By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read our privacy policy

Consultant for the Development of Baselines of GHG Emissions and Climate Resilience of Accredited Entities’ Portfolio of Activities

  • Organization: GCF - Green Climate Fund
  • Location:
  • Grade: Consultancy - International Consultant - Internationally recruited Contractors Agreement
  • Occupational Groups:
    • Environment
    • Meteorology, Geology and Geography
    • Climate Change
  • Closing Date: Closed

Consultant for the Development of Baselines of GHG Emissions and Climate Resilience of Accredited Entities’ Portfolio of Activities Remote

The Green Climate Fund (“GCF”) is a new multilateral fund created to make a significant andambitious contribution to the global efforts towards attaining the goals set by the international community to combat climate change.

GCF will contribute to the achievement of the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the context of sustainable development, GCF will promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways by providing support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, taking into account the needs of those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

GCF is governed by a Board, composed of an equal representation of developed and developing countries. The Fund is operated by an independent Secretariat headed by an Executive Director. GCF will pursue a country-driven approach in its operations.

The Secretariat of the Fund seeks to recruit an Individual Consultant for the development of baselines of GHG emissions and climate resilience of accredited entities’ portfolio of activities. The consultancy assignment will be based remotely for a 3-month period.

I. Background

1. In decision B.11/10, the GCF Board adopted the monitoring and accountability framework for accredited entities. Paragraph 35 of annex I to the decision states:

“In accordance with decision B.10/06, paragraph (j), to advance the goal of the GCF to promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways in the context of sustainable development, the re-accreditation decision by the Board will take into account the Secretariat and Accreditation Panel’s assessment of the extent to which the accredited entity’s overall portfolio of activities beyond those funded by the GCF has evolved in this direction during the accreditation period.”

2. In decision B.14/08, paragraph (g), at the Board’s request the Accreditation Panel (“AP”) presented a report at the fifteenth meeting of the Board on progress made towards establishing a baseline for the whole portfolio of accredited entities (“AEs”) in accordance with decision B.12/30. The work required should assess and evaluate over time two related attributes of the overall portfolio of an AE and any other entity accredited in the future:

(a) The greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions directly associated with the assets on its balance sheet, not just those that have attracted GCF finance, on the one hand; and

(b) The resilience to the climate change that those assets are expected to be exposed to, on the other.3. The assessment should aim to demonstrate the contribution of each accredited entity (AE) towards low-emission and climate-resilient development. The assessment should be done in such a way that the indicators could be aggregated across AEs.

II.ProposedMethodology

The AP proposes the following methodology:

2.1 Mitigation

4. An AE is expected to contribute to the mitigation of climate change by among other things reducing its carbon footprint over time related to the activities that it finances. All activities expected to result in GHG emissions, during both the period of investment in an asset as well as during operations of that asset should be included in the emissions calculations. In terms of emissions reduction, the calculations should be based on the methodologies currently regarded as the best industry practice for GHG accounting, including those of the GHG Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism methodology, the Verified Carbon Standard, the Gold Standard, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and ISO 14064 (Parts 1 and 2). It is proposed the calculations are measured in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, per year, per USD 1,000 of asset value.

5. There are a number of conceptual issues that would need to be resolved in such an approach. For example, the calculation might be carried out over alternative time periods, e.g., full life cycle, the investment and operating periods together or the investment period only. In turn, the calculation might be made in absolute terms or relative to the most likely alternative investment or another comparator, using an appropriate counter-factual or a baseline. There are advantages and disadvantages to using these alternative methods, including in relation to the ease of calculation and the validity of the findings, which would need to be weighed up before reaching a final decision on which approach to adopt.

6. Instead of developing a specific measure of the GHG emissions related to an entity's investment portfolio - which could be time consuming, might require additional specialist skills to undertake, and possibly would produce debatable results - it might be preferable to focus on the climate characteristics of the portfolio in more general terms, such as the per cent of mitigation projects by value, given agreed definitions for a climate investment. Such an alternative would be easier to calculate, but arguably it does not provide the same degree of meaningfulness and robustness as a methodology based on GHG emissions estimates. The baseline exercise might be initiated with a classification approach, and GHG calculations might follow later once such an approach has been discussed, elaborated and tested. 2.2 Adaptation

7. The projects and programs of some AEs are expected to contribute to the adaptation to climate change that inevitably will occur by financing investments that contribute to the resilience of existing assets (e.g. higher sea defenses against storm surges and sea level rise) and/or that build in resilience to new assets (e.g. farming systems that incorporate water harvesting or drip irrigation technologies). Measuring portfolio performance in this respect does not lend itself to a quantitative, verifiable approach to the same degree as for mitigation.

8. For practical purposes, it is suggested that the following two considerations might be assessed at the time of accreditation and monitored over time to give an indication of AE performance in respect

of adaptation:(a) The first would focus on the process, and address the question whether and to what extent (depth and scope) the AE assesses vulnerability of its assets to climate change in terms of both design and operational practices; and

(b) The second would focus on the extent to which the AE invests in climate-resilient projects in their own right. The latter calculation might be limited to the incremental costs of incorporating adaptation considerations into the investment decision. In this case, a value of assets from such perspectives could be estimated from one period to another to give a quantifiable indicator of performance over time.

III. Objective

9. The overall objective of this exercise in accordance with the monitoring and accountability framework, is for the GCF to assess the extent to which an AE’s overall portfolio of activities, including those funded by the GCF, has evolved in the respects above during the accreditation period (five-year period), to be taken into account by the GCF Secretariat and Accreditation Panel during re- accreditation.

10. This subject has been dealt with by the multilateral development banks among others as part of their harmonization process, which can be of much value to the exercise at hand. Other organizations have done work in this area, and this work should also be reviewed.

11. The preferred methodology should be assessed against, among other things, meaningfulness, understandability and ease of application, and in relation to the Mission and objectives of the GCF and the current and likely future portfolio of GCF AEs. Initially, it should probably be applied on an interim (one year) pilot testing basis.

IV. Terms of Reference for Consultant

4.1 Specific Terms of Reference

12. The AP proposes to seek the assistance of one or more external Consultant (individual or named member(s) of a corporate) to carry out the following tasks, in stages:

Stage 1

might be applied by the GCF for the purposes described above, based on an informed

documented review of current good practices (20 days);

(b) Recommend with reasoned opinion a preferred methodology for adoption by the GCF based on one or a number of the evaluated alternatives, giving examples of a sample of mitigation and adaptation projects to illustrate how the methodology would be applied, and estimating the costs to the Accredited Entities of establishing and reporting on the baselines using the recommended methodology(ies) (5 days).

Stage 2

(a) Help the GCF Secretariat prepare and organize a baseline workshop to discuss the findings and recommendations of Stage 1, and related matters, including implementation modalities, with participation of inter alia members of the GCF Board, the Accreditation Panel, Accredited Entities and the GCF Secretariat, and invited experts and interested third parties (e.g. from civil society) (5 days).(b) Make a presentation to the workshop related to the tasks undertaken during Stage 1, as well as prepare a workshop report detailing the proceedings, findings and conclusions of the said event (5 days).

Stage 3

(a) Assist the GCF Secretariat with the preparation, monitoring and recording of an online targeted public consultation with the aim to solicit feedback from AEs and other relevant external

stakeholders on the proposed methodology and related implementation modalities (5 Days).

(b) Prepare a final report describing the preferred baseline methodology as well as a set of implementation modalities, bearing in mind the discussions and findings of the workshop along with the public consultation (5 Days).

4.2 Qualifications

13. The person(s) should be a post graduate - with knowledge and expertise in one or a number of the fields of Engineering, the Environment, Natural Resource Management, Environmental Economics and Energy - with the following competencies and experience gained in an international climate policy/finance environment:

(a) Minimum 15 years of relevant experience with at least 5 years in management of projects in the field of mitigation of and adaption to climate change, for example related to NAMAS, LEDS and CDM;

(b) Sound theoretical and practical knowledge of both greenhouse gas accounting and alternative approaches to adaptation;

(c) Strong knowledge of government policies and strategies regarding climate change and in particular on GHG emissions and climate resiliency;

(d) Strong understanding about global and national climate change and environmental issues; (e) Demonstrated effective management skills, good coordination ability and team working spirit; (f) Good organizational skills, with strong experience in organizing and facilitating meetings, workshops and writing reports;

(g) Good interpersonal/communication skills;

(h) Good oral and written communication skills in English;

(i) Experience in computer-based management systems, especially programs such as Word, Excel and Power Point.

4.3 Duration of the Consultancy

14. A maximum of 50 Working Days (with 5 days kept in reserve) over a period of 3 calendar months (see proposed breakdown in 4.1 above)

4.4 Deliverables

15. A draft report documenting in detail alternative methodologies for the GHG accounting for mitigation and incorporating climate resiliency for adaptation projects and a preferred option with examples of a sample of mitigation and adaptation projects to illustrate how the methodologies would be applied (Stage 1).

16. Reports on the Stakeholder Workshop and the Public Consultation (Stage 2 and Stage 3 (a)), respectively.17. The Final Report (Stage 3 (b)).

4.4 OtherConsiderations

18. The chosen Consultant will report to the Chair of the AP and will be required to inform in a timely and appropriate way as well as consult as necessary the Chair of the AP. The Secretariat will provide necessary administrative support to the Consultant, as well as lead in regard to the tasks described in Stage 2 (a) and Stage 3 (a) above.

19. The possibility exists that the Consultant will be invited to assist in follow up work under a separate consultancy, if required, related to the implementation stage of the baseline exercise. Applications fromwomen and nationals of developing countries are strongly encouraged.

Interestedcandidates,are requiredtosendanemailattaching theirCVanda letterof interest ina

singlefile to: roster@gcfund.org

File name: “[last name], [first name]” (e.g. Peterson, Anna)

Subject line: “BaselineConsultant”

Please indicateyourearliestavailability totake up theassignment,andtherequirednotice-periodif employed.

Closing date for applications is 4 July 2017 (KST). Applications submitted after the closing date may not be considered.

Upon submission of your application, youwill receive an automatic e-mail acknowledging receipt of your application. Should you not receive a response, however, please check your spam/clutter mail before resubmittingyour application. Please also ensure to use the correct spelling for the subject line of your e-mail. Thank you.

This vacancy is now closed.
However, we have found similar vacancies for you: