UNGM logo

Call for Proposals: Technical support to increase the overall transparency capacities in developing countries under the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency - CFP-11875-2021-01

UNOPS
Call for Proposals: Technical support to increase the overall transparency capacities in developing countries under the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency - CFP-11875-2021-01 Grant support-call for proposal

Reference: CFP-11875-2021-01
Beneficiary country(ies): Multiple destinations (see 'Countries' tab below)
Registration level: Basic
Published on: 17-Feb-2021
Deadline on: 17-Mar-2021 17:00 (GMT 1.00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris

Description

The Initiative for Climate Action Transparency (ICAT) is seeking proposals to provide technical support and capacity building to developing countries for transparency related to climate actions and policies based on country/regional priorities and needs with the aim of equipping countries/regions with capacity to effectively assess the impacts of their climate policies and actions and fulfil their transparency commitments under international frameworks, in particular the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement.

Below are the categories of grants that interested organisations/institutions can apply for:

Category 1: Grant(s) to support new ICAT partner countries;

Category 2: Grant(s) to deepen engagement in (already engaged) ICAT partner countries with ongoing support projects (including a second phase for new partner countries supported under category 1);

Category 3: Grant(s) to provide technical support to the regional climate action transparency hub for the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) Member States.

ICAT has built over its first 5 years a strong foundation for its activities in terms of tools, methodologies, knowledge, experience and active networks in some 40 developing countries.

ICAT is an unincorporated multi-stakeholder partnership steered and funded by the Donor Steering Committee (DSC), conformed by its donors, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF); ClimateWorks Foundation (CWF); the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU); and the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea (IMELS), as well as the UNFCCC and UNOPS as ex-officio members. The Initiative is managed by UNOPS on behalf of the DSC. Within UNOPS, the ICAT Secretariat manages ICAT day-to-day activities, coordinating and guiding the work of the implementing partners.

The ICAT infrastructure is tailored to support countries in developing their capacity to build and manage a strong transparency framework that can enable them to effectively implement the Paris Agreement. Core features of ICAT, in continuity of work accomplished and under way, are:

●  Policy focus, aimed at enabling transformational change;

●  Agility in responding to country needs, anchored in sustainable development assessments;

●  Flexibility to innovate and create replicable approaches;

●  Sound methodologies and tools; and

●  Peer-to-peer collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Deadline for submission of proposals: 17th March 2021 (by 17:00, Copenhagen, Denmark Time).


