Nordic Capacity-Building Support to LDCs and SIDS for the Implementation of the Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement

Developing countries often lack the technical capacity, tools and robust institutional frameworks to enable regular reporting on the implementation progress of the Paris Agreement. Reporting is cru ...

Countries are required to submit the NC and Biennial Update Reports (BUR), including NIR, in the period up to 2024 when the ETF enters into force. Submitting BURs will no longer be required once the ETF enters into force. In the period up to 2024, countries will be able to submit their last BUR in a consolidated report with their first BTR, applying the MPGs for the ETF. All countries will continue submitting the NC every four years and will be able to do so in a consolidated report with the BTR, the years they coincide.
The BTR will undergo a Technical Expert Review (TER) process consisting of: • A review of the consistency of information, • Consideration of the Party's implementation and achievement of its NDC, • Consideration of the Party's support provided (for developed countries), • Identification of areas for improvement on transparency, and • Assistance in identifying capacity-building needs for countries that require it.
The TER will be followed by the Facilitative, Multilateral Consideration of Progress (FMCP) between parties, and will consider: • Information in the NIR, • Information to track progress in implementing and achieving the NDC, • Information on transparency-related support provided to developing countries (for developed countries), and • Information on support needed and received.
The Global Stocktake (GST) takes place every five years, starting from 2023, in parallel with the process of raising ambition of NDC submissions, which also takes place every five years, starting from 2020. The GST is meant to periodically take stock of the implementation of the PA, assess the collective progress towards achieving the goals of the PA, and, through its outcome, inform Parties' preparation of future NDCs. In addition to the ETF, Parties are also invited, by the end of 2020, to communicate long-term strategies (LTS), defining the countries' mid-century, longterm low greenhouse gas (GHG) emission development strategies.

Requirements of developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDS, to implement the ETF
For developing countries, including LDCs and SIDS, the MPGs will enter into force with the submission of a Party's last BUR, or by the end of 2024 at the latest. All countries are guided by the same set of MPGs. However, flexibility is provided to those developing country Parties that need it, due to their capacities.
Recognizing the special circumstances, LDCs and SIDS have discretion in terms of submitting their BTR. This allows Parties that need it to provide less information than otherwise required by the MPGs. However, this cannot be applied to all categories of the information requested. When flexibility is allowed, the country will have to explain why and how it has applied flexibility, and to identify the capacity constraints that justified the use of flexibility. Furthermore, the country must report and follow up on the areas where improvement is needed, provide information on progress made and a timeframe showing how the country plans to meet the full requirements.
Thus, the flexibility accommodates countries with transparency-related capacity constraints, but also provides a process that allows countries to continuously improve over time, with an expectation that support for ETF implementation will be provided by developed countries.
In addition to the flexibility provision, in some cases the MPGs request information as "should", "may" or "encouraged to report" formulations. In all cases other than "shall" requirements, information can be omitted without needing to apply the flexibility provision. Appendix 1 provides a list of information to be reported in the BTR, where flexibility can be applied.
For LDCs and SIDS, specifically, reporting information on progress and updates on implementation presents an opportunity to highlight both mitigation and adaptation efforts, while also highlighting challenges and further support needs. This information can serve to attract financial, technology and capacity-building support to overcome the identified challenges, and offers a vehicle for LDCs and SIDS to attract international support to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The MPGs for the ETF should, therefore, not only be regarded as additional reporting requirements, but also as an opportunity for LDCs and SIDS. Applying the MPGs will allow LDCs and SIDS to strengthen national Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) processes, thus allowing for enhanced capacities to identify, prioritize, plan, execute and communicate national mitigation and adaptation policies and measures, and communicate the support needed and received for their implementation. In this context, the expected and ongoing support for transparency by the international community and the Nordic countries can have wider, significant impacts beyond improving the information provided to the UNFCCC.

Overview of the main international support initiatives to implement the ETF
Information about the main international support initiatives to developing countries, including LDCs and SIDS, has been sourced from the 'MRV Group of Friends' database 1 of ongoing support initiatives for monitoring, reporting, verification (MRV) and transparency, as well as the websites of the individual initiatives. The Group is informally coordinated by the UNFCCC Secretariat and includes about 14 international institutions and countries, including UNEP DTU Partnership. An overview of the main support initiatives, and the period over which they are implemented, is provided below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Timeline for implementation of the main international support initiatives
Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019. A description of the initiatives is provided in Table 2 Support provided by the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) and the Partnership on Transparency in the Paris Agreement (PATPA) is on going and will expand into the future. Other 1.
The database is not available to the general public, but accessible to the MRV Group of Friends members.
13 initiatives, such as the MRV Program by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) and the MRV Hub for the Caribbean are time-limited. The Initiative for Climate Action Transparency (ICAT), now in its second phase, will finish in 2021, with potential expansion and continuation. The Enabling Activities for NCs, BURs and BTRs supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) will continue also after 2024, as GEF supports all mandatory reporting under the UNFCCC. The size of future funding for the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) is currently undetermined. The allocation for CBIT under the GEF-7 cycle of USD 55 million is exhausted and has been fully committed to CBIT projects. The Global Support Programme (GSP) for NCs and BURs by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) will finish in 2020, but will transfer into a new GEF-funded programme and will merge with the CBIT Global Coordination Platform (GCP). 2 Further information about which LDCs and SIDS are supported by the initiatives is provided in Appendix 2. Analysis of the data in Appendix 2 gives an overview of the number of all support activities (both project-type and workshop-type) to all LDCs and SIDS, which can be seen in Figure 4 below. By ranking the international support initiatives according to the number of countries supported, an overview can be seen of the geographical outreach and size of the initiatives, as shown in Table 1. For ease of reading, workshop-type support initiatives are in bold font, while project-type support initiatives are in italic font.

2.
The CBIT Global Coordination Platform is a website that hosts all CBIT projects globally. Its aim is to enable coordination among countries and agencies, and facilitate knowledge sharing and peer learning. The platform can be accessed via https://www.cbitplatform.org/ A short description of the overall and specific aims of each initiative is provided in Table 2 below. The aim of ICAT is to strengthen MRV systems in a country-driven manner, particularly with respect to reporting on NDC implementation to foster greater transparency, effectiveness, ambition and trust.
ICAT provides a methodological toolbox for impact assessment, capacity building and knowledge sharing to more than 30 developing countries, and covers both mitigation and adaptation.
Caribbean Cooperative MRV Hub (CCMRVH) The Caribbean Cooperative MRV Hub ("MRV Hub") is a new regional institution designed to support Member Countries in their efforts to improve MRV systems, build Paris Agreement reporting capabilities, and enhance their domestic evidence-based policymaking.
UNEP/UNDP Global Support The GSP provides support to non-Annex I Parties in order to prepare NCs and BURs that are submitted to the UNFCCC. Further, the GSP works with key counterparts to provide technical guidance and assistance for the development of the NCs and BURs, as well as in the identification of priority areas of support for the implementation of NDCs.
Partnership on Transparency in the Paris Agreement (PATPA) PATPA promotes practical exchange and political dialogue between countries for enhanced transparency. By bringing together climate experts from a variety of countries, the Partnership aims to strengthen transparency, communication, networking and trust between countries; build capacity and foster a mutual learning process within regions and among practitioners around the globe and identify and disseminate best practices and lessons learned.

GEF Enabling Activities
The GEF provides resources to non-Annex I countries to prepare NCs and BURs to comply with Convention obligations in line with COP guidance, including transparency.
Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) MRV Program GGGI's MRV program aims to support countries in establishing robust MRV systems in line with national development strategies.
Consultative Group of Experts The aim of the CGE is to assist developing country Parties to fulfil their reporting requirements under the convention, and the implementation of the ETF of the PA.

Source: Own analysis by consortium based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives
Each of the international support initiatives are described in further detail in Appendix 3 with regard to: 1) Funding, i.e. the size of support available to countries; 2) Implementing partners; 3) Participation in the sense of access to international support from a country perspective; 4) A list of all developing countries participating in each initiative --also non LDCs and SIDS; 5) Results so far and planned future activities (where information is available).

Types of capacity-building activities for MRV/transparency by the main initiatives
To further describe the types of capacity-building activities provided, the initiatives are described with regard to their mode of work. Overall, two modes of capacity-building support are the most widely used: 1) project-type support and 2) workshop-type support. Project-type support is understood as in-country multi-year support activities that include, among others, comprehensive capacity-building activities, technical support, and the funding of full-time positions in the countries. Project-type support is provided by CBIT, GGGI MRV Program, GEF Enabling Activities and ICAT. Project support range from USD 1.3 million per project implemented over a 1-2 year period by CBIT 3 , to smaller projects of about USD 250,000 per project implemented over a 1-3 year period by ICAT. Workshop-type support is understood as the provision of workshops and trainings and the facilitation of dialogue and cooperation. These activities are often 'on-off' or annual activities such as regional workshops provided by PATPA once or twice a year. Workshops/training/dialogues typically reach out to multiple countries per event, such as regional workshops, training events including webinars and sharing of knowledge resources. Workshop-type support is provided by the CGE, GSP, MRV Hub for the Caribbean, and PATPA.
Due to the length and depth of assistance provided through project-type support activities, the 3.
The average funding of all CBIT projects is USD 1,276,788. The average funding of CBIT projects in LDCs is slightly lower at USD 1,164,807, while the average funding of CBIT projects in SIDS is even lower at USD 1,066,056 (based on own analysis using data from the GEF projects database, as of 20 November 2019).
technical and institutional capacities built are likely higher than those through annual workshops or trainings. This is especially the case for the support provided by the GEF Enabling Activities, as countries are supported for the preparation of consecutive NCs and BURs over many years. With regard to project support, Figure 5 provides an overview of the number of countries supported by projects. Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019 As Figure 5 shows, 1 country is supported by 4 projects (Ethiopia), 6 countries are supported by 3 projects, 25 countries are supported by 2 projects, 45 countries are supported by 1 project and 1 country is not supported (Singapore). Countries supported by 1 project have received support from the GEF Enabling Activities. Appendix 2 provides further information on which countries receive how much support from which initiatives.
A ranking of which LDCs and SIDS receive the most and least support through projects is shown in Table 3. Republic, Rwanda and Uganda receive support from three projects for capacity building to implement the ETF. The remaining 70 LDCs and SIDS receive support from one or two projects.
Appendix 2 provides further detail on which international initiatives support which countries.
With regard to the mode of support through workshops/training/dialogues, Figure 6 shows the number of countries supported by the initiatives CGE, GSP, PATPA and the MRV Hub for the Caribbean. Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019 Figure 7 shows the number of workshop-type support activities provided to LDCs and SIDS (both as one group, blue in colour, and as separate groups, orange and grey The following section identifies global and regional initiatives supporting LDCs and SIDS, where the Nordic countries are active. These initiatives can be used as vehicles to support thematic transparency-related capacity-building support.

Overview of global and regional initiatives supported by the Nordic countries
The Nordic countries are deeply involved in global and regional initiatives. The nature of these initiatives is diverse and covers, for example, research, training, promotion, political support and implementation of MRV of the PA. Below is a presentation of initiatives that could be relevant for implementation of the ETF. A takeaway point from Table 4 is that if a program already covers climate change training, it could integrate the ETF as a component, if relevant.
The overview in Table 4 is not exhaustive, and is based on information provided by the Nordic countries on relevant global and regional initiatives. It lists some of the most important initiatives potentially relevant to ETF activities. All the initiatives cover at least one LDC or SIDS.
The overview also includes a short description, ideas for ETF action, and a link to the homepage for further information. ETF: Although not directly related to the ETF, the creation of emission scenarios is a central aspect of transparency and something that could contribute to the enhancement of countries' NDC scenarios and targets.

Biofuture Platform
Description: This initiative aims to be an action-oriented, country-led, multi-stakeholder mechanism for policy dialogue and collaboration among leading countries, organizations, academia and the private sector. It is conscious of the need to accelerate development and scale up deployment of modern, sustainable low-carbon alternatives to fossil-based solutions in transport, chemicals, plastics and other sectors.
ETF: Although not directly related to the ETF, use of biofuels in the transport sector is complex and often transboundary. Therefore, it can be an advantage to look at the ETF through this initiative.

Clean Cooking Alliance
Description: The Clean Cooking Alliance works with a global network of partners to build an inclusive industry that makes clean cooking accessible to the three billion people who live without it.
ETF: Although not directly related to the ETF, clean cooking has been a priority for most LDCs and SIDS, and the initiative has the potential to spread the ETF in a cost-effective way to many countries with the same circumstances.

