indicators with national M&E processes and frameworks such as the NIMES.
The capacities at all levels of the adaptation process therefore need to be properly
enhanced so as to manage the indicators processes for adaptation which will inform and be
part and parcel of the NIMES. The desired future capacities will be defined according to the
specific needs of the adaptation elements of NIMES. Key questions are:

What kind of skills does the adaptation M&E require from a specific category of
stakeholders for its implementation?

What type of knowledge will this category of stakeholders need in order to be able to
practice active adaptation M&E?
A detailed analysis of the skills required for the NPBMF implementation by the different
categories of stakeholders will allow a clear definition of the desired future capacities. The
level of knowledge/practice of those skills shall then be defined as a second step.
The approach taken to defining required future capacities will be broadly similar to the
approach taken for assessing existing capacities. Specifically, the SC6 team will employ a
simple light-touch capacity needs assessment. One prerequisite will be an assessment of
the possible roles and responsibilities of the ministries, departments and agencies that will
be involved in operationalizing the National Performance and Benefit Measurement
Framework. As well as the capacity (the level or quantity of resource), it will be important to
consider the capability (i.e. type of qualifications and training) that implementing partners
may need.
Define level of desired future capacities
Naturally, specific capacities within Government of Kenya institutions, civil society and the
private sector will need to be developed given that climate change adaptation and mitigation
is a relatively new phenomenon. The level of desired future capacity will be used as the
basis of comparison against existing capacity, which will in turn determine the level of effort
required to bridge the gap.
When defining level of desired future capacities, it is important to determine the timeframe
over which these capacities are to be achieved. For example, the timeframe could be a
year or two (which will suggest more quick win initiatives rather than strategic, long-term
2
CCAA programme : An experimental approach to capacity and toolkit development for monitoring and evaluation within
climate change adaptation initiatives
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 30
capacity development strategies), or it could be through a specific year to coincide with a
relevant date (e.g. the next Medium Term Plan).
Capacity level can be determined quantitatively or qualitatively which will be agreed with
MEMR. The LTS team will use a quantitative ranking; the ranking system for desired
capacity should be the same as that used for assessing existing. The consultants will aim
to generate both a quantitative ranking and qualitative information to support the ranking.
When determining the level of desired capacity, the LTS team will leverage global best
practices in relevant content areas to create a point of comparison and to then adapt as
need be to the local capacity development context (see Box 3).
Box 3. Capacity Levels – Illustrative Quantitative Ranking System
1
2
3
4
5
No evidence of relevant capacity
Anecdotal evidence of capacity
Partially developed capacity
Widespread, but not comprehensive, evidence of capacity
Fully developed capacity
As noted earlier the LTS team will discuss the capacity levels prior to conducting an
assessment to ensure a common understanding regarding the interpretation of each level.
The consultants will determine prior to conducting an assessment what will be done with the
results, e.g., will they be used to compare across entities (e.g., institutions, districts), and if
necessary, ensure consensus on definitions across assessment teams.
Assess existing capacity levels
The LTS team will start with the central level institutions. For a quantitative assessment,
numerical ratings are given reflecting the level of current capacity. For a qualitative
assessment, a short narrative is given to provide evidence to support the rating.
To determine the appropriate level to assign (e.g., 1-5), the consultants will identify
appropriate indicators for each capacity and then collect data in a variety of ways, e.g., case
study approach, interviews, observable practices; and from a variety of sources, e.g., policy
documents, reports, statistics.
The average score for all questions within a cross-cutting functional capacity is calculated.
The average score for all cross-cutting functional capacities is then calculated to provide an
overall rating for the cross-section.
Feed results into the Capacity Development Plan
Once the assessment has been completed for selected cross-sections, the summary rating
will be carried forward to the summary worksheet which provides an overview of capacity
levels for each cross-section within the scope and scale of the given assessment.
The LTS team will compare the assessed level of capacity against the desired level of
capacity, as determined above. The team will then make a determination whether the
existing capacity level is sufficient or needs improvement. This determination provides
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 31
direction in terms of which areas to focus capacity development strategies. It does not
always follow that a low rating means a significant capacity improvement is required; a
relatively low rating may be adequate in the context of a given enabling environment or
organisation.
Findings may be discussed with various stakeholders at several points during the overall
process. It is important that findings are presented in a way that allows for the
consideration of comments, validations and other forms of feedback.
One approach that we will attempt to use to summarise and visualise the gap between the
existing capacity and the required capacity is radar charts. The sample chart below plots
levels of current and required staff for 5 departments in a Ministry. Generating such charts
(as shown in Figure 8) requires detailed data, and it is not yet clear if we will be able to
secure all the necessary data within the resources and the timeframe of this project.
Figure 8. Example staff capacity analysis
Gap in staff capacity for a Ministry
Department 1
4
3
2
Department 5
Department 2
1
0
Department 4
Current staff
Department 3
Required staff
Once the results have been compiled, this will feed into a Capacity Development Plan.
3.3
Project Management
3.3.1
Management principles
LTS advocates an open and inclusive management approach whereby issues and concerns
are addressed as they emerge, rather than awaiting formal project meetings. While there will
be room to discuss and rework areas of concern relating to the quality of support delivered
by the consortium team, much of the fine-tuning and realigning will be affected during the
daily management of the subcomponent 6. We are aware that the style of management is as
important as the overall excellence in achieving the project's objectives.
Our proposed management approach is based on the following key principles:

Clear and Effective Management Structure: Providing a management structure
with the flexibility to ensure all the technical, administrative and quality assurance
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 32
requirements of the programme can be accommodated in a situation that can
sometimes be changeable.

Strong Management Support: Through the roles, responsibilities and experience of
LTS working in Kenya promoting a style of delivery suited to the MEMR and its
operating environment.