Documents
Contacts
Links
Countries
UNSPSC
Revisions
Joseph Mensah - josephme@unops.org
Email: josephme@unops.org
First name: Joseph
Surname: Mensah
Telephone number: 4591499310
Sarah Olsen - sarahao@unops.org
Email: sarahao@unops.org
First name: Sarah
Surname: Olsen
Telephone number: 4545337693
Countries/territories
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
British Indian Ocean Territory
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Christmas Island
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Timor-Leste
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands (Malvinas) - A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Republic of
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Republic of
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao, Special Administrative Region of China
Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Micronesia, Federated States of
Moldova, Republic of
Monaco
Mongolia
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Reunion
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Helena
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Eswatini
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Taiwan, Province of China
Tajikistan
Thailand
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Tanzania, United Republic of
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Virgin Islands, British
Virgin Islands, U. S.
Wallis and Futuna Islands
Western Sahara
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Antarctica
Palestine, State of
Serbia, Republic of
Montenegro
Kosovo
South Sudan
J  -  Services
77000000  -  Environmental Services
77100000  -  Environmental management
77101500  -  Environmental impact assessment
77101505  -  Environmental monitoring
77101800  -  Environmental auditing
77101805  -  Environmental quality control services
77110000  -  Environmental protection
Clarifications: Q1: Do funds also apply to ICAT implementing agencies? If not, we wonder if a for-profit company is eligible to submit a proposal? A1: A for profit company may submit a proposal and will be eligible if the budget stays within the 10% of overhead charges. Q2: Are letters of support required to strengthen the proposal? A2: Letters of support are not required but can be useful as background information if they confirm experience of the organisation in relevant areas. Q3: Would it be possible that the funds are used to build infrastructure such as registries to increase the overall capacities of counties in terms of transparency? A3: The country projects must be designed to achieve the outcomes as specified in the CFP. The activities for individual countries are designed together with the countries once country selection has been completed. As per the MELU framework, new or refined GHG inventories are indeed one of the possible desired outcomes of the project. Please refer to this link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OZCi_hhlUDESdk6PXuAy6ZgFjmWQ4TcYZK6m0W-ULD4/edit) for a full list of desired outcomes. Q4: In reading the CFP section 5 (Activity 1. Scoping phase) I came across an “indicative amount of USD 175,000 per country” and was not so sure what that meant. Does it mean that successful implementing partners will receive an additional USD 175,000 depending on the required ICAT tool per country or could this be extended to other activities identified during the scoping phase? Will this also require an application because the understanding is that one can only be aware about such a need only after the scoping phase? Does this also mean that there could be other resources that could be accessed by local partners? A4: The 175,000 USD amount quoted is in respect to funds that will be provided directly to the beneficiary countries to finance the work of national consultants etc. The selected implementing partner will be required to help the respective countries/entities to prepare work plans and budget accordingly. For each country module, up to USD 108,000 will be paid to the implementing partner based on the budget provided in the grant proposal. Q5: If we are applying to work in more than one country, should we insert separate tables explaining the cost per country even when the cost seems to be the same? A5: For grant categories 1 and 2, budgets submitted should be per country and in line with the tables on pp 31-35 of the call for proposals document. A detailed budget is required to be submitted in Excel to further explain the summarised budget on the application form. For category 3, the budget proposal should cover support to the COMIFAC Secretariat. Q6; One requirement is the submission of past project reports or reference letters, I was just wondering if they need to be stamped by the donor or if any report or letter that shows a past project experience suffice for this purpose and if there is any language preference? Will a report or reference letter in German language be accepted? A6: All project reports or letters that show past project experience would suffice for this purpose. You are also welcome to insert links to any such reports if they are available online. We do not have a language requirement for these specific documents so you are welcome to share what you have. Q7: I wish to know if the Administrative cost of 10% is the same as project overhead cost? I wish to know if it should be calculated within the grant limit (e.g. up to USD 108,000 for category 1) of each category or comes on top of the grant limit of each category? A7: Your understanding is correct. The overheads/administrative costs should be calculated within the limit of 108,000 USD. Q8: Do we have a page limit to the application form? Can I attach additional documents explaining specific past of my application when sending my application? I am also assuming that some of the texts on the application form can be deleted. I don’t know if that is the case? A8: There is no page limit for the grant application form. Please add all the details that you believe will support your application, without making any changes to the template itself and the questions therein. Q9: Are we allowed to remove categories that we are not applying from the application? A9: Yes. Q10: Are we allowed to insert new tables to better explain our application? A10: If this is in respect to the budget, you can definitely do so in the Excel document that is required to show the detailed breakdown of the budget lines/categories. You are also welcome to introduce tables on the grant application form or add them as annexes to the application. Q11: For the new countries component and for the deepening engagement component, there is a sentence which states “Estimated Budget: Up to USD 108,000 for each country module.” I understand that these 108,000 USD refers to the funds allocated to the international partner (international partner staff time for technical work, coordination work and travel)? It means that the budget template to include in the proposal should not include “sub-contract line to partner countries” and that the country budget will be established by the ICAT Secretariat under a different process. Could you please confirm that my understanding is correct? A11: Your understanding is correct. The proposal should only include the budget for the international support. The Project Cooperation Agreements for countries would be issued by UNOPS, based on work plans and budgets prepared in dialogue between the implementing partner, the ICAT Secretariat and the beneficiary countries. Q12: Will the Project Cooperation Agreements with the countries be signed directly between UNOPS and the beneficiary countries (regardless of whether the projects are first, second or third phase projects)? If yes, will the country budgets then be managed by UNOPS? A12: The default option is that the Project Cooperation Agreements are issued by UNOPS and the budgets managed through UNOPS. This Call for Proposals also leaves space for situations where it is necessary to channel funds through implementing partners. This could be in cases where for some reason it would not be possible for the Government of a given country to sign a Project Cooperation Agreement with UNOPS or if there are other reasons that make it more efficient to set-up the project in a different way than through a UNOPS Project Cooperation Agreement. Since the grant proposal should be generic and not country specific, please focus the budget on the element of international support. Of course any capacity to work in certain countries or to channel funds/issue