Danish Energy Partnership Programme
Description: The Danish Energy Agency cooperates with several governments in order to contribute to their reduction of carbon emissions and assist in their energy transition to becoming a low-carbon economy. In Ethiopia the focus is the wind sector.
ETF: Although not directly related to the ETF, it is possible to link the wind sector initiative with an ETF effort in the renewable energy sector.
Link: Danish Energy Partnership Programme (DEPP)

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (ABC)
Description: The Global ABC's key goals include raising ambitions to meet the Paris climate goals. While the sector is a major emitter, it also holds huge potential for improvement. Work is being put into raising the level of ambition in retrofitting existing buildings and future-proofing the investments that will go into new buildings over the next 15 years. At COP25 the initiative also focused on the aspects of NDC.
EFT: The mix between the public and private sectors in this initiative could be a strong vehicle for ETF activities.

Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative
Description: Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) aims at supporting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+).
ETF: Monitoring is a key element in REDD+ and, therefore, could be an effective way to enhance ETF through this initiative.
Link: Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative

P4G -Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030
Description: P4G -Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030 -is a new initiative, commenced in 2018, with the ambition of becoming the world's leading forum for developing concrete public-private partnerships at scale to deliver on the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement.
ETF: P4G is supporting specific large projects and should be explored to determine whether the ETF could be an integrated part of each approved project, for instance in Ethiopia.
Link: P4G -Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030

Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate -A global capacity building programme
Description: The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has, in close collaboration with several Swedish agencies as well as national and international organisations, developed a capacity-building programme addressing the challenges of climate change and unsustainable urbanisation. The programme is funded by SIDA and will run for an initial 4-year period (2019 -2022).
ETF: The programme will support the development of robust transparency systems (MRV) under the Paris Agreement, and processes for inclusive and sustainable urban planning. The ETF should be an integrated part of the MRV system, and therefore explore whether all aspects of the ETF are integrated.
Link: Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate -A global capacity building programme.

The "4 per 1000" Initiative
Description: The aim of the initiative is to demonstrate that agriculture, and in particular agricultural soils, can play a crucial role where food security and climate change are concerned.
ETF: The initiative could be a vehicle for transparency-related capacity building in the Agriculture sector.

The advanced international training programme Climate Change -Mitigation and Adaptation
Description: The programme is designed for decision makers in developing countries who hold positions in their home organisation with a mandate to initiate change on the local to national level.
ETF: It is recommended to explore whether the ETF can be part of the training programme, as it could be costeffective.
Link: The advanced international training programme Climate Change

The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases
Description: The Global Research Alliance is focused on research, development and extension of technologies and practices that help deliver ways to grow more food (and more climate-resilient food systems) without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the initiative, potential mitigation research is done.
ETF: Although not directly related to the ETF, the research can be a useful input when setting up the ETF.

Link: The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases
Source: Own analysis based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives, and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019 Global and regional initiatives can be a platform for developing ETF activities in a cost-effective manner, as they cover multiple countries and more stakeholders for the same activities. The initiatives have the potential for a smooth transfer of knowledge between countries, including the LDCs and SIDS in the above-mentioned initiatives. For example, the "Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction" initiative can potentially prepare MRV tools and guidelines for the building sector. The tools and guidelines should be prepared so the private sector, such as equipment suppliers and contractors, could use them when implementing solutions in the countries and also as an integrated part of the training and marketing they are performing.
Using the initiative promotes the developed material easier, which can be used by more stakeholders under the initiative, potentially resulting in a very high outreach. The initiative, if supported with expertise in the ETF, can also contribute to the detailed set-up and operation of the ETF in a country and the practical implementation of the MPGs. If it is done through one of the above-noted initiatives it can be smoothly transferred and implemented in the selected LDCs and SIDS.
An overview of the Nordic countries' support to these initiatives is provided in Table 5. For each initiative, the participating LDCs and SIDS and the Nordic countries supporting the initiative are indicated. The notion of 'support' covers both political and financial support. Source: Own analysis based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives, and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019 Most initiatives cover several LDCs/SIDS, while a few cover only one LDC. Ethiopia is a high priority country and is involved in most initiatives. Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda and DR Congo are members and/or partner countries in at least three of the initiatives, each.

Overview of bilateral initiatives to LDCs and SIDS supported by the Nordic countries
The overview of bilateral initiatives to LDCs and SIDS focuses exclusively on public climate financing. This section aims to identify countries where the Nordic countries have established strong working relations, indicating that the LDCs and SIDS in question are priority countries with systems in place that can absorb capacity-building support. It is assumed that there is a higher probability of effective implementation of capacity-building support due to existing contacts, ongoing work and co-operation.
Sources of data for the analysis come from three sources: • OECD development finance statistics capture an integrated picture of both bilateral and multilateral climate-related external development finance. Both adaptation and mitigation projects are covered as part of the climate-related activities. Data from the three sources is overlapping, as they report the same activities. ODA is an important part of the OECD reporting and is therefore used to make an overview of the projects covering climate financing for LDCs and SIDS, covering the period 2012-2017. Table 6, below, presents all the LDCs and SIDS that Nordic countries have provided climaterelated ODA support to. 5 Appendix 5 provides a more detailed breakdown of the support, which shows how many climate-related projects each Nordic country has in each LDC and SIDS.   Source: Own analysis based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives Table 6 shows that 5 LDCs and SIDS (green colour) have been supported by more than 100 climate-related projects from the Nordic countries; 24 LDCs and SIDS have benefitted from support from 11 to 100 climate-related projects (blue colour) and 20 LDCs and SIDS has been supported from 1 to 10 climate-related projects (yellow colour). Lastly, 29 LDCs and SIDS have not received climate-related support (red).
Looking through the list of 1,959 projects reported to the OECD, very limited attention has been given to the ETF. The main international support initiatives to the ETF are presented in Chapter In summary, the Nordic countries have prioritised few and nearly the same countries for climaterelated support. A detailed breakdown of number of projects in each LDC/SIDS country for each of the five Nordic countries is presented in Annex 5.

LDCS AND SIDS TARGET COUNTRIES FOR NORDIC CB SUPPORT TO TRANSPARENCY
This chapter builds on the findings of Chapters 2 and 3 to identify potential target countries (LDCs and SIDS) for Nordic CB support to transparency, based on a set of explicit criteria.
Country identification also served to reach out to target countries to schedule interviews during COP25 in Madrid, to inform the analysis of gaps and provide recommendations for Nordic transparency-related capacity-building efforts.

