C: The intended outcomes were C: The measures designed to move towards project’s delivered, but were not designed to feed into intermediate states have started, but have not produced a continuing process after project funding results. B: The intended outcomes were B: The measures designed to move towards project’s delivered, and were designed to feed into a intermediate states have started and have produced continuing process, but with no prior results, which give no indication that they can progress allocation of responsibilities after project towards the intended long impact. funding A: The intended outcomes were A: The measures designed to move towards project’s delivered, and were designed to feed into a intermediate states have started and have produced continuing process, with specific allocation results, which clearly indicate that they can progress of responsibilities after project funding. towards the intended long term impact. Thus a project will end up with a two letter rating e.g. AB, CD, BB etc. In addition the rating is given a if there is evidence of impacts accruing within the life of the ‘+’ notation project. The possible rating permutations are then translated onto the usual six point rating scale used in all UNEP project evaluations in the following way. Table 2. Shows how the ratings for of and towards ‘achievement outcomes’ ‘progress intermediate states translate to ratings for the likelihood of impact on ‘Overall achievement’ a six point scale. Highly Likely Moderately Moderately Unlikely Highly Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely AA AB BB CB AC BC CC DC AD BD CD DD BA CA DA DB CC+ DC+ AD+ BD+ CD+ DD+ BB+ CB+ AC+ BC+ DA+ DB+ In addition, projects that achieve documented changes in environmental status during the lifetime receive a positive impact rating, indicated by a The overall project’s “+”. likelihood of achieving impacts is shown in Table 11 below (a + score above moves the double letter rating up one space in the 6-point scale). The ROtI method provides a basis for comparisons across projects through application of a rating system that can indicate the expected impact. However it should be noted that whilst this will provide a relative scoring for all projects assessed, it does not imply that the results from projects can necessarily be aggregated. Nevertheless, since the approach yields greater clarity in the for a project, opportunities where aggregation of project ‘results metrics’ results might be possible can more readily be identified. Results rating of project entitled: (D A) – A) Overall Rating Rating Rating – (D (+)
C: The project’s intended outcomes were delivered, but were not designed to feed into a continuing process after project funding C: The measures designed to move towards intermediate states have started, but have not produced results. B: The project’s intended outcomes were delivered, and were designed to feed into a continuing process, but with no prior allocation of responsibilities after project funding B: The measures designed to move towards intermediate states have started and have produced results, which give no indication that they can progress towards the intended long impact. A: The project’s intended outcomes were delivered, and were designed to feed into a continuing process, with specific allocation of responsibilities after project funding. A: The measures designed to move towards intermediate states have started and have produced results, which clearly indicate that they can progress towards the intended long term impact. Thus a project will end up with a two letter rating e.g. AB, CD, BB etc. In addition the rating is given a ‘+’ notation if there is evidence of impacts accruing within the life of the project. The possible rating permutations are then translated onto the usual six point rating scale used in all UNEP project evaluations in the following way. Table 2. Shows how the ratings for ‘achievement of outcomes’ and ‘progress towards intermediate states translate to ratings for the ‘Overall likelihood of impact achievement’ on a six point scale. Highly Likely Likely Moderately Likely Moderately Unlikely Unlikely Highly Unlikely AA AB BA CA BB+ CB+ DA+ DB+ BB CB DA DB AC+ BC+ AC BC CC+ DC+ CC DC AD+ BD+ AD BD CD+ DD+ CD DD In addition, projects that achieve documented changes in environmental status during the project’s lifetime receive a positive impact rating, indicated by a “+”. The overall likelihood of achieving impacts is shown in Table 11 below (a + score above moves the double letter rating up one space in the 6-point scale). The ROtI method provides a basis for comparisons across projects through application of a rating system that can indicate the expected impact. However it should be noted that whilst this will provide a relative scoring for all projects assessed, it does not imply that the results from projects can necessarily be aggregated. Nevertheless, since the approach yields greater clarity in the ‘results metrics’ for a project, opportunities where aggregation of project results might be possible can more readily be identified. Results rating of project entitled: Rating (D – A) Rating (D – A) Rating (+) Overall
3449_2013_TE_UNEP_GLOBAL_MFA_FSP_Carbon_Benefits.docx