Project Cooperation Agreements is worth mentioning in the proposal, since the latter may be necessary in a limited number of cases. Q13: The budget has been requested per module per country. It means that the budget should be a breakdown of the 108,000 USD (if we chose to work with the max total amount stated in the terms of reference of the call). This breakdown is of course possible when budgeting the work to be done with one country (as per the budget lines personnel, travel etc.). However, this becomes difficult when planning the budget for overall coordination (ICAT country calls, Initiative Coordination Team calls and travel meetings etc.) and overall communication activities. A13: The budget for coordination should indeed come out of the 108,000 USD per country. It should be noted that should an organisation have many country modules assigned, the level of engagement in the mentioned forums would be expected to be higher, that is you would be expected to present more often and share more experiences when you are working in 10 countries as opposed to one. If the submitting organisation wishes to raise concerns about the budget structure/limit they may include this in their proposal. If the submitting organisation wants to present/include an element of economies of scale in their proposal, they are also welcome to do that. Q14: Which countries are considered to be category 2 countries? (The question included reference to countries that have been anonymised here). A14: Any country that has already formalised ICAT engagement through a project cooperation agreement or MOU will be considered under category 2. We are unable to comment on specific countries, but you may include examples of countries where you have expertise in your application. For your reference, the list of countries where ICAT is already engaged can be found here (https://climateactiontransparency.org/country-activities/). Q15: Would it be appropriate to consider local branches of our organisation as national consultants and assume that their budget would be covered as part of the (up to) 175,000 USD set aside for beneficiary countries? A15: To promote national ownership and facilitate capacity building, a national partner should be selected by the government entity in charge and ideally be a local institution. One of the objectives of ICAT projects is also to build capacity in the country for experts that can support similar work in future after completion of the ICAT project. The indicative amount of 175,000 USD will be channeled through the government partner or in accordance with an agreement concluded with the government entity responsible for the project, for payments to national consultants or a national expert institution and for other national expenses. This would in most cases be through a UNOPS Project Cooperation Agreement, but in some cases the grantee may be asked to facilitate the transfer of funds. As such, please indicate any such capacity in your submission. Q16: Please elaborate on the set-up and division of activities between UNOPS, partner countries and the implementing partner/grantee. A16: As a default option, UNOPS will formalize engagements through the signature of Project Cooperation Agreements with a government entity in the partner countries. Once these are in place, the technical support provided by the selected implementing partner/grantee will begin, starting with the scoping phase that establishes the needed country work plan. Funds will be provided directly to the national entities, except in cases where the national entity is not able to receive funds from UNOPS or if there are other conditions that indicate that the project will be implemented more efficiently if the funds are transferred through other channels. Q17: Please confirm that we should not include costs related to in-country support and we can assume that the funds will be channeled through the national government. A17: Correct. Funds for the international implementing partners are intended to provide expert support and advice to the implementation of in-country transparency efforts and capacity development activities as outlined in the call. Q18: For Categories 1 and 2, Activity 2, one of the outputs specified are regular brief updates (at least monthly). Is this considered in addition to the existing updates in place through the ICAT Country Update Tool, as well as the Initiative Coordination Team and Country/Toolbox calls and formal grant reporting? A18: Regular participation in ICAT Initiative Coordination Team and Country and Toolbox Group calls as well as regular updates (at least once every month) to the ICAT Country Update Tool constitutes regular updates. In case of issues with implementation, it is also expected that the implementing partner highlights these to the ICAT Secretariat, if necessary through bilateral meetings. Q19: For Category 2, Activity 1, what other types of legal documents or agreements are envisioned, and are these instead of or in addition to the Project Cooperation Agreement, as referenced on page 12 in the CFP? A19: The default option is a UNOPS Project Cooperation Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement. Depending on the country case and if necessary, the selected implementing partner may be required to sign a Project Cooperation Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement with ICAT partner countries. Please indicate in the proposal if the submitting organisation has the capacity to do so. Q20: For Category 3, Activity 4, the first output/deliverable related to a Hub workplan appears redundant to the 3rd output under Activity 1. Can you clarify if these are the same output, or if they are conceived as serving different purposes or are different versions of the same output. For example, is the Activity 4 output a revised version in years 2 and 3 of the work plan? A20: The third output under Activity 1 refers to one-time multi-stakeholder inception workshop to agree on concrete and final sectors of priority as well as the capacity building needs for the region, after the scoping phase, whilst the first output under Activity 4 is in respect to the long term and annual workplans that will be prepared for the engagement period. Q21: For Category 3, Activity 4, for the second output bullet related to regular progress reports, can you clarify how this output is different (if so) than the progress report output under Activity 3 (second bullet)? Or are these the same progress reporting and only listed again to clarify both activities should be addressed in progress reporting (versus separate reports)? A21: Both are listed to highlight the importance of these outputs being addressed in milestone/progress reports. The frequency of submission of such reports and the precise reports required will be specified in the Grant Support Agreement to be discussed and signed with the selected implementing partner. Q22: Recognizing that for the remainder of 2021 and potentially well into 2022, there will still be international travel restrictions in place due to COVID-19, should we plan a travel budget that explicitly accounts for this by using primarily virtual meetings and training workshops? If so, when should we assume travel restrictions will be lifted? A22: As a principle, we recommend virtual meetings and workshops whenever possible. At this point in time, it is difficult to say when travel will be possible, please make the estimate based on your organisation's guidelines. Since this will have an element of uncertainty, please note that whenever justified, and in consultation with the ICAT Secretariat, funds can be moved to/from travel budget lines. Q23: One question regarding the 10% cap for indirect costs. As a research and consulting company, we usually bill by our daily fees, which include more than 10% indirect cost (management cost, office rent cost, IT cost, etc.). Is our company generally excluded from participating in this call? How should we present the budget for the call in order to be eligible? A23: To be compliant with the requirements, the indirect costs of the submitting institution for each grant category should not exceed 10% of the proposed budget. The submitting organisation should clearly indicate the cost of staff time and overhead separately (not as a combined rate). The submitting organisation may consider providing in-kind contribution in terms of office/rent/use of equipment etc. to stay within the 10% indirect costs.

Changed/edited on: 11-Mar-2021 12:04
Changed/edited by: josephme@unops.org