Ranking of LDCs and SIDS according to international project support and Nordic support received
To start narrowing down potential target countries for Nordic CB support, the LDCs and SIDS where the Nordic countries have been most active through climate change-related ODA projects (Table 6) and where the least support for transparency is provided by the international initiatives ( Results of the analysis are presented in the following figures. The figures rank LDCs and SIDS that have received the least support from international CB initiatives for transparency, according to the number of support projects from Nordic countries. All LDCs and SIDS listed have received support from GEF Enabling activities. Figure 9 ranks the countries that have received the least transparency-related support (only one project-type support 6 ). Figure 10 ranks the countries that have received two transparency-related project-type support activities, while Figure 11 ranks the countries that have received three (one country has received four) transparency project-type support projects. Countries with no Nordic support are excluded from the figures. The countries colour coded 'orange' in the figures represent those with less than 10 Nordic support provisions, while countries coloured 'green' have received more than 10 support provisions. 6. Note that support from international initiatives to workshops/training/dialogue is not included in the analysis of CB needs by LDCs and SIDS countries. The workshop-type support typically targets multiple countries to attend regional or global events. As this modality of CB support is not tailored to country specific needs but rather focuses on generic, ETF technical issues and knowledge sharing among many countries, it is not included in this analysis.  The fading of the colour of the green and orange bars over the three graphs illustrates an increasing number of project-type support received by international transparency initiatives. This represents the declining prioritization of potential countries for further CB support by Nordic countries. Ethiopia, the only country receiving four transparency project-type support, has the faintest colour coding.
Assuming that the Nordic countries intend to further support countries with established relationships and prioritize LDCs and SIDS, which have received the least or medium support from international support initiatives (one or two projects only, see Figures

Examples of country-specific challenges and needs
The following section includes identified transparency needs and gaps from the countries selected according to criteria presented in Annex 7. The information is sourced from a review of the latest NCs and interviews during COP25 in Madrid. Remote interviews have been attempted with the two countries that were not reached during COP, however they did not respond after 29 COP either and are therefore left out. The information included in the NCs predates the ETF and MPG, and tends to be focused on the needs related to GHG inventories, while the interviews provide more insights on the broader aspects of transparency support needed.
The interviews were designed to capture the following information: • Key priorities -and the gaps to meet these -for MRV/transparency in relation to the ETF requirements; • Key challenges to meet the ETF requirements; • Type of CB support most needed to implement the ETF; • Mode of CB support deemed as most effective; • Preference of partners with which to build capacity for implementing the ETF; • Other information or issues regarding the CB needs to implement the ETF.

NEPAL:
Nepal's NDC lists the following mitigation targets: country is just at the beginning of establishing MRV/transparency systems for the three tiers of government: federal, provincial, and local. One main challenge will lie in collecting data for all tiers in a coordinated manner. The new climate policy has identified several core areas for climate reporting --including gender, research and technology, finance. These are cross-cutting areas, which require review and access to the necessary information to make the society climate-resilient. As climate resilience is a priority, adaptation communication is also a priority for Nepal. Another priority is research targeting the younger generation, which promotes development of skills for CC and transparency. In terms of preferred modes of support, longerterm projects are most helpful to building capacities. It is necessary to first identify the needs at the local level and for the communities, although workshops and research can also be helpful. In terms of preferred partners for support delivery, inputs from universities and collaboration with private sector are highlighted. All collaborations should be coordinated by the government to work with various partners by setting up a Committee for partnerships and collaborations, including universities, civil society, etc.
The following list specifies gaps and barriers identified through interviews held during COP25: • Lack of research and baseline information for forestry and land-use for the third NC; • Limited information available for the industrial sector; • The following transparency-related challenges and gaps are identified through a review of Zambia's latest NC: • Lack of a Quality Assurance/Quality control (QA/QC) system in place to ensure routine and consistent checks required for data integrity, correctness and completeness from different data sources; • Lack of harmonization between Zambia's energy balance reporting classification with that of the UNFCCC; • Lack of reliable biomass activity data and appropriate emission factors for biomass combustion and charcoal production; • Lack of reliable activity data for determination of GHG emissions for HFCs and SF6 under industrial processes for the following activities: road paving with asphalt, pulp and paper production, food and beverages, refrigeration and air conditioning, and consumption of SF6 in electrical equipment (transformers); • Lack of assessment of uncertainties and absence of QA/QC system, and use of default emission factors for the Agriculture sector, unreliable activity data for animal waste management, agricultural soils, and burning of agriculture crops; • Lack of assessment of uncertainties and absence of QA/QC system, and use of default emission factors and unreliable activity data for the LULUCF sector; • Lack of complete activity data on solid waste management and wastewater flow from all utilities and industries, pit latrines and incineration.
In general, studies need to be undertaken to improve on the activity data and/or emission factors for the following sectors: Agriculture, LULUCF, Industrial Processes and Waste. General support for all UNFCCC-related reporting and the setting up of a permanent national MRV system is needed. The priority is to build up a robust and sustainable system for reporting, which will require the Ministries, Research Institutes and Universities to be boosted in the number of employees, and their respective staff to receive training. Zambia would like to boost expertise in the five inventory sectors: Energy, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, Land Use Change and Forestry, and Waste. However, they need support from international experts in order to perform training for these five sectors. Support from international experts will also be needed to set up the national MRV system.

Identification of potential countries for targeted transparency-related support by the Nordic countries
The following analysis provides an expanded selection of potential countries for targeted transparency support by the Nordic countries. In this analysis, countries that have received ICAT and GGGI MRV support are included. ICAT and GGGI MRV project support is limited in scope and budget per country (EURO 250.000 per country for ICAT), compared to CBIT funding (up to USD 2 million per country for medium-sized projects). Therefore, there still might be a need for transparency-related capacity-building support in the countries, where these initiatives are ongoing or finalized. By contrast, CBIT provides comprehensive country support, and therefore it is assumed that it will cover most of the needed capacity enhancement priorities in targeted countries. In addition, the terms of the assignment state that the analysis should consider countries or regions, where the Nordics have not yet been actively supporting aid work, so that the analysis also covers countries with no involvement or support from the Nordic countries.
Finally, as transparency on climate impacts and adaptation is also one of the reporting requirements under the PA (although not mandatory), the analysis includes the assessment of submitted National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) under the transparency capacity assessment.
The following selection criteria have been applied:

7.
To assess the size of GHG emissions, the analysis consulted the NDC factsheets provided by the Paris Equity Check: http://paris-equity-check.org/the-science.html 8. To assess the political stability and the ability to conduct in-country activities, the website of the Finnish Foreign Ministry was consulted on their travel advice to countries. Source: Own analysis Table 8 highlights, in green, the SIDS that comply with three or more of the selection criteria.
Dark green colour highlights countries that comply with the most criteria (four), while light green colour highlights countries that comply with three criteria.