Efficient and Effective Backstopping Support: Ensuring access to appropriate
levels of backstopping support from the LTS (in the UK) and LTS Africa (in Nairobi) to
the LTS Team and counterparts.
In addition to developing a project log frame we recognise communications and quality
control as key requirements for good management.
3.3.2
Management arrangements
Our proposed management structure is shown in the Figure 9 below. We emphasise that
that the Team Leader will hold clear management responsibility for the technical assistance
and that the role of LTS is to provide a positive and enabling environment for the team, to
monitor the performance individually and collectively, and be responsive to the needs
MEMR.
Having a good Team Leader is a key to a successful assignment and we believe a team
leader should be able to listen to the client and their team, be well organised, have extensive
professional experience and be able to work with people. We also consider coordination incountry to be essential in order to provide effective administrative support and local
continuity. Jules Siedenburg will be our Team Leader / Climate Change and Maureen
Wang’ati the Deputy Team Leader / M&E Specialist, thus offering a combination of extensive
international exposure and leadership skills, and excellent local knowledge and capacity to
deliver the assignment through highly professional management and logistical support. We
will aim to maintain the right level of contact with MEMR throughout this assignment,
ensuring that the right people establish good and regular communications and interactions.
Figure 9. LTS management arrangements
Mitigation Team Chris Dodwell Gill Wilkins John Watterson Okamura Shoko Peter Moore Adaptation Team Irene Karani, John Mayhew, Lesley King Quality Control
Paddy Abbot
Periodic
MEMR & Task Force / CCS / Thematic Working Group Team Leader / Climate Change Policy Advisor Jules Siedenburg
Deputy Team Leader / M&E Specialist Maureen Wang’ati Regular Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 33
3.3.3
Team composition
The team composition is outlined in Table 4. The team remains intact, the exception being
replacing Paddy Abbot with John Mayhew to assist with the adaptation indicators
development process.
Table 4. List of SC6 team members
Team
Role
Jules Siedenburg
Organisation
Lead Team
Team Leader / Climate Change Advisor
LTS
Maureen Wang’ati
Deputy Team Leader / M&E Specialist
Baastel
Chris Dodwell
Mitigation Team
Lead Mitigation Specialist
AEA
Gill Wilkins
Energy, Transport, Low Carbon Specialist
AEA
John Watterson
Emissions Inventories / MRV Specialist
AEA
Okamura Shoko
Policy Reporting Mechanism Specialist
AEA
Peter Moore
LTS
Irene Karani
Forestry and Land-Use Sector Specialist
Adaptation Team
Capacity Assessment Specialist
John Mayhew
Performance Indicators Specialist
LTS
Lesley King
Adaptation and Mitigation Synergies
LTS
LTS
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 34
4.
Work Plan and Reporting
4.1
Work Plan
The indicative work schedule is provided in Table 5. This will be kept under review throughout the project.
Table 5. Work Plan
Feb
1
2
March
3
4
5
April
6
7
8
9
May
June
July
August
September
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Sign contract 29 Feb
Mobilisation / initial visits / coordination mtgs
9 March
Submit Inception Report
Inception
CCS Comments on Inception Report
6th April
Finalise Inception Report
1.1 Review MRV Systems
30th May
MRV systems workshop
1.2 Review adpatation performance indicators
Stage 1. Identify
building blocks
for a NPBMF
Attend SC 3 Adaptation Indicators Workshop
Reporting
Submit 1st draft NPBMF Systems Review Report to Client
CCS comments on 1st draft of NPBMF Systems Review Report
Finalise NPBMF Systems Review Report
17th May
24th May
19th June
20th July
27th July
2.1 Develop adaptation indicators
2.2 Identify key synergies and indicators for capturing them
Stage 2. Design
of an Integrated
NPBMF
2.3 Design MRV+ system and roadmap
7th August
14th August
2.4 Develop Capacity Development Plan
Reporting
CCS comments on 1st draft
24 August
12 Sept
Finalise NPBMF Systems Design Report (final report)
Deliverable
Workshop
CCS comments
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 35
4.2
Reporting Timeline
We anticipate the deliverables from the assignment will be agreed during the contract
negotiations, including the expected length of each deliverable. The expected deliverables
we aim to deliver as per the detailed methodology are included in Table 5.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 36
5.
Quality Assurance Plan
5.1
Business Integrity Management
LTS has quality control integrated into everyday processes to ensure efficient project
management and delivery. We work worldwide, fielding teams on complex projects in often
challenging circumstances. In order to best manage our business through these dynamic
processes, LTS has a set of policies and practices that, together, form our Business Integrity
Management System. The key elements of this are: Investors in People Accreditation;
Quality Management Processes; Code of Ethics; Environment Statement; Information
Management System and Risk Management Processes.
Our project specific approach emphasises quality and efficient service delivery and risk
management:


Adherence to some operational principles characterised by simplicity, relevance,
robustness and efficiency, i.e.

do not complicate what might be simple (simplicity),

develop exactly what is required based on results of appropriate consultations
with the client (relevance),

use evidence that can be objectively verified and/or triangulated whilst ensuring
the wide range of stakeholder views and opinions are heard (robustness), and

be as focused as possible and attend to what is really needed (efficiency).
Timely information is crucial at this stage for the NPBMF to inform international
processes and Kenyan government budget cycles.
5.2
Quality Benchmarks
In our quality assurance and management some of the common benchmarks and milestones
for subcomponent 6 that will be reviewed overall include:

timely contracting

clear roles and responsibilities amongst headquarters and field staff

briefings to the LTS consultant team

quality assurance of reports produced by the consultant team

field and monitoring visits

performance management of the consultant team

organisation of travel

control of budgets

regular monitoring of progress

participation in strategy development

organisational and team building support
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 37
5.3
Quality Management
The daily quality management routines will encompass:

Consultant team fully aware of and adhere to the procedures presented in the Quality
Plan.

The inclusion of quality assessment as a fixed point on the agenda on staff and team
meetings.

Procedures for ensuring that all important outgoing and decision making documents
as a minimum are read and commented upon by two persons, i.e. minimum one
more person than the responsible author.

Procedures for quality assurance and control of subcontractors and consultants that
the host institution engages throughout the contract.

Procedures which ensure that quality management also is carried out when the
consultant delivers inputs.

Procedures that ensure communication efficient between the QA team and the Team
Leader with regard to the role and responsibility of the consortium.

All documents, procedures and issues pertaining to QA are filed in a QA Log File
(QALF), which will be kept and maintained at the LTS Africa office in Nairobi.

Procedure for the host institutions’ assessment of the quality of consultant inputs.
5.4
Quality Control
Quality control is the responsibility of the QA Team. All short term inputs and the outcome
thereof for which the consortium is responsible will undergo quality control.

The QA team, headed by the Contract Director, will select products based on the
updated work plans. The progress reporting for which the Team Leader is
responsible will contain information sufficient for the QA team to decide on which
products to control.

The QA team will appoint quality controllers with the right professional background to
assess and control the quality of the products in question. The controllers could be
the members of the QA team. Both QA team members are familiar with climate
change issues in Kenya.

Before the product is submitted to the QA team for quality control the Team Leader
will have ensured that the product has been through an internal quality management
procedure.

The quality controller fills in his/her comment in a pre-designed QA Note, which
contains a field for ‘corrective action suggested / necessary to be taken’.

The QA Note is sent to the Team Leader who discusses the comments with his/her
counterparts and with the person(s) responsible for the product. The Team Leader
takes the necessary corrective action and records action taken by filling in a
designated field in the QA Note.

The QA Note is filed in the QA Log File.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 38
Besides quality control of concrete outputs produced by the TA team, procedures will also be
established for control and assessment of performance of the individual consultants.
5.5
Quality Assurance Team
The LTS primarily responsible for quality assurance will be done in-house by a QA team
comprises of LTS Africa directors – Dr Paddy Abbot, Contract Director and Scott Geller,
Project Manager. The LTS Contract Director will ensure the timely delivery of the contracted
services and support the LTS team. The purpose of our quality and backstopping services is
to continuously assess the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and relevance of
our services following LTS Africa’s quality processes. Backstopping also requires strategic
management and representation by LTS Africa.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. LTS, AEA & Baastel – Inception Report 39
6.
Contact Information
All communication should be channelled through the LTS Africa project office at:
Braeside Gardens (ISS Building), Off Muthangari Road, Lavington or PO Box 217-00606,
Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254.20.266.7208 Fax: +254.20.386.1639
Team members where client communications should be directed:
Jules Siedenburg
Team Leader / Climate Change Advisor
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0706 860 143 (Kenya); +44 7981 927181 (UK)
Maureen Wang’ati
Deputy Team Leader / M&E Specialist
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0722 714 991 (Kenya)
Scott Geller: Project Manager
Project Manager
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0773 320 220 (Kenya)
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– DRAFT Inception Report 40
7.
References
Republic of Kenya. Office of the Prime Minister. Ministry of State for Planning, National
Development and Vision 2030. Mid Term Review. 1st Medium-Term Plan (MTP) 2008-2012
Vision 2030. From soft to hard options. (First Draft). Submitted by: M. A. Consulting Group.
Consulting Services in Economics, Finance, Public Sector Reform & Management.
December, 2011.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 41
Annex A.
Original Terms of Reference
NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY – ACTION PLAN
SUBCOMPONENT 6:
IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND BENEFIT
MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Background
Climate change impacts threaten to adversely affect economic growth in Kenya, and
endanger Kenya becoming a prosperous country with a high quality of life for all its citizens.
The cumulative impacts of climate change over the next two or three decades have the
potential to reverse much of the progress made towards the attainment of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and Vision 2030.
Climate change poses a serious challenge to Kenya’s social and economic development.
This change will lead to major challenges in the economy, human life and on the
environment. Kenya is most vulnerable to climate change since the key drivers of the
economy (agriculture, livestock, tourism, forestry, and fisheries) are climate-sensitive.
Coupled with the country’s low adaptive capacity to climate change, the country experiences
a high level of vulnerability.
In order to enhance investment that aims to reduce vulnerability and build resilience of the
society, and in line with the provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its implementing instrument – the Kyoto Protocol, the
Government of Kenya launched the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS).
The Government of Kenya (GoK) with support from the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA), Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), the UK
Department for International Development (DFID), the French Development Agency (AFD)
and other development partners is desirous of putting in place mechanisms to enhance the
implementation of the NCCRS. In this regard, GoK intends to develop a comprehensive
Climate Change Action Plan.
The Action Plan has eight subcomponents which are not only distinct but are also closely
linked and interrelated. The subcomponents are:
(i)
Subcomponent 1: Long-term National Low Carbon Development Pathway. This is
designed to facilitate reflection and/or mainstreaming of climate change aspects in the
country’s Vision 2030 and its Medium Term Plans (MTP). It also seeks to identify key
elements of the country’s low-carbon and climate resilient growth.
(ii)
Subcomponent 2: Enabling Policy and Regulatory Framework. This aims to review
international, regional and national policy and legislative instruments relating to climate
change with a view of developing a policy and /or legislative framework that promotes
coherence, coordination and cooperative governance of climate change issues at the
national and county levels.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 42
(iii)
Subcomponent 3: National Adaptation Plan (NAP). Recognizing that adaptation is a
priority, this subcomponent aims to identify priority immediate, medium and long-term
adaptation actions in order to develop a National Adaptation Plan.
(iv)
Subcomponent 4: Nationally Appropriate Mitigations Actions (NAMAs). On the
understanding that NAMAs are to be undertaken in the context of sustainable
development, this subcomponent is designed to identify and prioritize NAMAs that
need to be internationally supported and enabled through technology development and
transfer, financing and capacity building. In addition, the protection of forests is
essential for reducing emissions from deforestation, this sub component will also
address reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation – plus (REDD+)
readiness activities as well as opportunities presented by compliance and voluntary
markets.
(v)
Subcomponent 5: National Technology Action Plan. It is widely recognized that
technology development and transfer is essential to support adaptation and mitigation
efforts. This subcomponent focuses on facilitating technology needs assessment with a
view of developing a National Technology Plan that incorporates setting-up of
technology innovation centres.
(vi)
Subcomponent 6: National Performance and Benefit Measurement. The target is
to develop national climate change monitoring, reporting and verification guidelines
and performance indicators.
(vii) Subcomponent 7: Knowledge Management and Capacity Development.
Information on climate is critical in informing the design of appropriate adaptation and
mitigation actions, support planning and choice of strategies including assessment of
risk and early warning systems. Capacity development of institutions involved in the
planning and management of responses in vulnerable sectors is one of the most
pressing climate change need in the country. This subcomponent will address issues
relating to institutional and technical capacity strengths and needs of the various actors
ranging from government, private sector, civil society and communities. It also
encompasses education, training, public awareness and networking.
(viii) Subcomponent 8: Finance. This subcomponent aims to position the country to
access finances from the various sources by developing an innovative financial
mechanism that includes a climate fund, investment strategy/framework and carbon
trading platform. Also, identify tools and incentives that would enhance private sector
investments in opportunities associated with climate change.
Each of these subcomponents will be undertaken as separate consultancies within the broad
framework of developing a Coherent Comprehensive National Climate Change Action Plan
coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources (MEMR) working
in collaboration with the relevant line ministries. In this regard, MEMR which is
mandated to coordinate overall climate change issues will be the lead agency supported by
an Inter-ministerial Task Force comprising of Office of the Prime Minister, Ministries of
finance, national planning, forestry, wildlife, water, energy and Vision 2030 Delivery
Secretariat. At the technical level, there will be 8 thematic working groups based on Medium
Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) to provide the technical support to the process.
These terms of reference are in respect of Subcomponent 6: National Performance and
Benefit Measurement Framework. It is important to note that these terms of reference
have been developed over a period of several months and with input from a range of
government organizations, other stakeholders and experts in Kenya, as a collaborative and
iterative process for which there is a lot of support and momentum.
2. Objectives of the Assignment
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 43
The main objective of the consultancy is to develop a national performance and benefit
measurement framework. The resultant outcome shall constitute the following:
(i)
A National/sub national MRV system for mitigation actions.
(ii) National/sub national performance indicators for adaptation actions based on outcomes.
(iii) A National/subnational accounting framework for adaptation and mitigation synergies.
3. Scope of Work
The consultancy will follow a two-stage approach: Stage 1 will involve reviews and the
development of a National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework that takes
into account local/indigenous knowledge and feeds into the national monitoring framework.
Stage 2 will have a specific focus on the actual design with a focus at national with
recommendations as to how it will deliver at the county levels.
Stage 1: Tasks to be performed under Stage 1
The tasks to be performed under stage 1 include:
(vi)
Review of existing MRV systems and other performance indicators, including poverty
and environment indicators etc, or elsewhere, highlighting strengths and weaknesses
relative to the climate change context in Kenya and suggest best working options.
(vii) Review of options for better national and county co-ordination of performance and
benefit measurements to feed into the national communications.
Stage 2: Tasks to be performed under Stage 2
The actual design of Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework based on outcomes
of Stage 1. This will be a more detailed design phase for Kenya’s Climate Change
Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. It is expected to include the following
elements:
(i)
MRV system (national and sub national) for mitigation actions with clear national targets
based on long term low carbon development pathway.
(ii) Performance indicators (national and sub national) for adaptation actions based on
outcomes.
(iii) Tools to measure report and verify synergistic mitigation and adaptation actions.
(iv) Capacity development.
4. Expected Output
The expected output of this consultancy is to develop a National and sub national Climate
Change Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework. In particular the consultancy
shall deliver on the following:
(i)
National/sub national MRV System (including national registry).
(ii)
National/sub national Performance indicators for adaptation actions based on
outcomes.
(iii)
Tools to measure report and verify synergistic mitigation and adaptation actions.
(iv)
Capacity Development Plan.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 44
Annex B.
LTS Original Technical Proposal
The full extract of the original technical proposal is provided for in Annex B. Inception Stage Output
Inception Report
We feel that it is essential to have a defined inception stage of 4 weeks in order to
assemble, mobilise, prepare, and enable the LTSI team to ‘hit the ground running’ as soon
as we are awarded the contract. We offer a unique advantage by being established in Kenya
and already support key institutions (MEMR and OPM) which LTSI and many proposed team
members are already working with. LTSI is leading on the development of the NAP (under
subcomponent 3). This will be critical to achieve the objectives of this challenging input.
In broad terms, during the Inception stage we will:

Mobilise the LTSI team - convene planning, briefing and inception meetings in
Nairobi.

Agree on the conceptual approach being proposed based on best practices in
adaptation planning and risk assessment.

Conduct initial engagement with key stakeholders – introductory and planning
meetings with key Ministries and partners to introduce subcomponent 6.

Conduct a meeting with the subcomponent 6 Thematic Working Group - to
agree on the approach and work out where they can provide areas of sectoral
expertise and for us to make suggestion about who might join the group.

Agree on the communication processes such as types of formal and informal
communication between the team, the GoK counterparts and other subcomponents.

Deliver Inception Report including approach, work plan, final methodology,
communication protocols, and quality assurance plan.
We propose that the Inception Workshop would consist of the following:

Introduce and familiarise ourselves with the subcomponents, outputs, schedules and
working methodologies of the various Service Providers.

Identification of synergies and overlap. Side-working groups to refine methodologies
in light of identified synergies and overlap.

Introduce and familiarise all invited stakeholders with the various subcomponents.
Opportunities to refine and plan for the delivery of the various subcomponents.
We propose that the senior members of the LTSI team will participate (as a minimum) in the
Inception Workshop along with GoK counterparts and supporting partners (Danida, DFID-K,
UNDP-AAP, CDKN).
By having an Inception stage and engaging with other subcomponent teams, a broad
understanding of the assignment will be achieved and the Team will access ideas and
develop a solid base on which to proceed. We will also use this opportunity to understand
what position GoK has taken at the recently attended COP17 in Durban.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 45
Jules Siedenburg, the proposed Team Leader, will lead on the preparation of the Inception
Report with support from Maureen Wang’ati, Deputy Team Leader based in Nairobi.
Stage 1. Framework Design Outputs
MRV Systems Review Report
Performance Indicators Review Report
Country Coordination Report
Activity 1.1 Review existing MRV systems and other performance indicators
highlighting strengths and weaknesses relative to climate change context in Kenya
Activity 1.1 is in essence a situational analysis concerning both mitigation and adaptation.
The review will involve both the mitigation and adaptation team members. This activity will
review existing reporting systems and metrics that could potentially form part of the NPBMF.
MRV systems
The review of existing MRV systems would consist of two distinct phases: (1) a preparatory
literature review and (2) stakeholder interviews.
The literature review would include research into existing MRV systems for mitigation
actions. This will include both project level and policy level MRV frameworks, and will include
development relevant to both developing and develop countries. The review will consider all
elements of the MRV system, from the monitoring guidelines and reporting rules to the
specific performance metrics that are used to measures outcomes. The key references may
include:

existing MRV systems in Kenya, including the report and original sources undertaken
for the EU-UNDP capacity building initiative and progress to date on 2nd National
Communication);

MRV systems from other how other developing countries (particularly those with
similar national circumstances e.g. rural economy, majority of emissions from
agriculture). This will consider MRV systems at all levels, i.e. inventories, LEDs and
NAMAs;

for inventories, international guidelines (e.g. IPCC) and lessons learned on national
inventory systems, data collection from Annex I experience;

for LEDs and NAMAs, emerging norms of international best practice for developing
countries and lessons learned from policy evaluation in developed countries
(including through the initiatives reports mentioned in section 4.2.1 above); and

the outcomes of the UNFCCC negotiations in Durban.
The literature review will also be used to scope out how best to capture the potential cobenefits of climate change mitigation actions, which would be important to capture within the
performance assessment framework. For example, AEA’s recent work to develop fact sheets
on low carbon development for DFID identified the following benefits: job creation through
new green jobs; poverty reductions for example through increased access to energy and
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 46
reductions in energy bills as a result of efficiency measures; and health benefits through
improvements in air pollution
Of particular relevance to this task will be the work AEA has been involved in to develop
reporting systems on the impacts of climate change mitigation policies for the European
Environment Agency. This project has developed guidelines for the reporting of climate
policies by EU countries, including approaches to quality check the information reported.
Whilst these guidelines do not capture all of the wider benefits of climate policies that are
relevant to developing nations, they do still represent international best practice on policy
reporting.
For project level appraisal then AEA’s recent review of the CDM for the European
Commission provides an important reference for how project level MRV systems can be
further developed. This included a review of the relative impact of the CDM on sustainable
development objectives.
On the basis of the literature review, an initial report including tentative conclusions of
strengths and weaknesses which would be tested through stakeholder interviews. The
criteria for assessing the strengths and weaknesses will be agreed in the inception stage but
may include (based on previous AEA studies of this kind):

Applicability: The methodology or methodologies should be applicable to different
policy instruments, different sectors and across all sub-regions.

Consistency: The methods should make use of existing national and international
data sources and data collection frameworks. In particular, the methods should be
consistent with National Inventories and Registries.

Transparency: The methods should be transparent and simple, i.e. policy makers
should be able to workout for themselves how the impacts are determined.

Robustness: The methods should be based upon robust principles, with uncertainties
clearly identified and a far as possible quantified.

Complexity: The methods should not require a large amount of new data or
expertise.

Flexibility: The methods should be sufficient flexible to deal with variable data quality
and also be able to be adjusted to reflect updated assumptions.
The stakeholder interviews should address the current situation and context in Kenya,
including establishing a clear baseline position of the existing data availability, quality and
collection processes, supporting national systems and priorities for future policy
development (in order to ensure that future systems are aimed at fulfilling those priorities).
The interviews should help identify gaps in capacity, technical skills and coordination
arrangements. The interviews would also be used to explore potential project or policies
which may be suitable for piloting the framework.
The interviews will also provide the opportunity to engage with the team undertaking the
project on developing Kenyan NAMAs under subcomponent 4 including their emerging
conclusions on MRV arrangements. This would provide an opportunity both to ensure the
compatibility of their proposed approach with likely international norms and to ensure that
any recommended approaches for a national system would be in line with approaches which
are being proposed for individual NAMAs.
There are processes ongoing currently in Kenya that are highly relevant to Activity 1 that our
team will seek to engage from the outset (and should be invited to the inception workshop).
The Australian Government, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in
association with the Clinton Climate Initiative is currently supporting the GoK to develop a
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 47
NCAS-K system for measuring, reporting and verification of all land-based emissions
for Kenya. One of the phases of this work which is in its early stages of development
includes:
‘Develop models, time‐series consistent inventory, reference emissions levels, and define research needs and other data and methodological needs’. Part of the NCAS preparatory work involves a review of current data sources for climate
data which includes temperature, solar radiation, soil moisture, pan evaporation, wind
speed, cloud cover. In addition to collection of climate data, this institution building process
is also reviewing climate modelling capacity of the Kenya Meteorology Department (KMD)
but also Kenyan universities i.e. University of Nairobi which has formed an association with
the LTSI bid.
We propose that a one (1) day Nairobi-based MRV Systems Review Workshop is
convened at LTS Africa offices and that participants are invited from the National Climate
Change Taskforce, subcomponent 6 Thematic Working Group, Climate Change Secretariat,
other stakeholders and relevant subcomponent teams, donor groups and any other parties
identified during the Inception Phase. As part of this external consultation, in a plenary
session, and then break-out sessions will be facilitated to provide feedback. A workshop
note will document the proceedings. In addition to the Lead Team (Jules Siedenburg and
Maureen Wang’ati) we envisage that John Watterson (Emissions Inventory / MRV
Specialist), Gill Wilkins (Energy, Transport and Low Carbon Specialist), Ana Pueyo
(Economist and Industrial Sector Specialist), Peter Moore (Forestry and Land-Use Sector
Specialist) participate on this task. The main output will be an MRV Systems Review
Report.
Performance indicators
In order to set the context of Activity 1.11 it is worth noting that one of the specific tasks of
the subcomponent 3 (NAP) is to “develop performance indicators to assess impacts of
adaptation actions “.
One of the clear advantages of the LTSI tender is that we are leading on the delivery of
subcomponent 3 and have intimate knowledge of the methodology being used for this work.
The subcomponent 3 team is grouping the adaptation indicators using the following
questions:
 Outcomes – is Kenya becoming more or less vulnerable to risks from current
and future climate? This can be split into two sub-groups of outcome-based
indicators:
o Impacts: The actual (realised) damages from the major effects of climate on
Kenya. Society, economy and the environment. The problem with this type of
indicator is that without a long series of observations, it may be difficult to
distinguish year to year variability from long-term trends.
o Vulnerability: Recognising the difficulties with using just impact based
indicators a sensible proxy for assessing adaptation outcomes is to
understand if Kenya’s underlying vulnerability to the direct and indirect
implications of changing climate risks is increasing or decreasing. Using
vulnerability indicators to track trends in vulnerability provide a baseline
against which adaptation outcomes can be measured.
 Actions – is the NAP delivering implementation of low-regret/no-regret
adaptation actions? This is the minimum that we should seek to secure from a
society that is adapting well. Indicators will be developed that monitor the uptake of
these actions and their results.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 48
 Decision-making – are long-term decisions systematically accounting for
climate risks? Low-regret options are not always available for more complex and
long-term decisions that involve trade-offs, either in time or against other objectives.
To assess preparedness, we need to complement monitoring of outcomes (changes
in impacts and components of vulnerability) and actions (low-regret/no-regret) with
monitoring decision-making process changes. These are the changes required to
embed climate risks into decision-making processes.
In the review of the performance indicators for adaptation in Activity 1, the LTSI team will
work closely with the subcomponent 3 team, physically based in the same office.
There are members of this bid for subcomponent 6 that are also performing services on the
subcomponent 3 which will help ensure synergies between two related processes from the
LTSI team (the Climate Scientist / Meteorologist, Capacity Assessment Specialist, and
Performance Indicators Specialist)
Selecting indicators to support M&E for adaptation presents challenges because many
different options exist. The utility of many outcome indicators is limited by the long time
horizons across which M&E must measure adaptation outcomes if it is truly to capture
whether interventions succeed in addressing specific climate change risks. Conversely,
process indicators can often apply well at short time scales, and provide a good fit with the
role of M&E in supporting ongoing learning and capacity development. However, they may
disappoint those who seek evidence of lives saved, damages averted, or related impacts.
The balance between process and outcome indicators in a given M&E system will reflect
distinct priorities and expectations for adaptation: do the interventions wish to focus more on
the establishment of an adaptive process as an objective, or do they focus more on
identifying the substantive outcomes than identifying the procedural outcomes ?3
Defining indicators for development interventions can be implemented through the use of
several criteria; a wide literature exist in this regard. However, M&E for adaptation requires
choosing indicators that address the nature, breadth, and degree of changes in response to
climate change over long periods of time. UNDP for example suggests the following
parameters for defining indicators of success for adaptation interventions at the project and
portfolio levels:
(v)
Coverage: The extent to which projects reach vulnerable stakeholders
(individuals, households, businesses, government agencies, policymakers,
etc.).
(vi)
Impact: The extent to which projects reduce vulnerability and/or enhance
adaptive capacity.
(vii)
Sustainability: The ability of stakeholders to continue the adaptation process
beyond project lifetimes, thereby sustaining development benefits.
(viii)
Replicability: The extent to which projects generate and disseminate results and
lessons of value in other contexts4
We propose that a one (1) day Nairobi-based Performance Indicators Review Workshop
is convened at LTS Africa offices and that participants are invited from the National Climate
Change Taskforce, subcomponent 6 Thematic Working Group, Climate Change Secretariat,
other stakeholders and relevant subcomponent teams, donor groups and any other parties
identified during the Inception Phase. As part of this external consultation, in a plenary
3
BMZ, GIZ, WRI, 2011: Making Adaptation Count - Concepts and Options for Monitoring and
Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation
4
UNDP. 2008b. Community-based Adaptation (CBA) Country Programme Strategy (CPS) – Namibia.
Available at: http://www.undp-adaptation.org/projects/websites/docs/Namibia_-_CBA_CPS_-_FINAL.
doc.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 49
session, and then break-out sessions will be facilitated to provide feedback. A workshop
note will document the proceedings. Maureen Wang’ati (M&E Specialist) and Paddy Abbot
(Performance Indicators Specialist) will lead on this task. The main output will be a
Performance Indicators Review Report defining the adaptation indicators. We would also
plan to consult with the Kenyan Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis to help us
to identify data availability, access and quality.
Activity 1.2 Review options for better national and county co-ordination of
performance and benefit measurements to feed into national communications
As part of the Cancun Adaptation Framework, Kenya is required to provide National
Communications every four years detailing progress on adaptation activities. As slow
progress in preparing the Second National Communications was hindered by lack of
financial resources. In addition, there were also technical capacity and coordination
challenges in delivering information along the four thematic areas required by UNFCCC:

National GHG inventory

GHG mitigation options

Climate vulnerability, adaptation and impact assessment

Education, training and public awareness
Activity 1.2 is an important input into the wider process in order to improve coordination in
the second national communication. There are two levels where coordination needs to be
efficient and effective:
National Level
As per the NCCRS it is envisaged that there are four divisions within MEMR that are
responsible for the coordination of all climate change matters for the country. Multilateral
agreements (including biodiversity, desertification and climate change) are dealt with under
the MEMR – specifically the Directorate of Environment and issues related to climate change
are managed through the recently established Climate Change Secretariat. In addition, a
Climate Change Coordination Unit (CCCU) was established in the Office of the Prime
Minister (OPM) and responsible for overall coordination and supervision of all government
Ministries. The engagement of the OPM highlights the cross-cutting nature of climate change
as an issue that that touches on the economic, social and political development of the
country.
The LTSI team will work closely with these institutions to provide guidance on how to best
coordinate inputs that build upon the strengths of these national bodies. In advising on
improvements for national coordination processes for the development of national
communications the team will be cognisant of the work of subcomponent 2 which is
tasked with outlining a policy and regulatory framework that is in line with the post
August 2012 government establishment under the new Constitution. The options
provided will ensure that reporting objectives are complementary, not conflicting or
overlapping.
As noted above, the NIMES will help provide the foundation of the NPBMF as it provides an
understanding of the current capabilities at the local, constituency and national level to
measure performance against NPBMF that mainstreams measurements into existing
processes and institutions. Some existing indicators will likely be relevant for both, such
as energy security, some are already monitoring climate change adaptation activities, five
adaptation programmes.
County Level
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 50
The engagement of the County Government structures in the national communications
process will be critical to ensure national representation. The counties are more semiautonomous than the former administrative set-up (districts) and demonstrate the GoKS
commitment to ownership at decentralised levels. The LTSI team will provide options on
how to best coordinate inputs into the national processes. The role of the environment
committee’s which have a mandate for climate change at the county level will be well defined
in this process. It will therefore be important for those delivering on Activity 1.2 to visit a few
Counties to meet key GoK officers.
We propose that a one (1) day Nairobi-based National Communications Coordination
Workshop is convened at LTS Africa offices and that participants are invited from the
National Climate Change Taskforce, subcomponent 6 Thematic Working Group, Climate
Change Secretariat, other stakeholders and relevant subcomponent teams, donor groups
and any other parties identified during the Inception Phase. As part of this external
consultation, in a plenary session, and then break-out sessions will be facilitated to provide
feedback. A workshop note will document the proceedings. The Team Leader, Deputy Team
Leader and Climate Scientist & Meteorologist will participate in this task.
The main output will be a Country Coordination Report.
It is worth noting is that the proposed LTSI Climate Scientist / Meteorologist (John Nganga)
is currently Chair of the Working Group on the Second National Communications for
Mitigation, and was previous Chair of the First National Communication process. Therefore,
he can bring a historical perspective, an intimate understanding of all the players (having
coordinated various technical working groups) and this activity will have immediate practical
benefit to the GoK.
The output of Stage 1 would be to establish the outline National Performance and Benefit
Measurement Framework the detail of which would then be developed during Stage 2. For
example, in terms of mitigation actions this outline might include:
Guidelines for monitoring and reporting NAMAs
o
o
o
o
o
A national registry of NAMAs based on UNFCCC requirements (e.g. description,
timeframe, estimated cost, nature and type of support required, capacity building
requirements, estimated mitigation results and co-benefits)
Indicators or reporting metrics to assess the impacts of NAMAs
Support systems, e.g. training, awareness raising of the guidelines
Supporting tools e.g. country specific emissions factors and other data sets
Reports on other policy impacts
Stage 2. Systems Development Outputs
Performance Indicators Options Report
Roadmap for MRV of National Mitigation Actions
Synergies Tool-kit
Capacity Development Plan
Activity 2.1 Design MRV system for mitigation actions with clear national targets
based on long term low carbon development pathway
A comprehensive national programme for mitigation actions consists of the following
elements:
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 51
-
A national GHG inventory system: aimed at producing an accurate estimate of historic
emissions of greenhouse gases across sectors capable of regular updating;
-
A low emissions development strategy (LEDS) including
-
o
projections of future emissions under a business as usual reference case,
o
estimates of emissions reductions potential and their costs in different sectors,
o
a long term target for future reductions and proposed pathway towards that
target; and
o
identification of policies aimed at delivering the shorter term measures (usually by
2020) based on political priorities.
More detailed nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) including individual
mitigation policies and programmes of activities aimed at delivering the reductions set
out in the LEDS.
Ideally, each element of this programme can be subject to measurement, reporting and
verification and the level of scrutiny can be adjusted according to national and international
requirements.
In adapting this to the requirements of the Kenyan context, it will be necessary to design a
flexible system which can be adjusted to local ambition and international requirements.
The area where there is least national discretion is likely to that of inventories, where
subject to the detailed outcome to emerge from the UNFCCC, Kenya may well need to
develop and update a GHG inventory on a biennial basis. As mentioned above, our
understanding based on review of the ToR is that the development of Kenya’s national
inventory is outside the scope of this work. If that is not the case, based on our extensive
experience of inventory development, we would be happy to revise our proposal in order to
include this element.
In terms of a Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), Kenya has already announced
is NCCRS. Moreover, it is our understanding that subcomponent 1 will include the
development of a long term Low Carbon Development Pathway, including projections of
emissions and analysis of abatement opportunities. Best practice in the preparation of
LEDS is evolving and, while conceptually there are aspects of an LEDS which are capable of
being reported and verified (e.g. projections of future emissions), there are no international
requirements or norms yet in place. Therefore, while the NCCRS and subcomponent 1 will
provide the backdrop for the project, it will not be a major focus of the work on MRV.
Therefore, the majority of the work for Activity 2.2 will be to prepare an Roadmap for MRV
of National Mitigation Actions which provides for a high-level design an appropriate MRV
system (including a national registry) to consolidate information on the NAMAs which Kenya
is developing. The level of scrutiny required will depend on the outcome of international
negotiations but emerging norms of best practice suggest that as a minimum NAMAs
receiving international support will be required to report the following minimum information:

Description

Timeframe

Estimated cost

Nature and type of support required

Capacity building requirements

Estimated mitigation results and co-benefits
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 52
The intention is that the information will enable a consistent understanding of the NAMAs
that have been implemented in different regions. However, further guidance is required on
the specific definitions of the reporting variables, how the collect the information, and how to
ensure consistent reporting.
In addition to the above list it will be important that the list of reporting variables takes into
account the specific local and regional factors e.g. on emission factors. It will also be
important to consider the wider benefits within the framework (and the methodology for
assessing this).
Activity 2.2 Performance indicators for adaptation actions based on outcomes
For Activity 2, indicator assessments will be undertaken in consultation with the Thematic
Working Group.
Box 4. Indicator Analytical Framework
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Are the proposed indicators SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and
Time-bound)?
Are they neutral?
Do they allow a monitoring of all proposed outputs for achieving the identified
outcomes? Do they need modifications for reflecting the proposed outputs?
Can they describe how the achievement of the results will be measured?
Are they easily measurable and monitored at reasonable cost and effort? Will the
data be gathered?
Are they clear and easily understood?
Are they gender sensitive? Can the gender approach be easily reflected within the
proposed indicators?
Can they be disaggregated according to age, social condition, where necessary?
Are the data available in the field and what are the interactions with the Kenyan
context?
In developing the performance indicators the adaption team will convene a one day Nairobi
based Performance Indicator Development Workshop which will:
1. Craft draft indicators and review their measurability and appropriateness using a
indicator analytical framework (see Box 4 above). The framework will be agreed
with the Thematic Working Group and with the subcomponent 3 team to ensure that
there is a consistent approach to designing indicators across all related
subcomponents.
2. Interrogate sources of information / data collection methodologies for the indicators.
Currently, LTSI in collaboration with Baastel are delivering M&E support to the Enhancing
Community Resilience Programme in Malawi funded by DFID. In Box 5 below there are a
number of relevant adaptation indicators being considered:
Box 5. Examples of Adaptation Indicators
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 53
Result 1: Increased capacity of local authorities, communities and individuals to
sustainably manage natural resources and mitigate the impacts of climate change
Some avenues for indicators
- level of awareness of households with respect to their contributions to the
causes and impacts of climate change on individual and communities
- % of households using key NR management practices (define list before
baseline)
- % of reduction in fuel used from improved cook stoves
- % of HH using solar equipment
- land area reforested (ha)
- No. of NR management structures (specify) at local and community level
- Extent to which they are providing the following services (from Service
Charter) (agree on scale)
Result 2: Increased capacity of communities and individuals to adapt their
livelihoods to climate variability and the impacts of climate change and to manage
disasters
Some avenues for indicators:
- Structures put in place at local level by communities and information
available to them to support decision-making on adaptation options
- Level of knowledge of climate change adaptation and DRM issues
- % of households using a combination of the following adaptation options
- Diversified and/or drought resistant crops
- Irrigation and water harvesting
- Smart agriculture (conservation ag, agroforestry, use of manure, etc)
- % of households (% women) using micro-credit (access & control by
women)
- Livestock raising
- Post-harvest management (crop processing, storage)
·
Reasons behind change (for all options)
·
% of communities with functional DRM structures as per DoDMA
standards
·
Types and yield of different crops per growing season per household
·
Types and no. of heads of different livestocks per household
·
No. of new businesses created in average per community (no. headed
by women)
Result 3: Strengthened information sharing by different stakeholders in DRM and
climate change adaptation
Some avenues for indicators:
- Level of quality of information shared (scored against criteria: relevance,
accuracy, credibility, timeliness, attribution, representativeness)
- Types of information shared between multi-stakeholders
- Types of multi-stakeholder systems (knowledge mgt) and mechanisms
used for information sharing
LTSI has vast experience in setting-up complex M&E systems for global and national climate
initiatives (see Box 6).
Box 6. LTSI’s vast experience with M&E Systems
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 54
LTS currently leads a consortium to provide “Norway’s International Climate and Forest
Initiative (NICFI) with Real Time Evaluation Services”. NICFI was launched during the
climate change negotiations at Bali in December 2007 to support efforts that REDD-plus
in developing countries. LTS provides real time evaluation services to NICFI, through the
Evaluation Department of the Norad, and this has included the elaboration of a
programmatic Results Framework for one of the largest climate investment funds
globally, estimated at $2.5 billion over 5 years or approximately 11% of Norway’s aid
budget. For the past 8 years LTS has managed the “Monitoring and Evaluation Services
for the Global Darwin Initiative” (2003-2011) which is funded and administered by the UK
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (Defra).
In Kenya, through the “Natural Resources Management Programme” funded by Danida,
LTS is currently providing technical support to the Community Development Trust Fund
to establish a comprehensive organisation-wide M&E system.
LTS has undertaken more than 150 programme and project level evaluations during the
past 4 decades, including project level evaluation in more than 50 countries.
Maureen Wang’ati (M&E Specialist) and Paddy Abbot (Performance Indicators Specialist)
will lead on this task. The main output will be a Performance Indicators Option Report
defining the adaptation indicators. We would also plan to consult with the Kenyan Institute
for Public Policy Research and Analysis to help us to identify data availability, access and
quality.
Activity 2.3 Tools to measure, report and verify synergistic mitigation and adaptation
actions
Activity 3 is both forward thinking and ambitious, as much of the existing guidance and tools
available for climate change focus on adaptation or mitigation to climate change, but do not
frequently focus on how to maximise co-benefits. The IPCC fourth assessment broaches
the subject of synergies between adaptation and mitigation actions as an emerging
topic. This activity will not only help contribute to the relevant body of knowledge, but also
put GoK at the forefront of these discussions.
While adaptation and mitigation are traditionally considered parallel subjects, they have
overlaps and linkages which suggest they should be considered as an integrated response
to climate change. The IPCC suggests that at the national level, mitigation and adaptation
are often considered as competing priorities for policy makers, but when national responses
to climate change rely on natural energy and sequestration, there are important overlaps.
Recent work has identified some relevant, synergistic activities, such as the transformation
of waste into compost as a way to improve soil quality (adaptation) while also reducing
methane emissions (Ayers and Huq 2009). This example identifies the potential for
synergies of these types to contribute to a ‘triple-win,’ where joint adaptation and
mitigation activities contribute to development gains.
The LTSI team will review existing frameworks and literature to identify frameworks and
tools that would be best suited for the Kenyan context. As only recent scientific discussions
have reviewed the potential links between adaptation and mitigation in developing countries,
initial research would be required to understand how the current methodology can be applied
in context. LTS has two ongoing programmes that are assessing co-benefits and synergies
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 55
of mitigation and adaptation activities in Malawi and coastal Kenya. It is likely that the
outputs of these programmes will help inform the development of a framework for the GoK.
An important part of this step will be the development of a matrix which outlines proposed
sectoral climate change activities and identifies their synergistic adaptation and mitigation
potential. A sample map of the linkages between adaptations and mitigations by sector as
suggested in the Table 2.
Table 2. Example Map of the Linkages for the Agricultural Sector
Mitigation
Emission reductions
Activity
Conservation soil tillage
Adaptation
Soil conservation, reduced
runoff and soil erosion
Emissions reductions
Cropland management
Species diversification, water
conservation
Decreased fossil fuel usage;
decreased emissions
Fertilizer switch or management
to reduce N2O emissions
increased resilience to
drought and flooding; reduced
runoff pollution
Carbon sequestration
Cover Crops
reduces erosion; increases
water-holding capacity
This mapping exercise will inform the design of a Synergies Toolkit would be expected to
help decision-makers identify climate compatible development strategies that maximize
multiple co-benefits. The expected outcome, a tool to measure, report and verify on
synergistic activities, would likely be a methodological framework based on qualitative
indicators. During this stage, liaison with ministries would help ensure that the final output is
an accessible tool for departmental planners. In order to develop such a tool, it will be
essential to ensure that the included information will be based on good quality data and
evidence.
The eventual tool will use and combine data generated from Activities 1 and 2 to provide the
GoK with a resource that combines the benefits of both climate change adaptation and
mitigation activities. This will also provide the GoK an opportunity to use international funds
for mitigation activities to support the development and expansion of adaptation activities. It
will therefore require advice from both the mitigation and adaptation teams provided by the
LTSI consortium.
Lesley King (Adaptation and Mitigation Synergies) is uniquely placed to perform this
assignment as she is currently a Co-Researcher for the CDKN Innovation Fund ‘Achieving
Triple Wins: Identifying Climate Smart Investment Strategies for the Coastal Zone that seeks
to present the present the potential co-benefits from actions that deliver adaptation and
mitigation in coastal Kenya. A Co-PI of this work is Dr Emma Tompkins, one of the authors of
the IPCC. This ongoing work provides us with the opportunity to draw upon lessons learned
and adapt this framework into a measurement tool to be employed at the national scale.
Olivier Beucher (Agriculture Specialist) will also complement the work of Lesley with specific
input on synergies in the agriculture sector. We feel this extra input on agriculture is
important given the strong synergies that occur in the agriculture sector in Kenya.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 56
Activity 2.4 Capacity Development Plan
In order to formulate a Capacity Development Plan, the LTSI team will adopt a robust
capacity needs assessment methodology under Activity 4. Viable capacity development
strategies nurture and reinforce existing capacities. The 3 main steps are noted in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Capacity assessment process
1. Define Desired Future 1. Define Desired Future Capacities Capacities 2. Define Level of Desire 2. Define Level of Desired Future Capacities Future Capacities 3. Assess Existing capacity level Future capacities within the scope and scale of the assessment Capacity targets
Current capacity levels • Define desired future capacities by articulating questions • Define timeframe over which future
capacities are to be achieved • Note: it is the type or category of capacity that is articulated in this step, not the level of that capacity • Define rating system (quantitative and/or qualitative); ensure consensus rating system and determine how ratings will be assigned and used • Gather data and information
• Answer q uestions a rticulated in step 1 • Assign ratings to existing capacity • Leverage global best practices into local capacity development context Define desired future capacities
As noted in Stage 1, a review of systems for monitoring and reporting on mitigation and
adaptation will be outlined. Building on this, Activity 4 will look at capacity development
needs for these functions.
The adaptation process requires the capacity to learn from previous experiences to cope
with current climate, and to apply these lessons to cope with future climate, including
surprises (Brooks et al., 2005). People and organisations certainly adapt better to changing
conditions if they can anticipate changes, observe how current changes take place, and
assess the outcomes of adaptive efforts. In short, they can adapt better if they, either
formally or informally, monitor and evaluate their actions, the outcomes of these as well as
the conditions to adapt to5. Monitoring and evaluation enhance opportunities to learn from
experience and to anticipate change.
Setting up a complete performance indicators for adaptation can be used to create
awareness about the way stakeholders organise themselves to achieve adaptive behaviour,
identify individuals, organisations and/or institutions that can help improve adaptive
performance. It can be used to assist actors in identifying opportunities and in specifying
proposals to improve adaptive decision making and processes.
In addition, these M&E systems that support the development and utilisation of performance
indicators can contribute to social learning for adaptation by probing and selecting specific
proposals for adaptation actions. M&E with relevant partners can guide inquiry and learning
into the social organisation for adaptation. As noted previously, the M&E system is not part
of this assignment, only the indicators. We however have reiterated the need to link the
performance indicators with national M&E processes and frameworks such as the NIMES.
5
CCAA programme : An experimental approach to capacity and toolkit development for monitoring
and evaluation within climate change adaptation initiatives Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 57
The capacities at all levels of the adaptation process therefore need to be properly
enhanced so as to manage the indicators processes for adaptation which will inform and be
part and parcel of the NIMES. The desired future capacities will be defined according to the
specific needs of the adaptation elements of NIMES. What kind of skills does the adaptation
M&E require from a specific category of stakeholders for its implementation? What type of
knowledge will this category of stakeholders need in order to be able to practice active
adaptation M&E?
A detailed analysis of the skills required for the NPBMF implementation by the different
categories of stakeholders will allow a clear definition of the desired future capacities. The
level of knowledge/practice of those skills shall then be defined as a second step.
Define level of desired future capacities
Naturally, specific capacities within the GoK institutions, civil society and the private sector
will need to be developed given that climate change adaptation and mitigation is a relatively
new phenomena. The level of desired future capacity will be used as the basis of
comparison against existing capacity, which will in turn determine the level of effort required
to bridge the gap.
When defining level of desired future capacities, it is important to determine the timeframe
over which these capacities are to be achieved. For example, the timeframe could be a year
or two (which will suggest more quick win initiatives rather than strategic, long-term capacity
development strategies), or it could be through a specific year to coincide with a relevant
date (eg the next Medium Term Plan).
Capacity level can be determined quantitatively or qualitatively which will be agreed with
MEMR. The LTSI team will use a quantitative ranking; the ranking system for desired
capacity should be the same as that used for assessing existing. The consultants will aim to
generate both a quantitative ranking and qualitative information to support the ranking.
When determining the level of desired capacity, the LTSI team will leverage global best
practices in relevant content areas to create a point of comparison and to then adapt as
need be to the local capacity development context (see Box 7).
Box 7. Capacity Levels – Illustrative Quantitative Ranking System
1
2
3
4
5
No evidence of relevant capacity
Anecdotal evidence of capacity
Partially developed capacity
Widespread, but not comprehensive, evidence of capacity
Fully developed capacity
As noted earlier the LTSI team will discuss the capacity levels prior to conducting an
assessment to ensure a common understanding regarding the interpretation of each level.
The consultants will determine prior to conducting an assessment what will be done with the
results, e.g., will they be used to compare across entities (e.g., institutions, districts), and if
necessary, ensure consensus on definitions across assessment teams.
Assess existing capacity levels
The LTSI team will start with the central level institutions. For a quantitative assessment,
numerical ratings are given reflecting the level of current capacity. For a qualitative
assessment, a short narrative is given to provide evidence to support the rating.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 58
To determine the appropriate level to assign (e.g., 1-5), the consultants will identify
appropriate indicators for each capacity and then collect data in a variety of ways, e.g., case
study approach, interviews, observable practices; and from a variety of sources, e.g., policy
documents, reports, statistics.
The average score for all questions within a cross-cutting functional capacity is calculated.
The average score for all cross-cutting functional capacities is then calculated to provide an
overall rating for the cross-section.
Feed results into the Capacity Development Plan
Once the assessment has been completed for selected cross-sections, the summary rating
will be carried forward to the summary worksheet which provides an overview of capacity
levels for each cross-section within the scope and scale of the given assessment.
The LTSI team will compare the assessed level of capacity against the desired level of
capacity, as determined above. The team will then make a determination whether the
existing capacity level is sufficient or needs improvement. This determination provides
direction in terms of which areas to focus capacity development strategies. It does not
always follow that a low rating means a significant capacity improvement is required; a
relatively low rating may be adequate in the context of a given enabling environment or
organisation.
Findings may be discussed with various stakeholders at several points during the overall
process. It is important that findings are presented in a way that allows for the
consideration of comments, validations and other forms of feedback.
Once the results have been compiled, this will feed into a Capacity Development Plan.
Kenya’s National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework, LTS, AEA & Baastel– Inception Report 59