GAPS AND NEEDS IN CB EFFORTS TO LDCS AND SIDS TO IMPLEMENT THE ETF
Challenges and gaps in capacity-building efforts vary between countries, due to their respective national circumstances, specific needs and priorities. Generally, capacity-building efforts under the UNFCCC can be divided into two main aspects (Dagnet et al., 2019): 1. Capacity building at the governance level aimed at improving the national institutional structures, mechanisms, procedures, policies and laws. 2. Capacity building to perform core technical functions for specific information requirements --e.g. gather, analyse and report specific information.
This division can also be applied to the case of capacity building for transparency. Capacity building is needed at the institutional level in order to develop governance systems to implement the ETF, and at the technical, human capacity level through training and knowledge-sharing to raise awareness of specific information available and develop skills --e.g. application of IPCC methodology to be able to report GHG inventories.
The identification of gaps and challenges depends on the perspective from which these are analysed. Taking an international transparency perspective, challenges and gaps can be framed around the ability to submit timely communications to the UNFCCC, the ability to use high IPCC tier level methodologies for GHG inventory, or the availability of data to respond to both shall and should reporting requirements in BTRs. From a country perspective, challenges and gaps are more related to the ability to assess the effectiveness of national policies, such as capacity to assess sustainable development impacts of climate policies, alignment with national development plans, and availability of priority sectors' activity data for improved planning. The LDC and SIDS needs and gaps to implement the ETF are mapped from both perspectives. The international perspective is mapped through the following approaches:

Analysis of CBIT support requests reflecting country needs and gaps for CB
Looking at CBIT funds to developing countries can provide some information on the transparency-related needs and priorities expressed. Figure 12, below, illustrates the percentage of specific types of CB activities included in approved CBIT projects. Looking beyond approved CBIT projects, and analysing LDCs and SIDS Project Identification Forms (PIF) submitted to the GEF for CBIT funding, a specific set of trends arise. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the number of outputs LDCs and SIDS have included in their PIFs, as it relates to a specific set of categories. The last five categories are aligned with the reporting inputs and aspects of the transparency framework, as illustrated in Figure 1, while the first four categories are cross-cutting. Out of the 11 9 analysed PIFs submitted by LDCs, most outputs sought were related to GHG inventory support, with a main focus on the procedural aspects of GHG inventory development. This is followed by outputs related to transparency of NDC actions, with the focus staying on the procedural aspects. Capacity-building support on stakeholder knowledge-transfer and institutional aspects of transparency appear to also be a relatively high priority. 9.  Looking at SIDS, the focus of the 5 10 analysed PIFs shifts and is much more centred around transparency support for NDC actions. Moreover, 7 outputs focus on support for procedural aspects, 5 on institutional aspects and capacity building, and 5 on support for procedural aspects of climate change impacts and adaptation. According to PATPA, LDCs and SIDS would highly benefit from basic training on GHG inventory, and SIDS' focus on NDC tracking might illustrate the difference in priorities between international UNFCCC reporting requirements and national priorities, as mentioned at the start of this chapter. In terms of sectoral representation, Agriculture and Land use/Forestry were again prioritized, followed by Energy (renewables and efficiency), Industrial Processes and Transport.

Self-assessment of 19 LDCs and SIDS capacity-building needs
The CBIT Global Coordination Platform's self-assessment tool is designed to help countries define the state of their national transparency systems and identify the corresponding gaps and needs, through guiding questions and complementary information collected directly from country representatives. It also enables countries to submit additional information on their priorities for capacity building.
The tool is made in the form of a questionnaire, covering the information that Parties to the Paris Agreement shall regularly provide, as defined in the enhanced transparency framework The self-assessment tool has previously been used by focal points of the CBIT projects, who are typically part of the team engaged in transparency and MRV work in the country (see Table 23 for  inventory within 57% and 89%, whereas the majority of SIDS is within 53% and 77%, and the majority of LDCs is within 57% and 73%. This can be seen in Figure 16, which shows the shape of the distribution of capacity levels to produce and report a GHG inventory, the variability  Figure 17 (left) shows that half of the LDC and SIDS countries in the sample have a capacity level on methodologies for GHG inventory between 44% and 64%, whereas the capacity level in half of other developing countries is within 48% and 81%. There is a more accentuated difference in the levels of capacity on data collection and management procedures for GHG inventory, as shown in Figure 17 (right). The capacity level on data collection and management procedures in the majority of the other developing countries is within 54% and 81%, whereas in the LDCs this level ranges between 21% and 73%, and in SIDS countries it is within 32% and 61%. Half of the LDCs have a capacity level on data collection and management procedures for GHG inventory below 43%, whereas in half of SIDS countries it is below 50%.  In general, countries' assessment of the capacity level to report information on the implementation and achievement of NDCs is lower than the capacity level to report on national GHG inventory. This is expected because the implementation of NDCs is supposed to start in 2020 and the first time countries will report about it will be in 2024. Conversely, all countries that used the self-assessment tool have gone through at least one round of reporting information on GHG inventory through a National Communication. Moreover, a significant number of countries have also submitted one Biennial Update Report.
The results of the self-assessment show that there is a less accentuated difference between LDCs and other developing countries in terms of their assessed levels of capacity for reporting information on NDC implementation, and that SIDS have lower levels of capacity than both LDCs and other developing countries. Figure 18 shows that the average level of capacity for reporting on NDC implementation range is 53% in other developing countries, 46% in LDCs, and 37% in SIDS. The difference is explained by the lower assessed capacity by SIDS in terms of institutional arrangements and methodologies for monitoring NDCs. All countries in the sample have significant gaps in terms of data collection and management procedures, where the average level of capacity is 28% for LDCs, 31% for SIDS, and 44% for other developing countries.  The experience of countries in reporting information about support needed and received is quite limited. As such, the capacity levels for reporting this kind of information are the lowest. On average, the capacity level is 34% for LDCs, 35% for other developing countries, and 43% for SIDS ( Figure 20). The SIDS consistently reported higher levels of capacity in all aspects related to the reporting of support, namely the institutional arrangements, the procedures for reporting support needed, and the procedures for reporting support received. In all countries, capacity gaps are slightly higher in procedures for reporting support needed than in support received. There are no significant differences in terms of capacity levels for institutional arrangements in the reporting of information about GHG inventory, tracking of NDCs, adaptation, and support needed and received. Overall, the average levels of capacity for this aspect range between 40% and 67%, which denotes the existence of capacity gaps, although there are larger capacity gaps in data collection and management procedures.

Synthesis of categories and types of gaps and needs
Summarizing the gaps and needs in capacity-building efforts to LDCs and SIDS to implement the ETF, there are some general observations that can be used to highlight general trends, and to guide formulation of recommendations for Nordic countries' transparency support. In general, there are very low capacities on data collection and management, procedures for reporting on NDC progress and achievement, and procedures for reporting support needed. SIDS also have limited reporting capacities on climate change impacts and adaptation, especially in terms of institutional arrangements, and data collection and management and procedures. Additionally, there appears to be a large gap for SIDS on methodologies for NDC progress and achievement.
In terms of priorities, LDCs seem to prioritise capacity building for GHG inventory improvements, followed by NDC progress and achievement, while SIDS seem to priorities building capacities in NDC progress and achievement, followed by climate change impacts and adaptation.

Source: Own analysis
The left column lists overall ETF reporting requirements. The second column lists CB needs areas based on the CBIT self-assessment tool. The third column identifies areas where capacities are lowest, based on the CBIT self-assessment tool, as discussed in section 5.3. The last column identifies priorities based on CBIT PIF outputs under the same categories as reporting inputs and aspects of the transparency framework, as presented in Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Expressed types of CB support needed by LDCs and SIDS
The CBIT PIF sample analysed, and the NDC priority sectors reveal some trends in terms of priority sectors for transparency-related support. This information might be relevant in the potential choice to utilize existing international and regional initiatives supported by the Nordic countries. Where some of these initiatives focus on specific sectors, these could be used as a channel for transparency-related CB in the given sector to participating LDCs and SIDS. This information is also useful in case the Nordic countries choose to deliver CB through bilateral programmes. Specific Nordic countries' capacities in the respective sectors could be utilized to deliver targeted transparency support through existing REDD+ capacities for forestry sector support or support transparency activities in the energy sector through capacities with LEAP, for example.
The sample of LDCs seem to prioritize, in particular, the Agriculture and Land Use Change and Forestry sectors, followed by Energy and Waste. The sample of SIDS also prioritize Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry. It should also be noted that NDC priorities, in general, tend to include the energy sector; therefore the CBIT PIF sample, in addition to identifying priority sectors, likely also illustrates where capacities lack. Some transparency capacities and data in the energy sector tend to be in place, compared to other sectors. 50

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NORDIC SUPPORT TO TRANSPARENCY
In this chapter, priority areas for capacity building for LDCs and SIDS to implement the ETF (identified in Chapter 5) are assessed, regarding how well they fit the international initiatives, programmes and Nordic support activities (as identified and described in Chapter 2). Through a scoring approach, the most suitable programmes/initiatives/support activities have been identified. To validate assessment results, the consultant had a dialogue with the representatives of the initiatives to clarify initial interest and views on the identified priority areas.

High priority areas for LDCs and SIDS
Based on the analyses in previous chapters, the following can be concluded. Specifically, the results from Chapter 5 led to the following conclusions: • The two ETF reporting components, 1) GHG Inventory (LDCs) and 2) NDC progress and achievement (LDCs and SIDS), have been identified as both highest priority and highest gap in knowledge. • The capacity-building needs cover 1) Institutional arrangements, 2) Methodologies, and 3) Data collection, management and procedures.
• Both LDCs and SIDS have Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry as highest sectoral priority.

Types of CB for transparency to be considered by Nordic stakeholders
CB support for transparency is split into three types, which can be structured as a menu of options or "work packages" to recipient countries, namely: 1. GHG Inventory 2. Reporting NDC progress and achievement

Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry
The following provides some general insights on the types of capacity-building support identified for each ETF reporting component, to be considered when designing a transparency support programme.

Institutional arrangements
Institutional arrangements should be formalized by establishing data-sharing protocols or

Data collection and management and procedures
When providing support for GHG inventory improvements, the establishment of national GHG inventory data management systems are central. The systems should also function as an archive and make accessible to the relevant stakeholders the background data and information, procedures and steps undertaken, assumptions made, and functions performed by key stakeholders (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). When providing data to the system, users should be enabled to document the steps in the data collection process to help maintain institutional memory and create a basis for a larger data depository (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). There is a need to improve the data collection system, storing of data and QA/QC procedures in LDCs and SIDS.

National Arrangements
The capacity-building support should aim to develop in-house expertise and arrangements to

Agriculture and land use change and forestry
The

54
Adaptation has attracted less attention for methodology development to enable good monitoring and reporting. Therefore, there is a need for further development of methodologies and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits and resilience to be part of systematic monitoring and reporting. The methodologies and processes for measuring and monitoring mitigation co-benefits of adaptation are relatively well defined under the UNFCCC national communications, national inventories, and biennial update reports compared to adaptation. Consequently, further development of methods and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits and resilience are recommended. As an example, carbon stock is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored within the ecosystem. It has a huge global impact and there is no agreed methodology. buying and selling of products. The forestry sector can also benefit from digital tools, especially to document more precisely the actual situation, which is important in the national reporting to the UNFCCC. In both the agricultural and forestry sectors in LDCs and SIDS, there is a need to improve the data collection system, data storing and QA/QC procedures. Table 12, below, presents how potential international support initiatives could be expanded to support the priority areas identified, based on the analyses in Chapter 5.

International transparency initiatives
For the priority areas Inventory; NDC progress and achievement; and Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry, the scoring is based on whether the topic has been included in the initiative. The initiatives are very different. For instance, one is a platform for exchange of information; another is built to facilitate potential grant support. The scoring is based on whether the initiative is suitable to administer funding used for capacity building in LDCs and SIDS. In the event that the Nordic countries would like to support an initiative, it is also important that they can influence how the funding is used. It is a sensitive parameter, as this can be interpreted differently. It is included in the scoring, as it is an attention point for potential future support.
The higher the score, the better the fit between the activities of the initiatives and the priority areas. High scoring = 3, Medium scoring = 2 and Low scoring =1. The focus is transparency and the main priorities can be supported. It can be difficult to influence how the potential support shall be administered.
The focus is transparency and the main priority can be supported. It seems that Nordic countries could have significant influence on prioritisation of the funding.
The focus is transparency and the main priorities can be supported. A weak point is that it only covers the Caribbean.
The activities can cover transparency, but it is not the main focus.
The focus is transparency and the main priorities can be supported.

GEF EA
The activities cover transparency, as one element for the support to the UNFCCC reporting.
The activities can cover transparency, but it is not the main focus. GGGI is already executing bilateral Nordic support.
The focus is transparency and the main priorities can be supported.

Source: Own analysis
For all the initiatives, it seems like the priority area 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry' could be included, although it is not a focus area in the description of most of the initiatives. All the initiatives are expected to potentially cover 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry', hence they all have the same scoring for this. In general, all the initiatives have a high score, as they are pre-selected as relevant for transparency activities.
ICAT provides country-driven support. Nordic countries could provide funding through ICAT, and influence the choice of countries to support with the additional funds provided. The volume of support is much smaller than CBIT, but support is targeted to address countries' main gaps and needs. ICAT also provides more flexible and swifter support and administrative procedures.
Current implementation approaches provide a competitive process, where Nordic countries' specific expertise and tools have a high priority of being selected for capacity development.
CBIT is now mainstreamed into the GEF Trust Fund and is fully integrated into the GEF-7 cycle (2018-2022) with a funding of USD 55 million. When the GEF-8 replenishment negotiations start, the Nordic countries may influence funding priorities through the Council. CBIT prioritises LDCs and SIDS. However, as GEF delivers through its accredited agencies, the Nordic countries 56 have little direct control over the process or potential use of their specific expertise and tools.
GSP will finish in 2020 but will transfer into a new GEF-funded programme and will merge with the CBIT Global Coordination Platform.
If the Nordic countries opt for providing transparency support through CCMRVH, it will only cover few LDCs and SIDS, and the support will be given through already existing set-up.
Based on the above information, it is recommended that ICAT be explored as the highest priority in case the Nordic countries would like to give support through the international support initiatives. It should be noted that all the initiatives support transparency as their key objective. Table 13, below, presents the potential international programmes with Nordic support and the priority areas, based on the analyses in Chapter 5.

Nordic supported initiatives
The higher the score, the better the fit between the activities in the programmes and the priority areas. High scoring = 3, Medium scoring = 2 and Low scoring =1. Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate -A global capacity-building programme that supports the following three LDCs: Ethiopia, Mozambique and Uganda. These three countries are in the category with the most Nordic climate-related project support.
The "4 per 1000" initiative has two LDCs. Cambodia and Senegal are part of the consortium of this initiative. Cambodia is in the second highest category with Nordic climate-related project and Senegal is in the third, out of four, category.

Nordic direct bilateral cooperation and through NDF/NEFCO
The purpose of this section is to explore, whether bilateral cooperation and the NDF/NEFCO are suitable for being part of transparency capacity building activities.
It is an overall assessment, as the Nordic countries are presented as one group, though each country has its own profile for bilateral cooperation. This is also the case for NDF and NEFCO, as each fund has its own characteristics. For both the bilateral cooperation and the NDF and NEFCO, the individual deviations are considered minor compared to the overall grouping. Table   14, below, presents the potential suitability for bilateral cooperation and through the NDF and NEFCO for the three priority areas identified in Chapter 5.
For the priority areas Inventory; NDC progress and achievement; and Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry, the scoring is based on whether the topic has been included in former or ongoing bilateral programmes or through the Nordic Funds.

Source: Own analysis
All the Nordic countries have experience in bilateral cooperation with SIDS/LDCs with capacity building in the climate space and many have inventory and reporting as tasks as part of the biltaral projects. Nordic countries also have 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry' as part of the bilateral cooperation. It has not been the purpose of this assignment to do an indepth analysis of the Nordic programmes. Overall, it seems that the Nordic countries could adapt the bilateral programmes so that they fit to the priorities identified for the LDCs and SIDS in relation to transparency support. Bilateral programmes can have the advantage of being easier to directly involve the ETF negotiators under the UNFCCC from the Nordic countries, to support the preparation and implementation of the programmes.
Both NEFCO and NDF do not have significant experience in implementing inventory, NDC reporting and projects within 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry'. NDF is supporting few projects within this area, but mainly as additional funding through other projects.
In case the Nordic countries would like to explore developing ETF support through the Nordic Funds, the ongoing NEFCO project for cooperative approaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement could be considered and extended in scope.

Consultations
To collect stakeholder views and feedback, the decision was made to consult with the programmes that have the best alignment with priorities proposed by SIDS and LDCs. On 31 January 2020 the following initiatives and institutions were invited to share their views, with a deadline of 4 February 2020: • ICAT ICAT has commented that only half of ICAT countries are LDCs and/or SIDS. A specific analysis of gaps and needs for this group of countries has not been done. The ICAT initiative focuses on the establishment of MRV/transparency systems in countries with a focus on tracking mitigation policies and actions in the context of NDC implementation. Most of the work done under ICAT is related to "The ETF reporting component NDC progress and achievement". Some countries have, however, identified activities under ICAT focusing explicitly on GHG inventory. In general, country activities related to inventories are considered in the broader context of the ETF. For example, some countries are working on improving GHG data inventories but it is usually in the context of the broader ETF. A few countries have asked for support regarding GHG inventory methodologies, including Peru and Dominican Republic --but only as a minor activity in their work plans. In terms of sectors, Agriculture and Forestry were not the most targeted sectors under ICAT. Under ICAT, cross-sectoral and energy-related activities are the most common, followed by transport and waste.
CBIT was not available to respond within the consultation period, however, in their progress report to GEF (November 2019), the following priorities for CB support to transparency were reported: Overall, the project activities proposed by LDCs and SIDS are similar to the overall portfolio for all countries (as shown in Appendix 3, Figure 1). However, there are some differences in the proportion of countries prioritizing certain activities, namely: 1) GHG inventory data collection and management tools, and overall GHG inventory improvements, 2) tracking climate finance, and 3) NDC transparency and policy design.
Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative responded that they are already working on transparency issues related to forests and land use, forest policies, land ownership, etc. The initiative works in bilateral partnerships with countries, as well as through multilateral institutions such as the FAO and the World Bank. For further information see https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/klima-og-miljo/klima/klima--og-skogsatsingen/ id2000712/ and http://www.fao.org/gfoi/activities. SIDA commented that for the Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate -A global capacity building programme, they have identified the same priorities and are working with them, both the GHG Inventory and the ETF reporting component NDC progress and achievement. It has been noted that gaps in the energy and transport sectors have also been identified by the programme.
NEFCO responded that it could be useful to add a transparency component of the existing crediting schemes related to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
These consultations were held over a short period with limited response. However, the feedback confirms that the identified priorities are already considered for support to SIDS and LDCs.

CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of previous chapters' overview and analysis of ongoing CB efforts to implement the ETF to meet LDCs and SIDS needs and gaps for support, the study finds that the Nordic countries have good opportunities to further promote effective ETF activities in line with country priorities through: • A focus on 12 target countries 11 : Djibouti, Guyana, Mali, Myanmar, Nauru, Niue, Nepal, Niger, Palau, Suriname, Timor-Leste and Zambia.
• A focus on LDC and SIDS high priority ETF reporting components: 1) GHG inventory and 2) NDC progress and achievement. Capacity-building needs covering: 1) institutional arrangements, 2) methodologies, and 3) data collection, management and procedures.
Both LDCs and SIDS identify agriculture and land use change and forestry as the highest sectoral priority.

APPENDIX 1 -LIST OF INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED IN THE BTR WHERE FLEXIBILITY CAN BE APPLIED
When reporting information in the BTR, developing country Parties have the flexibility to provide less information. Flexibility cannot be applied to all categories of information, and in some cases the MPGs request information through "should" and "may" formulations, so the flexibility provision does not need to be applied, and information can be omitted without having to explain in which area, why and how. The tables below list the information requested for the BTR.
Flexibility provisions are highlighted in 'bold', while information that is 'should', 'may' and 'encouraged' to be provided is marked in 'italic'.

Category of information BN BN NIR (part of BTR or stand alone)
Reporting form -National Inventory Document (NID) -Common Reporting Tables (CRT) Submission requirements -Each Party shall provide a national inventory report       f) Identify and report status of the supported activity (planned, ongoing or completed); g) Identify and report the channel (bilateral, regional or multilateral); h) Identify and report the type of support (mitigation, adaptation or cross-cutting); i) Identify and report the financial instrument (grant, concessional loan, non-concessional loan, equity, guarantee or other); j) Identify and report sectors and subsectors; k) Report on the use, impact and estimated results of the support needed and received; l) Identify and report support as contributing to technology development and transfer and capacity building; m) Avoid double counting in reporting information on support needed and received for the implementation of Article 13 of the Paris Agreement and transparencyrelated activities, including for transparency-related capacity building, when reporting such information separately from other information on support needed and received.
Information on financial support needed, including information requested in Table 21 Sectors for which the Party wishes to attract international finance, including existing barriers to attracting international finance Description of how the support will contribute to its NDC and to the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement Information on financial support received Information requested in Table 21 Information on technology development and transfer Plans, needs and priorities related to technology development and transfer, including those identified in Technology Needs Assessments, where applicable Support needed, including information requested in Table   21 Technology development and transfer-related needs for the enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies Information on technology development and transfer support received, including information requested in Table  21 Case studies, including key success and failure stories How the support contributes to technology development and transfer, endogenous capacities and know-how The stage of the technology cycle supported, including research and development, demonstration, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technology Information on capacity-building support needed, including information requested in Table 21 The approach a Party seeks to take to enhance capacitybuilding support Country-specific capacity-building needs, constraints and gaps in communicating those needs, and an explanation of how the capacity-building support needed would improve the provision of such information Processes for enhancing public awareness, public participation and access to information in relation to capacity building Information on capacity-building support received, including information requested in Table 21 Case studies, including key success and failure stories How support received has enhanced a Party's capacity Capacity-building support received at the national and, where appropriate, sub-regional and regional level, including priorities, participation and the involvement of stakeholders Information on support needed and received for the implementation of Article 13 and transparency-related activities, including for transparency-related Capacity building, including information requested in

Implementing Partners
Technical support projects are implemented by GEF   and more recently establishing regional peer-to-peer learning networks.

Results so far
To date, 13 regional workshops (with 116 countries participating), 14 national workshops (in 12 countries), and 6 webinars were arranged, co-arranged and/or co-funded by GSP. GSP has also assisted 32 countries in reviewing 25 GHG inventories, 10 NCs, and 2 BURs. So far, 3 regional networks have been established, with more in the pipeline.
Additionally, 16  Regional support through: Capacity-building activities and peer-to-peer learning through technical workshops in five regional and language groups --Anglophone African Group; Asian-Pacific Regional Group; Regional Groups for MRV analysis for projects to be financed through national finance vehicles (NFVs) and other mechanisms; Knowledge sharing for potential replication and expansion in region.

Results so far
In 2018, GGGI carried out rapid assessments including gaps and challenges in reporting, as well as institutional, legal, and procedural arrangements for establishing national MRV systems in Mongolia, Myanmar, Lao PDR, and Uganda. Based on these assessments, GGGI is initiating the development of national MRV Master Plans to analyse appropriate models for effective MRV systems to identify green investment opportunities as part of the next NDC target-setting process.
The government of Ethiopia has established a national MRV system and registry to track progress of its Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) national development strategy. GGGI has hosted intensive capacity-building trainings, and produced teaching materials to further support proper management of Ethiopia's existing MRV scheme.
Since 2017, GGGI has hosted the MRV forum in Latin America to transfer lessons learned for potential replication and prompt joint mitigation actions with enhanced transparency for Latin American countries.
Website: https://gggi.org/tag/mrv/    Most developing countries do not have the necessary institutional arrangements, human resources, and data availability to develop full inventories every two years with the level of detail required by the MPGs and IPCC guidelines (Dagnet et al., 2019). Current arrangements are often based on external consultants, and there is a lack of formal contracts and arrangements to allow for timely data collection from governmental and non-governmental sources. Insufficient legislative and policy support, and lack of mandates for climate change initiatives were found to lead to inadequate institutional capacities to maintain national reporting processes on a regular basis (UNFCCC, 2019). Countries expressed challenges to sustainably collect, manage, and analyse relevant data. A disconnect between the data collection entities and the data custodians leads to a mismatch in data availability and data needed for national reporting. Data archiving is seldom structured and centralised. Countries also lack technical capacities to apply IPCC guidelines, and have expressed the need for support to calculate national emission factors that could improve the accuracy of GHG inventories (UNFCCC, 2019 and Dagnet et al., 2019). LDCs have specifically identified challenges related to lack of data or its availability in electronic format, absence of time series data, quality issues, including data reliability, lack of disaggregation or lack of primary source data (IIED, 2019).

CGE Consultative Group of Experts
Reporting on mitigation actions: