Coal Transition Toolkit Final

CLIMATE
INVESTMENT
FUNDS
AcT Investment Program M&R Toolkit Series //
Monitoring and Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit

CIF Program: Accelerating Coal
Reporting Toolkit Transition
Operational Guidance on the ACT M&R System Topics

• Monitoring and Reporting
• Coal Transition
// June 2023 • Results and Impact
Acknowledgments
© CIF 2023
www.cif.org
This toolkit was commissioned by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), a

multilateral climate fund housed within the World Bank. Within CIF, the
preparation of the toolkit was led by Madu Selvakumar, Sandra Romboli, Pauline
Ravillard, and Matthew Harris, and benefited from contributions from Shane
Suksangium, Abhishek Bhaskar, Paul Mathew, Kouassi Emmanuel Kouadio, Nina
Kolybashkina, Farah Outeldait, Neha Sharma, and Michael Ward. We thank the
MDBs for their valuable comments.
Photo Credits
All photos by CIF or under license to CIF unless otherwise noted.
Design
Art Direction: Andrea Carega
Graphic Design: Donald Bason
Disclaimer
© CIF 2023
www.cif.org
This publication was produced by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF);
however, the findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this
work do not necessarily reflect the views of CIF, its governing bodies, or
the governments they represent. While reasonable efforts have been
made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct,
CIF does not take responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of
its contents and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be
occasioned directly, or indirectly, through the use of, or reliance on, the
contents of this publication.
This toolkit is based on research carried out from July 2022 to May 2023
and the approved programming documents of the Accelerating Coal
Transition Program. More recent data may have become available since the
research was completed.
CIF encourages the use, reproduction, and dissemination of this text
for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that CIF is
appropriately acknowledged as the source and copyright holder.
2
Executive
Summary
The Accelerating Coal Transition Investment Program Monitoring
and Reporting System (ACT M&R System) described in this toolkit
is designed to set expected results and track progress toward
the program’s main objectives: accelerating the transition from
coal-powered to clean energy while supporting socio-economic
goals and environmental remediation. The toolkit builds on the
theory and design features laid out in the ACT Integrated Results
Framework (CIF 2021a) and the ACT Investment Program Design
Document (CIF 2021b) and provides detailed, comprehensive
operational guidance on how the full ACT M&R System is
implemented.
The ACT M&R System is united with other CIF M&R systems
through a common framework of key elements, but it is adapted
to fit the specific programming context of the accelerated coal
transition. This includes specific roles and responsibilities for
both ACT recipient countries and implementing MDBs, as well as
the CIF Administrative Unit (see Section 2). The ACT M&R System
comprises tailored approaches for country investment plan M&R,
during design, endorsement, and implementation phases, and
project-level M&R, during design, approval, implementation,
and completion phases. While this toolkit focuses specifically on
ACT’s M&R function, ACT M&R plays a role that is complementary
to additional evaluation, learning, gender, and social inclusion
approaches reflected in the multi-dimensional ACT Integrated
Results Framework.
Seven categories of indicators make up the ACT M&R System: (1) CIF
Impact Indicators, (2) ACT Country Impact Indicators, (3) ACT Core
Indicators, (4) ACT Co-Benefit Indicators, (5) ACT Optional Indicators,
(6) ACT Project-Specific Indicators, and (7) Energy Storage Indicators.
Some indicators, like CIF Impact Indicators and ACT Country Impact
Indicators, are situated at a high level of results and are designed
to capture results relevant to CIF as a fund and to specific ACT
country investment plans.
3
The 11 ACT core indicators (Category 3) form the foundation of the
system and are required to be reported by MDBs for all ACT projects
on an annual basis. The toolkit provides detailed guidance on
each of these core indicators, including an overview and rationale,
precise definitions of their components, methodological guidance
for baselines/expected results/achieved results, information
on required and optional disaggregation per indicator, other
considerations, anticipated data sources, and a bespoke reference
list.
Co-benefit indicators are designed to capture additional social,

economic, and environmental development outcomes that are
not a central objective of ACT itself. MDBs are required to identify
and report on at least one co-benefit indicator per project. In
addition, the CIF Administrative Unit will synthesize additional
reporting made available by MDBs on ACT optional indicators and
project-specific indicators and will aggregate energy storage results
common to both ACT and CIF’s Global Energy Storage Program
(GESP).
Several additional features of ACT M&R and related CIF approaches

to results analysis complement the use of indicators. These include
multi-stakeholder review mechanisms for country investment
plans, signals and dimensions of transformational change, gender
and social inclusion results and analytics, development impact
modeling, Sustainable Development Goal mapping, narrative
reporting, program evaluation, and capacity building and learning
activities. (While covered briefly here, some of these areas are
elaborated in more detail outside this toolkit.)
The ACT M&R Toolkit concludes with practical guidance on how

users can navigate the online CIF Collaboration Hub portal to fulfill
their annual results reporting roles and responsibilities. As a living
document, the ACT M&R Toolkit is subject to future review and
modifications following CIF’s experience deploying the ACT M&R
System.
4
List
of
Abbreviations
ACT Accelerating Coal Transition

CCH CIF Collaboration Hub
CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamp
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CIF Climate Investment Funds
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
CTF Clean Technology Fund
E&L Evaluation and Learning
EDGE Encouraging Diversity Growth and Equity Program
EE Energy Efficiency
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program
EUI Energy Use Index
FIP Forest Investment Program
GCAP Global Climate Action Program
GCF Green Climate Fund
GEF Global Environment Facility
GESP Global Energy Storage Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
IEA International Energy Agency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
IFC International Finance Corporation
ILO International Labor Organization
JIM Joint Impact Model
5
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LSMS Living Standard Measurement Study
MDB Multilateral Development Bank
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
M&R Monitoring and Reporting
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
MTF Multi-Tier Framework for Energy Access
NAP National Adaptation Plans
NDC Nationally Determined Contributions
NPC Nature, People, Climate
ORR Operational and Results Report
PDM Private Direct Mobilization
PIM Private Indirect Mobilization
PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience
RE Renewable Energy
REI Renewable Energy Integration
RISE Regulatory Indicators for Sustainable Energy
SCCF Special Climate Change Fund
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SREP Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
TFC Trust Fund Committee
TWG Technical Working Group
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VRE Variable Renewable Energy
WOLCOT Women Led Coal Transition Grant Mechanism
6
Contents
Acknowledgments 2
Executive Summary 3
List of Abbreviations 5
List of EXHIBITS 10
1. Introduction 11
1.1 Overview 11
1.2 ACT Integrated Results Theory and Design 11
1.3 Objectives and Scope of ACT M&R Toolkit 15
1.4 Key Elements of the ACT M&R System 16
1.5 CIF Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Principles and Approach 17
2. ACT Monitoring and Reporting Approach 19

2.1 ACT M&R Levels 19
2.2 ACT M&R Roles, Responsibilities, and Process 21
Country Investment Plan Monitoring and Reporting 22
Project-Level Monitoring and Reporting 24
2.3 Considerations for Quality at Entry 26
3. Indicators and Definitions 28

3.1 CIF Impact Indicators (Category 1) 32
3.2 ACT Country Impact Indicators (Category 2) 34
7
3.3 ACT Core Indicators (Category 3) 35
ACT 1: Policies 36
ACT 2: Readiness 39
ACT 3: Income Security for Employees of Subset Industries 41
ACT 4: Social Plans and Economic Regeneration Packages 44
ACT 5: Mitigation 46
ACT 6: Co-Finance 50
ACT 7: Coal Capacity Accelerated for Retirement 52
ACT 8: Repowering 54
ACT 9: Coal Abatement 56
ACT 10: Mine Closure, Reclamation 59
ACT 11: Plant Closure, Repurposing 62
3.4 ACT Co-Benefit Indicators (Category 4) 65
ACT Co-Benefit 1: Pollutants 66
ACT Co-Benefit 2: Just Transition 68
ACT Co-Benefit 3: Enhanced Energy Access 71
ACT Co-Benefit 4: Gender- and Vulnerable Groups-Specific Co-Benefits
(and Other Co-Benefits) 75
3.5 ACT Optional Indicators (Category 5) 77
3.6 ACT Project-Specific Indicators (Category 6) 78
3.7 Energy Storage Indicators (Category 7) 79
GESP 1: Energy Rating 79
GESP 2: Power Rating 81
4. Other Key Features of ACT M&R and Results 83

4.1 Multi-Stakeholder Review Mechanism for Investment Plans 83
4.2 Signals and Dimensions of Transformational Change 83
4.3 Gender and Social Inclusion Results and Analytics 84
4.4 Modeling 85
4.5 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 86
4.6 Narrative Reporting 86
4.7 Program Evaluation 86
4.8 Capacity Building and Learning 86
8
5. Reporting Definitions and Guidelines 88
5.1 Reporting Definitions 88
5.2 Baselines, Expected Results, and Achieved Results 88
5.3 Data Entry and Validation 89
5.4 Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement 89
5.5 Timing of Results Achieved 90
6. Navigating the CIF Collaboration Hub 91

Step 1: Identifying Indicators and Entering Targets for ACT Projects 91
Step 2: Entering Achieved Results for ACT Projects 92
Step 3: Uploading Documents 94
References 95
endnotes 99
9
List of EXHIBITS
Figures
FIGURE 1. ACT Theory of Change 12
FIGURE 2. Structural Overview of CIF’s Integrated Results Framework and Key Features of
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Functions13
FIGURE 3. Framework for Just Transitions 69
FIGURE 4. Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Access to Electricity 72
FIGURE 5. Entering Targets in the CCH 91
FIGURE 6. Targets Entered in the CCH 92
FIGURE 7. Entering Achieved Results in the CCH 93
FIGURE 8. Uploaded Documents Screen in the CCH 94
Tables
TABLE 1. Summary of ACT Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Approach 14
TABLE 2. List of Indicators for ACT 29
TABLE 3. CIF Impact Indicators in Relation to ACT M&R System 32
Boxes
BOX 1. Monitoring ACT Progress on Gender Issues 20
BOX 2. ACT Optional Indicator 1 Related to ACT Core Indicator 4 45
BOX 4. ACT Optional Indicators Related to ACT Core Indicator 10 61
BOX 6. Framework for Just Transitions 70
BOX 7. ACT Optional Indicators 77
10
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
CIF’s Accelerating Coal Transition Investment Program (ACT) was launched in 2021 to support countries in
accelerating the phasing out of coal by ensuring a just transition.
Under the program, CIF provides concessional climate finance to its partner multilateral development banks
(MDBs), which support ACT recipient countries in developing bespoke, multi-project investment plans aimed
at supporting the transition from “coal-to-clean” in each recipient country. ACT country investment plans are
expected to help accelerate the phasing out of coal plants, hand in hand with enhanced resilience, and the
development of new economic activities derived from new sources of energy.
The explicit focus of ACT is to tackle key barriers related to governance, people, and infrastructure, and address
funding gaps leading to the successful implementation of country-level strategies and associated kick-start
projects. It seeks to build support at the local and regional levels and accelerate the retirement of existing coal
assets (coal mines and coal power plants), together with enabling new economic activities for those impacted by
the transition.
Experience in countries around the world with declining coal use shows that unless these barriers related to
governance, people, and infrastructure are overcome, they will continue to inhibit investments in phasing out
the global coal fleet at the speed needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The ACT Monitoring and Reporting System (ACT M&R System) described in this toolkit is designed to set
expected results and track progress toward the program’s outcome areas over time. It tests the soundness of
the theoretical model and enables course-correction, learning, knowledge generation, and decision making.
The system fosters accountability and supports countries and MDBs in strengthening their investments and
implementation activities toward ACT’s ultimate program objectives.
1.2 ACT Integrated Results Theory and Design

ACT’s underlying theory of change (see Figure 1) posits that if CIF addresses funding gaps related to the
successful implementation of country-level strategies and associated kick-start projects; builds support at the
local and regional levels to reconsider the development of new coal plants; and supports policy and investment
activity in economic regeneration, social plans, and income support for affected employees and communities;
then national governments, public sector utilities and private sector operators will act to accelerate the
retirement of existing coal assets and their replacement with new sources of renewable energy while ensuring
11
a holistic, integrated, socially inclusive and gender equal just transition away from coal. All of this is expected
to contribute toward CIF’s ultimate mission to accelerated transformational change and climate financing that
enable progress toward net-zero emissions and adaptive, climate-resilient development pathways, in a just and
socially inclusive manner.
FIGURE 1. ACT Theory of Change
CIF Accelerated transformational change and climate financing that enable progress toward net-zero emissions and
IMPACT adaptive, climate-resilient development pathways, in a just and socially inclusive manner
PROGRAM Accelerated transition from coal-powered to clean energy while supporting socio-economic goals and
IMPACT environmental remediation
OUTCOMES GOVERNANCE PEOPLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Creating institutional Ensuring equitable social Incentivizing coal-to-clean transitions
and policy environments and economic dividends including via the minimizing of economic and
that are catalytic for, and from transition environmental losses from transition
responsive to, coal-to-
clean transitions
Countries Increased Sources Affected Countries GHG Private Land and

adopt and government of income employees/ transition emissions sector other infra-
implement and public created for communities to cleaner reduced financing structure
policies and readiness affected equipped with energy mobilized reclaimed
strategies and appetite employees relevant skills sources
for coal- to reduce through job for jobs of the
to-clean coal retention or future
transition dependence job creation
OUTPUTS High-level policy dialogues Implementation of social Mine closure

Regional and local capacity plans
Plant decommissioning
building Economic regeneration
packages Mine reclamation and plant repurposing including
Transition strategy and energy efficiency
development Temporary income support
Economic and social like termination payments, Repowering with RE + storage + ancillary services
development plans unemployment insurance, Biodiversity protection/restoration
early retirement incentives
Communications strategy
ACTIVITIES Policy Inclusive consultative Economic, financial and Technical due New business
analyses processes and community/ labor market analyses diligence and enabling models and
and design; stakeholder analyses and design of response technological financing
national and packages solutions modalities
sectoral due
diligence
and road
map design
INPUTS Scaled-up, Dedicated Country-led, Consideration of systems Multi-MDB technical Large-scale,
flexible and climate program- transformation and social expertise and coherent
predictable finance matic, inclusion at the onset coordinated climate intervention
concessional for driving participatory action packages
finance for innovation approach
public and
private inter-
ventions
12
The Accelerated Coal Transition Investment Program Integrated Results Framework (ACT IRF, CIF 2021a) is the
approved governing document for ACT monitoring and reporting (as well as evaluation, learning, and results-
related aspects of gender) at the design stage. It serves to outline the program’s results chain based on the
foundational theory of change. It also establishes an innovative, new approach to results management in
climate finance that emphasizes holistic, multi-level, multi-dimensional results. The ACT IRF presents within a
single framework a comprehensive view of ACT’s expected results by fully incorporating elements related to the
following areas:
• Evaluation and learning

• Transformational change
• Gender and social inclusion
• Just transition
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Development impacts/co-benefits
• Fundamental program results and corresponding indicators.
Figure 2 illustrates how this structure is set up. A vertical axis stacks results levels from “Program Output
Results” upward to “Program Outcome Results” and “Program Co-Benefits,” “Program Impact Results,” and “CIF
Impact Results,” respectively. Each level contains several discrete results statements expected to be achieved
by the program at that level. This is the same approach used in most results frameworks, albeit adapted to CIF’s
programming context.
Along its horizontal axis, the integrated results framework contains both a monitoring approach (the column in
the middle following the results levels) and an evaluation and learning approach (the right-hand column). Each
discrete results statement (in the left-hand column) thus corresponds both to a monitoring approach and an
evaluation and learning approach. These dual approaches are designed to complement each other, leveraging
different tools, methods, and forms of evidence, but strategically combining them when applicable. Other key
results features, such as gender, social inclusion, and just transition components are integrated throughout the
framework in both the “monitoring” and “evaluation and learning” columns as applicable.
FIGURE 2. Structural Overview of CIF’s Integrated Results Framework and Key Features of Monitoring, Evaluation, and
Learning Functions
Results Levels Monitoring Approach Evaluation and Learning Approach
CIF Impact Results • CIF-level indicators • Transformational change signals across

dimensions
• Country-level indicators
Program Impact Results • Just transition studies
• Core indicators
• Co-benefits/development impact
Program Outcome Results • Co-benefits/development impact evaluations
modeling and monitoring • Gender, social inclusion anyalytics
Program Co-Benefits • SDGs • Learning platforms
• Gender, social inclusion, and • Other targeted evaluations and learning
Program Output Results distributional disaggregation activities
13
As a whole, the integrated results framework comprehensively structures both the multi-dimensional results
expected to be achieved through ACT and how the program’s approach to monitoring, evaluation, learning,
gender, and other key issue areas (e.g., SDGs and development co-benefits) attempts to capture these results
at multiple levels. This approach is based on the CIF Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Policy and Guidance
document (CIF MEL Policy, CIF 2022), which governs monitoring, evaluation, and learning activities across all CIF
programs. Table 1 summarizes the complementary monitoring, evaluation, and learning functions used to assess
each level of ACT’s expected results.
TABLE 1. Summary of ACT Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Approach
Results Level Summary of Monitoring, Evaluation, and

Learning Approach by Level
CIF Impact:
Accelerated transformational change and climate Anchored by CIF-level indicators and
financing that enable progress toward net- transformational change concepts that are relevant
zero emissions and adaptive, climate-resilient across CIF programs
development pathways, in a just and socially inclusive
manner
ACT Impact:
Accelerated transition from coal-powered to clean Country-driven approach based on ACT invest-
energy while supporting socio-economic goals and ment plans, NDCs, national development priorities,
environmental remediation and macro-level proxy reporting on the renewable
energy sector
ACT Outcomes:
Core indicators reported by MDBs on all ACT projects
• Countries adopt and implement policies and
with CIF aggregation of results at ACT portfolio level
strategies for coal-to- clean transition
• Increased government and public readiness and Targeted and thematic evaluation, learning, and
appetite to reduce coal dependence gender approaches
• Sources of income created for affected
employees through job retention or job creation
• Affected employees or communities equipped
with relevant skills for jobs of the future
• Countries transition to cleaner energy sources
• GHG emissions reduced
• Private sector financing mobilized
• Land and other infrastructure reclaimed
ACT Co-Benefits: At least one co-benefit reported by MDBs per ACT

Social and economic development co-benefits project
Additional analytics, evaluation, and learning
activities led by CIF
14
ACT Outputs:
Provides a broad framework of results outputs
• High-level policy dialogues
expected under ACT that can be incorporated into
• Regional and local capacity building project-level M&E frameworks by MDBs as relevant1
• Transition strategy and development
More limited, demand-driven evaluation, learning,
• Economic and social development plans
and gender activities
• Communications strategy
• Implementation of social plans
• Economic regeneration packages
• Temporary income support like termination
payments, unemployment insurance, early
retirement incentives
• Mine closure
• Plant decommissioning
• Mine reclamation and plant repurposing incl.
energy efficiency
• Repowering with RE + storage + ancillary services
• Biodiversity protection and restoration
1.3 Objectives and Scope of ACT M&R Toolkit

This toolkit serves as the implementing arm of the monitoring and reporting components2 of The ACT Integrated
Results Framework. Whereas the integrated results framework presents a blueprint of the main results the
program expects to achieve, this toolkit provides practical, step-by-step operational guidance on how to
measure, monitor, and report on program results from start to finish.
It is intended as a resource for a broad range of ACT-specific and global stakeholders: MDBs, recipient countries,
in-country stakeholders, contributor countries, civil society, observers, and others interested in how to monitor
and report on coal phase out issues. It covers both minimum results reporting requirements for the program and
flexible opportunities for enhancing results-based design, monitoring, and learning in targeted cases.
At its core, the toolkit outlines and establishes the ACT M&R System. It consists of guidance and tools for
monitoring and reporting on the progress and performance of ACT projects and programs3 via a combination
of ACT core indicators, co-benefit indicators, optional indicators, and project-specific indicators (all at the
MDB project level), CIF-level indicators (tabulated by CIF based on available data from other indicators), and
customized investment plan reporting (at the national level of each recipient country). The toolkit covers specific
information on each of the indicator categories, indicator definitions, methodological guidance, stakeholders’
roles and responsibilities, and annual reporting protocols, among other areas.
A separate toolkit, Maximizing Transformational Impact, lays out key considerations surrounding ACT’s
evaluation and learning approach, which consists of numerous tools, methods, and instruments that can
be deployed on a flexible and demand-driven basis to assess the merit, worth, value, or significance of ACT
15
interventions. The evaluation processes will draw on data generated by the ACT M&R System but will also
generate, analyze, and interpret additional information to support learning and change. The approach will
be especially critical in enhancing complex systems-level design and analysis of ACT, such as the program’s
contribution to transformational change and just transition processes.
Gender and social inclusion elements of the ACT investment program are cross-cutting and are dynamically
integrated throughout the monitoring and reporting approach presented in the toolkit, as well as in relevant
evaluation and learning activities beyond the scope of this toolkit.
1.4 Key Elements of the ACT M&R System

ACT, like all CIF programs, deploys its own M&R system fit for purpose. This approach is intended to reinforce
CIF’s programmatic approach, while providing distinct mechanisms for reporting on country progress, investment
plan implementation, and core project-level outcomes in the context of each program (CIF 2022, Section 5.1, Para
11).
In addition to having program-specific features, the ACT M&R System is unified with other CIF M&R systems
through a common framework of the following key elements:
a. Integrated results frameworks: Each CIF program is governed by a single framework that describes the key
results the program intends to achieve and indicators to measure them, along with integrated evaluation,
learning, and gender considerations. The integrated results frameworks are approved by the appropriate
CIF Trust Fund Committee (TFC) at program inception. As living documents, they can be adjusted over time
at the request of the TFCs, based on CIF’s experience implementing them.
b. M&R toolkits (i.e., this document): Each CIF program’s M&R system is comprehensively described through
a unique M&R toolkit. Toolkits include, among other features, precise indicator definitions, methodologies,
measurement guidance, and reporting protocols. Toolkits for newer CIF programs further integrate
evaluation, learning, and gender considerations.
c. Core indicators: Each CIF program measures its primary results via a concise set of mandatory core
indicators that are tracked and reported for all projects within the program. Typically reported by MDBs,
core indicators are approved by the relevant CIF TFC.
d. Expected results: All core indicators and other indicators reported by CIF projects and programs must first
establish their expected results (i.e., set targets). Expected results can cover annual, project lifetime, and/
or investment lifetime periods, as defined in the M&R toolkit. CIF measures the total results achieved for
each project.
e. Co-benefit indicators: Defined per program, co-benefit indicators measure outcomes that are central to
the economic, social, and/or environmental outcomes of a CIF investment beyond the primary climate and
sector goals of the program.
f. Optional or project-specific indicators: These indicators measure project-specific outcomes that are
central to a given CIF project’s objectives, although not captured in the core indicators. Some optional
indicators are included in the integrated results framework as suggestions for projects to consider
including. Project-specific indicators are included at the discretion of MDBs.
16
g. MDB project reports: CIF draws from and optimizes the use of MDBs’ own monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
function at the project level by collecting and collating project log frames, supervision reports, mid-term
reviews, project completion reports, and other project M&E documents from MDBs.
h. CIF Collaboration Hub (CCH): Results from all of CIF’s programmatic M&R systems are reported online in
the CCH portal, CIF’s integrated online information management system.
i. Operational and results reports (ORRs): Annual program results are aggregated, analyzed, and written up
for CIF TFCs in a results report or operational and results report for each program. These are main annual
outputs produced from CIF’s M&R systems
j. Qualitative and narrative reporting: CIF’s M&R systems rely on qualitative and narrative reporting
approaches to fill information gaps and complement the quantitative results reported.
Many CIF M&R key elements are further defined and customized to meet the specific needs of ACT. For example,
whereas all CIF programs utilize core indicators, several ACT core indicators are different from those used in
other CIF programs. The ACT M&R System comprises seven categories of indicators overall (see Section 3) and a
suite of complementary tools and methods (see Section 4).
The following program-specific features of the ACT M&R System4 aim to enhance the program’s approach to M&R
at the recipient country level:
Country impact indicators: A limited number of customized proxy indicators are selected in consultation with
ACT recipient countries to track each country’s overall progress toward the coal-to-clean transition stipulated in
the investment plan. These indicators are typically drawn from the national (or sectoral) M&E system; Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs); international monitoring initiatives,
such as the World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program’s (ESMAP) Regulatory Indicators for
Sustainable Energy scores (RISE scores) and its Multi-Tier Framework for Energy Access (MTF); or other available
data sources.5
Multi-stakeholder review mechanisms: ACT recipient countries are expected to utilize multi-stakeholder
review mechanisms as part of their ACT M&R approach. The review mechanisms enable recipient countries to
inclusively self-assess progress made on their investment plans. They might include national workshops, South-
South learning events, or other modalities. CIF encourages countries to deploy this flexible mechanism at least
three times over the course of the investment plan’s implementation period (at baseline, mid-term, and end-
line). CIF also aims to support recipient countries in implementing the mechanism, in coordination with MDBs,
on a demand-driven basis.
1.5 CIF Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Principles and Approach

Since 2022, CIF has adopted an integrated approach to monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), with activities
designed to complement each other in the pursuit of a cohesive body of evidence for results management,
accountability, and learning (CIF 2022, Section 3, Para 7). While this toolkit primarily focuses on the monitoring
function for ACT, the activities and approach described herein all adhere to the following guiding principles of
CIF’s monitoring, evaluation, and learning umbrella:
• Integrated MEL Approach

• Programmatic MEL with Country Ownership
17
• MDB Harmonization
• Multi-Stakeholder Engagement
• Applied Learning
• Inclusive Transformational Change
• Gender and Social Inclusion
• Climate and Development Alignment
• Innovation
• Timeliness and Cost-Effectiveness
• Ethical Execution
• Transparency
These principles are applied to the design of the ACT M&R System and are adapted to meet ACT’s unique
programming context.
18
2. ACT Monitoring and
Reporting Approach
2.1 ACT M&R Levels

CIF approaches monitoring of results as the systematic collection and analysis of information to track
outputs, outcomes, and impacts from projects and programs throughout implementation, which fulfills dual
accountability and applied learning functions at multiple scales (CIF 2022, Section 1, Para 3).
The central focus of the ACT M&R System is situated at the outcome level. At this level, all ACT-funded projects
are required to report on the program’s 11 core indicators (if relevant to the project’s objectives). The core
indicators are designed to capture progress and achievements in the key results areas that the program expects
to achieve across projects. MDBs are responsible for reporting on the core indicators on an annual basis through
the CCH portal. Core indicators should be identified within each project’s results framework at the time of CIF TFC
approval, then refined and fully integrated into the project’s results framework by the MDB Board approval stage.
The ACT M&R System also features co-benefit indicators at the outcome level. While at the same level as the
core indicators, co-benefit indicators relate to ACT projects’ achieved development outcomes that are not
directly linked to ACT’s main objective (e.g., reduction of pollutants, such as PM2.5 concentration). ACT-funded
projects are required to propose at least one co-benefit indicator at the time of CIF TFC approval, and to include
one or more of these indicators within the project’s results framework by the MDB Board approval stage.
Optional indicators in ACT are listed in the ACT IRF and this toolkit to help guide MDBs in developing results
frameworks for ACT-funded projects. CIF will capture and aggregate their progress throughout ACT as reported by
MDBs. Optional indicators are situated at both the outcome and output levels.
Monitoring and reporting activities at the program output level are more limited. Under CIF’s business model,
MDBs are responsible for supervising on-the-ground implementation of all ACT-funded projects, and the ACT
M&R System is thus intentionally designed not to create duplicate or parallel systems from those the MDBs
are already implementing at project level. ACT output indicators are nonetheless included within the ACT IRF
to illustrate the results expected at this level, and they can be used by MDBs to help guide project design,
monitoring, and evaluation considerations. CIF will primarily track two output-level indicators within ACT, which
both relate to the program’s contribution toward energy storage results.
ACT’s program impact-level monitoring approach will be tailored to each recipient country’s investment plan
focus and national context. CIF will collaborate with ACT recipient countries after their ACT investment plan
19
is endorsed to identify select impact-level indicators per country, which will be monitored and reported on by
ACT recipient country focal points over time. Recipient countries might draw from existing national statistics,
NDCs, NAPs, macro-level proxy reporting on sector progress, international monitoring initiatives (RISE scores,
ESMAP/MTF, The Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS),6 etc.), or other sources to fulfill this level of
monitoring. This flexible approach may be adapted over time as the program gains—and learns from—experience
implementing it in different country settings.
At the CIF impact level, project results will be tracked and aggregated through the lens of four CIF impact
indicators: mitigation, adaptation, beneficiaries, and co-finance. Together, these cover key aspects of CIF’s
mission. In most cases, ACT-funded projects will not need to list specifically these indicators within their own
results frameworks. The CIF Administrative Unit is responsible for mapping available results data from core
indicators, project-specific indicators, and other project data sources onto these four high-level CIF impact
indicators to report results across programs where applicable. Some of the results data from ACT core indicators
will automatically feed upward into CIF impact indicators (e.g., GHG emissions reduced/avoided from ACT will
automatically feed upward into CIF’s total GHG emissions reduced/avoided; while the number and percentage
of employees of retired coal plants or mines that have access to sustained income due to ACT will feed upwards
into CIF’s total beneficiaries.) In other cases, ACT’s contribution to CIF impact areas will only be applied if MDBs
include a relevant indicator into the project-level results framework of an ACT-funded project (e.g., in the area
of adaptation). ACT’s gender impacts are considered across the entire M&R spectrum in a cross-cutting manner
(see Box 1).
BOX 1. Monitoring ACT Progress on Gender Issues

ACT progress on gender issues is another important element of ACT’s implementation and results. It is assessed
through a combination of approaches both within the ACT M&R System and through separate mechanisms. Within
the ACT M&R System, gender-disaggregated core and co-benefit indicators are expected to contribute to the body
of evidence on gender. MDBs also have the option to identify one or more gender-specific indicators under their co-
benefit reporting (see Section 3.4). Additional approaches to assessing gender-related issues in implementation and
results are expected to take place outside the main ACT M&R System.
See Section 4.3 for more comprehensive information on CIF’s multi-pronged approach to monitoring ACT progress on
gender issues.
20
2.2 ACT M&R Roles, Responsibilities, and Process
The ACT M&R System is the cornerstone of results management in the program. Implementing it is a minimum
requirement across all recipient countries and MDB-approved projects. As in other aspects of CIF, the ACT M&R
System relies on the partnership of multiple CIF actors along the investment continuum. The CIF Administrative
Unit, MDBs, ACT recipient countries, and other program stakeholders all have a unique role to play in ensuring
that the system functions effectively.
The CIF Administrative Unit is responsible for managing the system’s design and execution, monitoring, and
analyzing ACT contributions to expected results (as outlined in the program’s theory of change) on an annual
basis and submitting achieved results to the CIF TFC for review.7
MDBs are responsible for ensuring that project-level ACT indicators are identified, and M&R data are collected,
aggregated, and submitted for each ACT project under implementation on an annual basis. Depending on the
project type (i.e., public or private sector), ACT M&R data are likely to be collected at the project level by project
task managers (i.e., task team leaders or TTLs) in coordination with a national executing agency or a private
sector implementer. Each MDB’s CIF coordination team should supervise the annual M&R process, but it may
delegate certain tasks to project task teams as they see fit.
Recipient countries are responsible for national investment plan monitoring, evaluation, and learning activities
with support and guidance from the CIF Administrative Unit. This includes identifying and reporting on select
investment plan-level impact indicators; conducting evaluative multi-stakeholder review workshops, and/or
other tools at key moments in the investment plan; and coordinating with MDBs to ensure that project-level
results data feed into the investment plan’s results framework as required.
Finally, a range of data producers are most likely to generate and collect relevant data at the field level, such as
line ministries, utility authorities, or project contractors. It is the role of MDBs and recipient countries to broker
the data from where it is originally produced, collate it, and report it in a format that is suitable to the ACT M&R
System and its parameters.
21
Country Investment Plan Monitoring and Reporting
Investment plan-level monitoring and reporting (IP-level M&R) is overseen by ACT recipient country focal points.
It involves several distinct activities at key points within the investment plan lifecycle.
Investment Plan Development and Endorsement

Investment plans are expected to include a full integrated results framework at the country level. This framework
should be aligned with the program’s overall approach to monitoring, evaluation, and learning as described
in the ACT IRF and this toolkit, but it should be adapted to fit the scope of the proposed investment plan,
the national statistical ecosystem, and other country context. It should include country-specific impacts and
investment plan-level impact indicators, in addition to being generally aligned with the ACT IRF at lower levels
of results. Data to inform baselines and targets can be sourced through national statistical systems, NDCs, NAPs,
SDG monitoring platforms, international monitoring initiatives (e.g., RISE scores, ESMAP/MTF, World Bank LSMS,
etc.), MDB support for primary data collection, and other data sources. The data sources selected should be
clearly cited and referenced as they appear throughout the investment plan.
Upon designing the investment plan, ACT recipient countries must also determine, in collaboration with CIF and
MDB partners, which country-level impact indicators they will track throughout the course of their investment
plan. These indicators might include national or sectoral statistics used as a proxy to illustrate progress related
to the investment plan over time; important impact/outcome-level indicators related to objectives of the
investment plan that are not well captured via core indicators (from the project level); or information available in
the country related to NDCs, NAPs, or other national climate change-related monitoring systems. Such indicators
should be reflected within the investment plan’s integrated results framework and identified for tracking
following the investment plan’s endorsement.
Investment plans should further describe the overall monitoring, evaluation, and learning approach the country
plans to follow (e.g., multi-stakeholder review workshops, analytics, evaluations, etc.). Within the investment plan
document itself, the integrated results framework should thus be accompanied by a short M&R implementation
plan, plus considerations of any evaluation and/or learning protocol, as guided by CIF’s Maximizing
Transformational Impact toolkit. Gender and social inclusion considerations should also be integrated into the
proposed monitoring, evaluation, and learning approach, such as gender-disaggregated indicators and specific
gender indicators relevant to the investment plan based on the country-level gender and social inclusion
diagnostic, proposed interventions, and gender-related outcomes expected.
If the ACT recipient country elects to conduct a diagnostic evaluation or other primary data collection to inform
the investment plan and project design, baseline and other data from the diagnostics should directly feed into
the investment plan-level integrated results framework and monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan proposed
by the recipient country.
Recipient countries may also elect to implement an inception multi-stakeholder review mechanism (e.g.,
workshop) for the investment plan shortly before or after the initial projects have been approved by
the respective MDB Boards. The objective of the review mechanism is to engage a broad constituency of
stakeholders (government, implementers, MDBs, beneficiaries, civil society observers, women’s organizations,
private sector, etc.) involved with the investment plan to critically reflect and establish criteria for monitoring
and evaluating the transformational objectives laid out in the investment plan.
22
Annual Investment Plan Monitoring and Reporting
On an annual basis (or as data are available), recipient countries should submit updates on the pre-identified
investment plan-level country impact indicators to the CIF Administrative Unit, along with short narrative
updates on any key progress, achievements, and challenges faced during the reporting year (see Section 3.2).
Reporting will take place on the CCH portal and is the responsibility of the ACT country focal point or delegated
technical personnel on the ACT country focal point team. ACT recipient countries are expected to track three to
five national or investment plan-level indicators identified at investment plan inception, in coordination with CIF
and MDB partners. Although new results data may not be available for each investment plan-level indicator on
an annual basis, recipient countries should report the latest available data annually and assess overall progress
qualitatively.
Recipient country focal points are further encouraged to share nationally produced materials related to their ACT
investment plan, such as videos, photos, blogs, and country progress reports. They should also coordinate with
the MDBs implementing the ACT projects in their country to review project-level M&R and results data available
to date.
Additional ways to share and learn from investment plan progress may become available in the form of South-
South knowledge exchanges, targeted evaluation and learning activities, and other opportunities.
Investment Plan Review at Mid-Term and Completion

As the implementation of a recipient country’s investment plan advances, the country should, in coordination
with MDBs, make use of the multi-stakeholder review mechanism at key inflection points in the investment
plan timeline to assess and reflect on investment plan progress, challenges, and transformational objectives
over time. This should be conducted around the mid-term of the investment plan (which can be determined by
the recipient country, in coordination with MDB partners) and again as the investment plan reaches completion
(when all or most projects in the ACT investment plan are fully implemented). This mechanism is critical to
collate the country’s investment plan progress across multiple ACT projects and to consider with a wide range of
ACT stakeholders the catalytic grid-level effects at scale.
Recipient countries are encouraged to make use of this mechanism on a more frequent basis should the
demand and business case arise. The CIF Administrative Unit is available to support recipient countries and
MDBs with this approach upon request.
23
Project-Level Monitoring and Reporting
MDBs work closely with recipient countries in the CIF business model and are responsible for designing and
implementing project operations, including the project’s core monitoring and reporting function. The ACT M&R
System is designed to absorb the differing M&R protocols, indicator selection, results measurement, supervision,
and completion procedures that govern MDBs’ operations at the project level by collecting, harmonizing, and
aggregating MDB-reported results into key ACT portfolio results at the global level. Nonetheless, MDBs are
still responsible for aligning their project results frameworks with dimensions of the ACT/CIF objectives, core
indicators, and theory of change, as well as to anticipate the overall monitoring and reporting data needs of the
ACT M&R System.
Project Design, Appraisal, and Approval

MDBs must ensure that all projects under consideration for ACT funding fully integrate the required ACT
indicators into their project-level results framework. The most important aspect of this integration is to ensure
that all ACT core indicators are included (although core indicators that are justifiably irrelevant to a given
project’s context may be excluded. This is determined at the MDB Board approval phase.) MDBs can match the
definition of these indicators using their own terminology, if necessary. However, the correspondence of the
MDB-defined indicator to the ACT core indicator should remain clear, and the measurement methodologies
should remain compatible to enable the eventual aggregation of results reported across projects in the program.
In addition to incorporating the core indicators into project results frameworks, MDBs must identify at least one
co-benefit indicator per project and include it within the project’s results framework. Optional indicators may
be included at the discretion of the MDBs, as well as project-specific indicators that the MDBs put forward in
developing the project’s full results framework through their project design and appraisal procedure (i.e., beyond
the ACT-specific M&R requirements).
Energy storage indicators must also be included within the project-level results framework if the ACT project
being appraised contains an energy storage component.
MDB Board approval triggers the formal requirement for ACT projects to:
a. Identify all applicable core, co-benefit, project-specific, and optional indicators and report their
expected results (i.e., targets)
b. Begin reporting achieved results to CIF annually during the reporting period
c. Share the full project results framework (as devised by the MDB) with CIF.8
MDBs can take these actions during the first annual results reporting cycle that follows the project’s approval
(i.e., it does not need to occur at the specific moment of the project’s MDB Board approval). CIF will coordinate
with MDB teams to ensure that all indicators are identified in alignment with the ACT M&R System and
established within the CCH, where all results reporting for the program takes place.
24
Annual Monitoring and Reporting
ACT results reporting follows an annual cycle from January 1 to December 31. MDBs must submit updates every
spring (approximately March 15) on results achieved by the end of the reporting period (i.e., December 31 of
the previous calendar year). Actual results must be reported on all applicable core, co-benefit, optional, and
project-specific indicators. Reporting must cover all ACT projects that have at least reached the MDB Board
approval phase by the end of the reporting period.
Over time, actual results—annual and cumulative—should continue to be reported as projects advance in
their implementation. Each ACT project under implementation should also report on other relevant progress
and achievements on an annual basis by submitting to the CIF Administrative Unit the most recently available
progress reports or implementation status reports issued during the reporting period (as part of the MDBs’ own
project monitoring and supervision protocols).9 All submissions should be made online through the CCH portal.
MDB focal points for CIF and relevant project managers should be granted access to the CCH before the first
results reporting period of the project(s).
MDBs should also endeavor to share information on results achieved with recipient country focal points and
continue to engage in investment plan-level activities related to the country’s ACT programmatic approach.
Project-level results are expected to serve as the foundation for investment plan-level results management and
related activities and should be made available to flow upward to the investment plan level and national level
as appropriate.
Project Mid-Term, Restructuring, and Completion

At project mid-term, MDBs are requested to share with CIF any mid-term review reports conducted through the
MDBs’ own policies and procedures.10 Potential changes made during mid-term review or project restructuring
that affect ACT projects’ expected results, indicators, or implementation scope must be communicated to CIF,
along with the justification and formal documentation of these changes. CIF will only adjust expected results
and indicators within the CCH upon receipt of such formal documentation. The same policy shall apply to the
monitoring and reporting of ACT projects that are restructured following MDB Board approval.
At project completion, ACT projects must report via the CCH the final results achieved on the relevant core
indicators, co-benefit indicators, optional indicators, and project-specific indicators. MDB should also share
the project completion report generated through their respective MDB’s protocol.11 As multiple ACT projects
reach completion; CIF will aggregate lessons learned across projects and analyze evidence garnered from the
completion reports submitted.
25
2.3 Considerations for Quality at Entry
The following due diligence considerations at project inception can help facilitate the M&R process throughout
an ACT project’s lifecycle: baseline data, high-level analysis, data collection and disaggregation protocols, and
knowledge and learning development.
Baseline Data
ACT core indicators and most other indicators measure “the contribution of ACT” toward a specific outcome or
output. As a result, the baseline value is implicitly set to zero (0). However, in some cases non-zero baseline
values need to be calculated as intermediary steps, such as with GHG emissions levels prior to an operation’s
intervention or the number of jobs created for an energy operation prior to ACT investment. MDBs should
consider baseline data needs, relevant studies, and analyses that will feed not only into project design,
but also into investment plan M&R needs and future monitoring and reporting. Likewise, many qualitative
indicators, such as those related to the regulatory environment and marketplace, will require adequate baseline
descriptions to measure results achieved during and after project implementation.
Whole-of-Energy-System or Grid-Level Analyses

ACT investments can be deployed in multiple places within an economic or energy ecosystem, such as at
decommission of existing coal assets, addition of new renewable assets, as well as for alternate economic utility
of decommissioned infrastructure. The expected interplay between renewable energy integration investments
and their broader interlinked systems suggests the need for a “whole of energy system” analysis at baseline,
which can be used as a reference point for a full range of specific outputs and outcomes that are to be
monitored over the course of implementation. ACT investment plans or projects are strongly encouraged to
orient their results measurement approach toward wider systemic analyses rather than simply tracking specific
deployment outputs. This will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the coal transition
process, which will ultimately help strengthen the analysis of ACT’s impact on questions related to the national
energy mix, just transitions, and GHG emissions within specific energy and socioeconomic contexts, markets,
countries, and regulatory environments.
Data Collection Protocol

MDBs are encouraged to devise a full data collection protocol for their projects at the time of approval and
to budget accordingly. This should include anticipated data sources, timelines, and collection frequency, in
addition to designated personnel for data collection and aggregation among both project teams and MDBs’ CIF
coordinators. Projects are encouraged to consider the data needs they face in completing robust completion
reports and end-line analyses in line with ACT objectives.
Disaggregation by Gender and Other Factors

Whenever possible, all indicators should be disaggregated to improve the ACT M&R System’s analytical potential
by sub-population or sub-category. For example, ACT Core Indicator 1 should report the policies by type (i.e.,
policies, regulations, codes, standards) and a co-benefit indicator on the number of jobs created should be
disaggregated by gender of employees, number qualifying as youth, and the number belonging to vulnerable
groups. Planning for data disaggregation should occur from inception. Specific guidelines on disaggregation
are included for each indicator in this toolkit and are established in the structure of the CCH’s online reporting
pages for ACT.
26
At the very minimum, all beneficiary-related indicators (e.g., ACT Core Indicators 3 and 4) should be fully
gender-disaggregated to allow for the analysis of gender gaps in key program outcome areas over the course
of implementation (CIF 2022, Section 6, Para 33, Point G). Possible disaggregation by marginalized groups might
include ethnic, religious, and racial minorities; Indigenous Peoples and local communities; migrants; youth;
persons with disabilities; and others.
Opportunities for Learning and Knowledge Development

ACT projects are encouraged to consider learning and knowledge development from the onset and to proactively
engage with the CIF Administrative Unit on areas of potential interest. The integration of research and learning
questions into project design and M&R systems can further strengthen the potential of ACT to generate
knowledge and evidence beyond the core indicators in a way that is beneficial to funded operations throughout
their execution, as well as the emerging field of coal-to-clean transition more generally.
27
3. Indicators and Definitions
The ACT M&R System comprises seven categories of indicators, from the impact level of the ACT IRF (highest
level) down to output level (lowest level). Each category is designed to cover a complementary aspect of the
program’s M&R, implicating different ACT stakeholders, data collectors, reporters, analytical potential, and results
audience.
CIF impact indicators (Category 1) are the highest level of indicators in the program. They relate to CIF’s global
results, areas that are applicable to and aggregable across both ACT and other CIF programming areas. CIF is
responsible for reporting this information, which is fed from available data generated at different levels of the
ACT M&R System and other CIF programs’ M&R systems. The ACT country impact indicators (Category 2) are
reported at the national and/or investment plan level from each recipient country.
All ACT core indicators (Category 3) are mandatory to report on when applicable and remain constant
across ACT projects. The core indicators form the foundation of the ACT M&R System and must be
directly integrated into the project-level results framework devised by MDBs for every ACT project
approved (unless justifiably inapplicable to a project’s design). All ACT projects must also report at
least one co-benefit indicator (Category 4) selected from the options suggested in this toolkit or
another co-benefit identified by the MDB.
Optional indicators (Category 5) are similar in nature to the core indicators but are not required to be reported,
as these typically vary between different types of projects. CIF will track these indicators if and when they do
occur in MDBs’ project-level results frameworks. Project-specific indicators (Category 6) refer to the remaining
indicators that MDBs independently elect to include within ACT individual projects’ results frameworks. While
these indicators are likely to vary significantly across ACT projects, CIF draws from the information reported from
the full project results frameworks to identify areas for further aggregation and other avenues to better capture
the program’s total achieved results.
Finally, the ACT M&R System includes two energy storage indicators (Category 7). These twin indicators are
directly borrowed from CIF’s Global Energy Storage Program (GESP) and are required to be reported on by all ACT
projects that contain an energy storage component. The intention is to complement and strengthen CIF’s overall
evidence base on this important emerging sub-field within the sector.
Table 2 provides a complete list of indicators used in ACT. It is followed by detailed definitions and measurement
methodologies for the indicators, in addition to overall guidance on reporting processes. The most
comprehensive guidance centers on the core indicators and co-benefit indicators (Categories 3 and 4), since
28
these two categories constitute required monitoring and reporting for all ACT projects. However, additional
descriptions and examples are also provided for the remaining indicator categories to explain how the full ACT
M&R System is intended to function.
TABLE 2. List of Indicators for ACT

INDICATORS APPROACH
Category 1: CIF Impact Indicators (CIF Global)

CIF 1. Mitigation: GHG emissions reduced or avoided (Mt CO2 eq) Aggregated by CIF
CIF 2. Adaptation: Strengthened climate resilience of land (ha), people (#), Administrative Unit based on
and physical assets (units) through a CIF-supported adaptation mechanism the ACT core indicators and
project-specific indicators
CIF 3. Beneficiaries: Number of women and men benefiting from CIF that feed into them
investments
CIF 4. Co-Finance: Volume of co-finance leveraged (USD)
Category 2: ACT Country Impact Indicators (Country Investment Plans)

At least 3-5 investment plan-related indicators per country; Identified and reported by ACT
Selected in consultation with MDBs and CIF based on national M&E recipient countries
ecosystems/data availability;
Varies per country investment plan
Category 3: ACT Core Indicators (Projects)
PILLAR 1: GOVERNANCE Must be reported by MDBs

for all ACT projects; directly
ACT 1. Policies: Number of policies, regulations, codes, or standards that have
integrated into project-level
been amended or adopted (#)
results frameworks
ACT 2. Readiness: Coal transition strategies adopted (#)
PILLAR 2: PEOPLE
ACT 3 (A CIF 3). Income Security for Employees of Subset Industries: Number
and percentage of employees of retired coal plants/mines that have access to
sustained income (#, %)
ACT 4. Social Plans and Economic Regeneration Packages: Number of direct
beneficiaries of implemented social plans and economic regeneration activities
(#)
PILLAR 3: INFRASTRUCTURE
ACT 5 (A CIF 1). Mitigation: GHG emissions reduced or avoided (t CO2 eq)—
direct/indirect
ACT 6 (A CIF 4). Co-Finance: Volume of co-finance leveraged (USD)
ACT 7. Plant Decommissioning: Capacity of existing coal power/heat
generation assets accelerated for retirement (MWGJ)
29
ACT 8. Repowering: Installed capacity of renewable energy (MW)
ACT 9. Coal Abatement: Amount of coal diverted (MT)
ACT 10. Mine Closure, Reclamation: Mine area reclaimed and reforested/
restored (Ha)
ACT 11. Plant Closure, Repurposing: Annual energy savings (GWh/yr)
Category 4: ACT Co-Benefits (Examples for Projects)

ACT Co-Benefit 1. Pollutants: Must be reported by MDBs (at
Atmospheric Pollution: Decrease in concentration of particulate matters least one indicator); varies per
PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide ACT project
Terrestrial Pollution: Reduction in volume of contaminants discharged

Health Benefits: Value of avoided health costs due to reductions in
atmospheric pollutants, reduction of respiratory illnesses, and premature
mortality due to reduction in atmospheric pollutants
ACT Co-Benefit 2. Just Transition: Social inclusion and distributional impacts
ACT Co-Benefit 3 (A CIF 3). Energy Access:
National RISE scores (ESMAP)
National MTF rates (ESMAP)/SE4All Global Tracking Frameworks (GTF)
ACT Co-Benefit 4. Gender- and Vulnerable Groups-Specific Co-Benefits:
Number of beneficiaries (#)
Category 5: Optional Indicators (Projects)
Outcome Level: Can be adopted by MDBs

as they see fit; CIF
ACT Optional 1: Volume of incomes generated from new economic activity (USD)
Administrative Unit will
ACT Optional 2: New coal capacity addition abated/negated (MW) aggregate information as
ACT Optional 3: Coverage/scale of ecosystems protected and strengthened (Ha) available
ACT Optional 4: Value of ecosystem services generated or protected (USD)
ACT Optional 5: Value of coal assets reclaimed or repurposed (USD)
Output Level:
ACT Optional 6: Number of persons re-skilled/retrained (#)
ACT Optional 7: Number of programs deployed/implemented to minimize environmental
and social losses from coal transitions (#)
ACT Optional 8: Number of programs designed to minimize environmental and social
losses from coal transitions (#)
ACT Optional 9: Number of roadmaps, action plans, assessments, and/or related due
diligence completed on minimizing environmental and social losses from coal transitions (#)
ACT Optional 10: Number of communications plans designed and rolled out (#)
ACT Optional 11: Number of persons consulted via local/multi-stakeholder consultations
regarding project impacts and related economic and social regeneration strategies (#)
ACT Optional 12: Number of local/multistakeholder consultations regarding project
impacts and related economic and social regeneration strategies (#)
30
Category 6: Project-Specific Indicators (Projects)
Independently selected by MDBs and organically included in the projects’ CIF Administrative Unit will
individual results frameworks; aggregate information as
Varies per ACT project available
Category 7: Energy Storage (Projects)

GESP 1. Energy Rating: Energy rating (MWh) of storage systems installed Must be reported by MDBs
GESP 2. Power Rating: Power rating (MW) of storage systems installed for ACT projects with energy
storage components
31
3.1 CIF Impact Indicators (Category 1)
CIF impact indicators are monitored and reported at the CIF level, based on available results data provided by
MDBs on ACT projects and a pre-determined alignment of which program core indicators align with CIF impact
indicators. For example, reporting on ACT Core Indicator 3 (Sustained Income) feeds into CIF Impact Indicator
3 (Beneficiaries). CIF impact indicators aim to measure the contributions of all CIF programs toward four key
impact areas within CIF’s overall mission: mitigation, adaptation, climate/development benefits for people, and
climate financing.
These indicators are the direct reporting responsibility of the CIF Administrative Unit with no direct action
required from MDBs or ACT recipient countries.
Table 3 presents a short overview of the CIF impact indicators with a focus on how they align with the ACT M&R
System.
TABLE 3. CIF Impact Indicators in Relation to ACT M&R System

Indicator Unit of Disaggrega- ACT inputs Examples of other CIF Considerations
measure tion inputs
CIF Impact Indicator 1: Mitigation

Greenhouse Metric tons of None at ACT 5 CTF Core Indicator 1 Flexibility needed
gas (GHG) CO2 eq. per year present for different
emissions (annual) SREP Co-Benefit Indicator 3 methodologies across
reduced or Direct (Scope program types (e.g.,
avoided Metric tons 1) vs. indirect FIP Reporting Theme 1.1a energy sector vs.
of CO2 eq (Scopes 2 forestry and land
(cumulative) and 3) as REI Core Indicator 1
use sector), sectors,
feasible projects, and MDBs,
Metric tons of with appropriate
CO2 eq per year caveats cited
(lifetime)
CIF Impact Indicator 2: Adaptation

Strengthened People (women/ By Gender Potential PPCR Core Indicator 5 Capturing adaptation
climate men) contributions results requires
resilience from ACT PPCR MDB indicators proactive tagging of
of land (ha), Hectares indicators on sustainable land the adaptation context
people (#), deemed management, and climate- of specific projects/
and physical Number of relevant to resilient infrastructure interventions
assets (#) physical assets adaptation
through Potential contributions: Inputs to this indicator
a CIF- FIP Reporting Themes 1.1b are likely to be highly
supported and 1.2, REI Core Indicator decentralized
adaptation 4 (physical assets), ACT
mechanism Core Indicator 7, optional/
project-specific indicators
deemed relevant to
adaptation, NPC, and other
CIF programs
32
CIF Impact Indicator 3: Beneficiaries
Number People (women/ By Gender ACT 3 PPCR Core Indicator 5 People counted under
of women men) CIF 2 will also be
and men Direct vs. Optional/ PPCR MDB indicator on counted under CIF
benefiting indirect, as project- persons trained 3, but the reverse
from CIF feasible specific is not necessarily
FIP Reporting Theme 1.2
investments indicators true (i.e., adaptation
measuring SREP Core Indicator 2 beneficiaries
beneficiaries are a subset of
CTF Core Indicator 4 all development
beneficiaries)
Potential contributions: REI
Core Indicator 7, SREP co- Beneficiaries of
benefit indicators, NPC, and ACT social plans
other CIF programs and economic
regeneration
packages may also be
considered as an input
CIF Impact Indicator 4: Co-Finance

Volume of USD Source of co- ACT 6 CTF Core Indicator 2 Methodologies are
co-finance financing likely to differ across
leveraged SREP Core Indicator 3 MDBs
Mitigation vs.
adaptation REI Core Indicator 6 ACT is expected to
(or both or primarily contribute to
other) PPCR and FIP completed mitigation finance
disbursement records
Comparable indicator
exists in all newer CIF
programming areas
33
3.2 ACT Country Impact Indicators (Category 2)
ACT country impact indicators are monitored and reported at the national or investment plan level, based on
national and sectoral M&E systems, NDCs or NAPs, international monitoring initiatives (RISE scores, ESMAP/MTF,
etc.), or other available data sources. They are intended to provide a high-level view of each country’s progress
on the coal-to-clean transition, as relevant to the scope of its investment plan. They typically cover proxy results
of ACT investment plans, (i.e., ACT projects contribute to these country impacts, but the country impacts are not
attributable to ACT alone).
The country impact indicators approach is critical in the context of ACT, since many investments are expected
to catalyze sector-level effects beyond the geographic and/or temporal scope of the discrete projects under
implementation. For example, interventions that repurpose coal plants to generate electricity from renewable
energy sources will enable an increased share of renewables to come onboard the grid in the country (not
simply an increase in installed capacity of renewable energy). Yet, a country impact indicator like the share of
renewables (%) in a country’s energy mix is not well captured via a project-specific M&R approach.
In addition, the country impact indicator approach provides a direct mechanism for country focal points to be
involved in the monitoring and reporting of results from ACT (rather than attributing all roles and responsibilities
to MDBs). This builds on the good M&R practices, experience, and lessons learned from earlier CIF programs
and strengthens the programmatic approach throughout the implementation phase of investment plans. It also
avoids developing a new set of program-level indicators that might not be well suited in the diverse country
contexts involved in the program. Instead, countries have flexibility to draw from their existing national and
sectoral M&E systems to identify what should be tracked, or to rely on well-established third-party monitoring,
data, and research initiatives relevant to the scope of ACT, such as the ESMAP Multi-Tier Framework for Energy
Access (MTF) surveys or country-level RISE indicators. Increasingly, countries should also integrate data systems
from their NDCs, NAPs, and other climate change policy instruments with investments like those in ACT.
Approximately three to five country impact indicators are to be identified during the investment plan
development and endorsement process through scoping discussions and agreement reached between the ACT
country focal point team, the CIF Administrative Unit, and MDBs. This can take place during the joint mission
for investment plan development, during the drafting stage of the investment plan, or closer to the time of
endorsement.
These indicators are the reporting responsibility of ACT recipient countries on an annual basis using the CCH
system. Additional qualitative narrative reporting related to the selected country impacts is also required. The
annual reporting rhythm of country impact M&R should be complemented with more comprehensive multi-
stakeholder M&R review mechanisms at key inflection points in the investment plan’s implementation timeline
(i.e., beginning, mid-term, and late-stage/close-out).
Examples of Possible ACT Country Impact Indicators:

• Share of renewable energy generation in supported countries’ energy systems (%)
• National RISE Scores (ESMAP)
• Job volume/quality/accessibility/security indicators (e.g., The Good Jobs KPIs, etc.)
Potential Data Sources: National statistics, macro-level indicators, primary data collection, World Bank and
MDB country data.
34
3.3 ACT Core Indicators (Category 3)
ACT core indicators are monitored and reported at the project level, based on MDBs’ own M&E systems. They
must be integrated into project-level results frameworks for all ACT-funded projects and can only be omitted
if they are inapplicable to the scope of a given project. ACT projects must identify which of the 11 ACT core
indicators apply during their CIF TFC approval submission and report indicative targets. The identification is
to be finalized along with the final target values at the MDB Board approval phase. The core indicators that
are relevant to each ACT project are then entered into the CCH, including the target values, the necessary
disaggregation, and the disaggregated target values. This set-up is the basis for all future results reporting
required by that project.
These indicators are the reporting responsibility of MDBs on an annual basis.
The following section describes in detail each of the 11 ACT core indicators, organized into three thematic pillars:
Pillar 1: Governance (ACT 1–2), Pillar 2: People (ACT 3–4), and Pillar 3: Infrastructure (ACT 5–11). A summary box is
included at the beginning of each indicator sub-section to highlight the headline M&R issues per indicator. Each
indicator sub-section then provides: an overview of the indicator’s contribution to ACT’s program objectives;
definitions of the key terminology undergirding the full indicator; methodological guidance on what is needed
for establishing a baseline, setting a target, and measuring achieved results; an explanation of the required and
suggested disaggregation for the indicator; other considerations specific to each indicator; the data sources
that projects can expect to draw from for this indicator; and a linked list of external references used and as a
potential resource for ACT M&R stakeholders.
35
PILLAR 1: GOVERNANCE
ACT 1: Policies
ACT Core Indicator 1: Number of policies, regulations, codes, or standards that have been amended or
adopted
Unit of Measurement: Number of policies, regulations, codes, or standards (#)
Disaggregation: By Type; Gender-Responsive vs. Gender-Blind; National vs. Sectoral vs. Local
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Reported annually as a cumulative achieved value against a cumulative
target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Corollary to SREP, PPCR, and REI policy indicators
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 1 measures the number (#) of policies, regulations, codes, or standards that have been
amended or adopted by national or sub-national government entities, following receipt of support from ACT
at any point of the policymaking or regulatory process. The different types of policies, regulations, codes, or
standards reported under this indicator are intended to illustrate progress toward creating a robust enabling
environment for the coal-to-clean transition and delivering positive signals to prospective investors.
Under Pillar 1: Governance, the indicator may measure either actions related to the broader coal transition
governance architecture, or actions that are intended to subsequently deliver immediate or long-term outcomes
under Pillar 2: People or Pillar 3: Infrastructure. Where the adoption or amendment of policies, regulations,
codes, or standards aim to deliver onward outcomes under Pillar 2 or 3 within the project’s lifetime, these
outcomes should be reflected via the relevant core indicators under such pillars.
Definitions:
Measured outcomes can relate to policies, regulations, codes, or standards covering, but not limited to: energy,
mining, and related financial sectors; just transition, social protection and jobs; vulnerable groups and gender-
responsive protections and support that relate to transition; and the environment (i.e., land reclamation). Energy
sector actions may relate to the development or deployment of renewable energy (RE) and related markets; coal
capacity abatement; financial sector policies; or financing of energy efficiency (EE), RE and related markets, and
products that support the transition. They can also include policies targeted at carbon pricing. Just transition,
social protection, and jobs actions may relate to labor market policies, economic regeneration policies, or labor/
livelihood protection policies, such as those relating to vocational support and mobility assistance education,
training, and small business support services. Policies that are responsive to vulnerable groups may relate to
access for and inclusion of younger and older workers, persons with disabilities, labor migrants, and racial and
ethnic minorities.
Methodological Guidance:
Baseline: Identifying whether an ACT intervention affects a policy, regulation, code, or standard is the
responsibility of the MDB at project inception. MDBs should apply this categorization in accordance with the
policy ecosystem and terminology used in each country’s context.
36
Expected Results: Targets are set as the total number of policies, regulations, codes, or standards expected to be
amended or adopted before the project conducts its completion report. Any policy, regulation, code, or standard
for which ACT provides direct support (e.g., technical assistance) qualifies under this indicator, regardless of the
specific stage of policymaking or regulation during which ACT intervenes. Not all ACT projects may entail policy
and regulatory interventions, so in these cases, the expected result for this indicator should be reported as
zero (0) with clear justification provided on how the project scope is not relevant to addressing any enabling
environment issues pertaining to the coal-to-clean transition.
Achieved Results: To report on this indicator, MDBs are expected to tally the total number of policies, regulations,
codes, or standards that have been amended or adopted by project completion. MDBs are encouraged to
complement this indicator with a qualitative assessment of how policies, regulations, codes, or standards have
been implemented, while providing evidence of direct or indirect effects of ACT interventions’ impact on the
enabling environment to promote the coal-to-clean transition.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in three ways: (i) Type, (ii) Gender-Responsive
vs. Gender-Blind, and (iii) National vs. Sectoral vs. Local. Further specifications are available for this indicator in
the CCH, giving MDBs the option to specify the theme(s) covered by the policies.
MDBs should determine whether an ACT intervention affects a policy, a regulation, a code, or a standard (i.e.,
the type). This determination should be made in accordance with the policy ecosystem and terminology used
in each country context. Due to this variation, it is expected that there may be some fluidity across these sub-
categories at the ACT investment program level.
It should be further determined whether an ACT-supported policy, regulation, code, or standard is gender-
responsive or gender-blind in nature. Gender-responsive policies, regulations, codes, or standards take into
consideration the differentiated needs of women and men, potential gender gaps, and actions needed to
address them. Gender-blind policies, regulations, codes, or standards do not specifically take into consideration
or address any of these issues. Examples of gender-responsive policies, regulations, codes, or standards relevant
to ACT might include the following:
• Human resources policies that support gender equality or women’s employment

• Inclusion of safeguards against sexual exploitation and gender-based violence
Given the role of different entities in coal transition, policies could be at the national, sectoral, or local level,
depending on the nature of the activities.
Additional disaggregation for this indicator may consider the themes that are covered by the policies. In addition
to the suggested themes, MDBs are able to insert their own specifications.
Disaggregation is identified within the CCH reporting platform during the first year of reporting and is maintained
throughout the lifetime of each project.
Other Considerations:
Qualitative reporting is a critical aspect of ACT Core Indicator 1 to enhance the robustness of monitoring progress
on coal transition policies, regulations, codes, and standards, and their related effects. The ACT M&R System
may also capture complementary information through the use of RISE scores as part of the the country impact
indicators (e.g., carbon pricing).
37
Data Sources:
Policy documents, legislation, acts, laws, regulations, codes, standards, and related announcements.
References:
See References.
38
PILLAR 1: GOVERNANCE
ACT 2: Readiness
ACT Core Indicator 2: Coal transition strategies adopted

Unit of Measurement: Number of coal transition strategies adopted (#)
Disaggregation: By Type; Gender-Responsive vs. Gender-Blind
target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Corollary to NPC indicator on sub-national budgeting processes
supported
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 2 considers strategies directly linked to the coal-to-clean transition that are adopted by
all stakeholders. Strategy-setting reflects the increased government and public readiness, appetite, and
commitment to reduce coal dependence and is essential to coal phase-out. Strategies typically contain time-
bound targets, which are usually accompanied by a comprehensive review of the current situation of the coal
industry, and by an integrated assessment of all potential impacts and spillover effects on other industries or
sectors of the economy and society.
Definitions:
The indicator measures the number (#) of strategies, action plans, road maps, and related frameworks formally
committed to by stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental entities, labor organizations, private
enterprises, and civil society or community organizations) covering, but not limited to: energy and mining; just
transition, social protection, and jobs; the environment (i.e., land reclamation); and gender responsiveness and
social inclusion, to mitigate negative transition impacts and ensure women, men, and vulnerable groups equally
benefit from opportunities. Where strategies are expected to deliver onward outcomes under Pillar 2 or 3 within
a project’s lifetime, these outcomes should be reflected via the relevant core indicators under such pillars.
Key considerations for designing a coal transition strategy include assessing the current situation of the coal
industry, setting targets, developing policy options, identifying key stakeholders, and setting a timeframe during
which the strategy will be adopted.
Baseline: Identifying whether an ACT intervention affects the adoption of a coal transition strategy is the
responsibility of the MDB at project inception. MDBs should apply this categorization in accordance with the
policy ecosystem and terminology used in each country context.
Expected Results: Targets are set as the total number of strategies expected to be amended or adopted before
the project reaches completion. Any strategy for which ACT provides direct support (e.g., technical assistance)
qualifies under this indicator, regardless of the specific stage of policymaking/regulation during which ACT
intervenes. Not all ACT projects may entail policy and regulatory interventions. In these cases, the expected
39
result for this indicator should be reported as zero (0) with clear justification provided on how the project scope
is not relevant to addressing any enabling environment issues pertaining to coal-to-clean transition.
Achieved Results: To report on this indicator, MDBs are expected to tally the total number of strategies that have
been amended or adopted until the project reaches completion. One adopted strategy may cover many aspects
of the transition (e.g., energy targets, job creation, land restoration) or several strategies may run in parallel,
sometimes with overlapping areas. Accounting for the number of strategies requires looking at the number of
formal documents that have been approved and published.
MDBs are encouraged to complement this indicator with a qualitative assessment of how strategies have been
developed and rationale or evidence regarding the direct or indirect effects the intervention may have on
accelerated and just coal transition.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in two ways: (i) Type and (ii) Gender-
Responsive vs. Gender-Blind. Further specifications are available for this indicator in the CCH, giving MDBs the
option to specify the theme(s) covered by the policies.
Gender-responsive strategies take into consideration the differentiated needs of women and men, potential
gender gaps, and actions needed to address them. Gender-blind strategies do not specifically take into
consideration or address any of these issues. Some examples of gender-responsive strategies relevant to ACT
might include:
• Strategies that support gender equality and women’s employment

• Inclusion of safeguards against sexual exploitation and gender-based violence
Disaggregation is identified within the CCH reporting platform during the first year of reporting and is maintained
throughout the lifetime of each project.
There could be an overlap between some of the policies, regulations, codes, or standards that fall under ACT
Core Indicator 1 (Policies) and strategies that fall under ACT Core Indicator 2 (Strategies), as they can both be
adopted at the national level. These will be taken into account when results are analyzed and reported at the CIF
level for the ACT investment program.
Data Sources:
Information can be based on MDB project results data or publicly issued documents by the relevant
implementing organization or enterprise.
References:
See References.
40
PILLAR 2: PEOPLE
ACT 3: Income Security for Employees of Subset Industries
ACT Core Indicator 3: Number and percentage of employees of retired coal plants/mines that have access to
sustained income
Unit of Measurement: Number of persons (#); Percentage of persons (%)
Disaggregation: By Gender; By Vulnerable Groups; Permanent vs. Temporary; Type of Job
target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries) and corollary to NPC,
REI, FIP, and PPCR indicators
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 3 is central to the three-pillar approach of the ACT investment program, as it tracks the direct
impacts of ACT interventions on the labor force of coal plants or mines targeted for retirement (in terms of
income security). It measures the coverage of employee retention or redeployment plans for the workers who
continue to be employed and the coverage of income support (in different forms) for those who are neither
retained nor re-deployed. Taken together, these two aspects track sustained income. These approaches are
essential during coal-to-clean transitions, wherein the labor force might be displaced, re-skilled or re-trained, or
financially sustained until retirement. Sustained income ensures a just transition that is socially inclusive with
equitably distributed impacts.
Definitions:
The indicator includes employees displaced via the retirement or repurposing of coal assets, and relates to
persons directly employed by the enterprises or agencies targeted by ACT interventions for decommissioning,
discontinuation, or transition. The targets and results are tracked via two sub-indicators:
• Coal-sector employees retained or redeployed to new jobs (#, %)

• Non-retained and non-redeployed coal sector employees that receive income support (#, %)
For this indicator, sustained income represents either continued receipt of salaries by employees retained
or redeployed to new jobs, or receipt of income support for non-retained and non-redeployed coal-sector
employees.
For employees retained or redeployed, the indicator measures the number of persons gainfully employed under
contractual and remuneration conditions equivalent to or surpassing their pre-project occupation.
For non-retained employees receiving income support, the following instruments may be considered: severance
or other forms of termination payments; unemployment insurance; social assistance payments; early retirement
incentives; or others.
ACT Core Indicator 3 feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries) and should be reported as an annual and
lifetime estimate for each investment.
41
The indicator reflects the sum of the number of employees retained or redeployed to new jobs, and those who
are non-retained and non-redeployed who receive income support. For the percentage share, this sum should be
divided by the total number of persons employed by the decommissioned, discontinued, or transitioned asset,
enterprise, or agency at the time of project approval. For each sub-indicator, the relevant definition of employee
(retained or redeployed versus non-retained and non-redeployed) should be considered and divided by the
total number of employees.
The definition of persons employed is key to estimating values for this indicator and depends on each MDB’s
policies and procedures, which need to be disclosed. The definition may depend on the type of employment
contract signed between the employer and the employees, and whether this contract is for permanent or
temporary employment (e.g., construction phase or seasonal), full-time or part-time employment, or direct or
subcontracted employment. The formality or informality of the employment may or may not be considered,
depending on the chosen definition of employment, although in the case of non-retained and non-redeployed
employees, income support might be considered for more ambitious interventions.
The indicator only looks at direct employment linked to the ACT intervention, meaning employment directly
associated to a coal power plant, mines, and the coal sector. Indirect and induced employment are not included,
as they would affect workers outside of the coal sector.
Information on general employment, income and benefits, and contract types, could be collected through firm-
level or sector-level surveys or employee data records.
Baseline: The baseline is expected to be zero (0) for both sub-indicators, assuming the shutting down of the coal
power plant or mine is linked to the ACT intervention.
Expected Results: The target value for the number of employees is expected to be close to the total number of
employees, based on the definition of employment used. As such, the percentage share of employees receiving
sustained income is expected to be high.
Achieved Results: Results are reported on an annual basis, covering the period from January 1 to December 31 of
the preceding year. All data sources should be cited and specified at time of reporting.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in four ways: (i) Gender, (ii) Vulnerable Groups
(such as youth and elderly persons, persons with disabilities, labor migrants, racial and ethnic minorities, etc.),
(iii) Permanent vs. Temporary (i.e., construction phase), and (iv) Type of Job (managerial, technical, non-technical,
administrative) whenever possible.
These disaggregation levels are defined by the MDBs. The aggregation of the different types of jobs to reach
the suggested categorization can be done using the international standards on classifications of occupations
defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO).
While the focus is solely on the employees of the retired coal plants or mines, in some cases, an ACT-financed
project may extend income-support measures to other groups indirectly affected by the coal power plant
retirement. This includes workers in transportation, industry, professional and administrative services, and
other businesses that depend on coal power plants. Communities near coal power plants may also be affected.
42
In cases where these workers are not captured within ACT core indicators, MDBs might define and include
project-specific indicators, or if congruent, track these outcomes under the co-benefit indicators related to Just
Transition (ACT Co-Benefit 2) or Vulnerable Groups (ACT Co-Benefit 4). Alternatively, these workers might also be
considered in other analyses and studies on just transition, co-benefits, development impacts, gender, or social
inclusion.12
MDBs may also consider looking at the temporality of the sustained income, i.e., temporary/time-bound or
permanent.
Data Sources:
Information can be based on MDB project results data or the coal sector enterprises of agencies involved in a
project.
References:
See References.
43
PILLAR 2: PEOPLE
ACT 4: Social Plans and Economic Regeneration Packages
ACT Core Indicator 4: Number of direct beneficiaries of implemented social plans and economic
regeneration activities
Unit of Measurement: Number of persons (#)
Disaggregation: By Gender; By Vulnerable Persons; Type of Job (if possible)
target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries)
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 4 on the number of direct beneficiaries of implemented social plans and economic
regeneration activities examines how the adverse socio-economic effects of the coal phase out are cushioned.
It focuses on (re-)skilling and the creation of new livelihood activities at the economy level. Beneficiaries are
drawn from those who have been affected by the coal-to-clean transition. Only the direct beneficiaries of plans
and activities are tracked.
Definitions:
This indicator measures the number of persons reached via ACT-supported local or national interventions aimed
at equipping coal sector employees and community members with relevant skills for green and/or alternate
jobs, and generating additional livelihood activities in the broader economy.
For social plans, the indicator measures the direct beneficiaries of implemented plans, including labor
retrenchment packages, reskilling or re-training packages, and gender and local community action plans.
For economic regeneration actions, the indicator measures direct beneficiaries of programs or packages
operationalized to create new sources of income for participants of sunset industries, including regeneration
stimulus packages.
ACT Core Indicator 4 feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries) and should be reported as an annual and
lifetime estimate for each investment.
It is the responsibility of the MDBs to determine and define the direct beneficiaries of plans and activities, as
well as the agents or structures responsible for administering relevant interventions (i.e., public, private, mixed).
For example, in the case of education and training programs, these can be either institutional programs led by
private or public agencies, on-the-job training led by the private sector, or various combinations thereof.
Beneficiaries may, for example, be defined as those participating in a training program. However, this may not
necessarily imply employment immediately afterwards, as hiring can be a lengthy process, and some of the
industries where re-skilled employees are expected to be employed may still be in the process of development
44
or expansion. Beneficiaries might be identified and defined during project preparation, as part of economic
beneficiary analyses, or via similar analyses at the implementation stage. MDBs should define how, and on what
bases calculations of beneficiaries are made. Underlying assumptions and detailed methodologies should be
submitted to CIF as complementary information for this indicator.
Baseline: The baseline for this indicator should be set to zero (0).
Expected Results: Targets are set to equal the total number of direct beneficiaries to be reached over the life of
the project. The MDBs should define how and on what basis calculations of beneficiaries are made. Underlying
assumptions and detailed methodology should be submitted to the CIF as complementary information for this
indicator. MDBs are further encouraged to report on ACT Optional Indicator 1 (see Box 2). All data sources should
be cited and specified at the time of reporting.
Achieved Results: Results are reported on an annual basis, covering the period from January 1 to December 31 of
the preceding year.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in three ways: (i) Gender, (ii) Vulnerable
Persons (such as youth and elderly persons, persons with disabilities, labor migrants, racial and ethnic
minorities, etc.), and (iii) Type of Job (managerial, technical, non-technical, administrative).
MDBs are responsible for identifying the relevant disaggregation categories, but disaggregation by gender is
mandatory. For type of job, occupations can be classified using international standards from the International
Labor Organization (ILO).
To measure this indicator, MDBs must establish a direct link between the ACT intervention and the social plans
(i.e., labor retrenchment packages, reskilling or re-training packages, or gender and local community action
plans) and the economic regeneration activities associated with the emergence of sunset industries. In other
words, the social plans and economic regenerations activities tackled need to be implemented, operationalized
or deployed directly under the ACT project. If the plans and activities are still in the design or planning phase,
then they might be considered under ACT Core Indicator 2 (Strategies).
Data Sources:
Information can be based on MDB project results data or local or national governmental records if plans and
packages are delivered by state agencies.
References:
See References.
BOX 2. ACT Optional Indicator 1 Related to ACT Core Indicator 4

• Volume of incomes generated from new economic activity (USD)
This indicator tracks impacts from local economic activities that are directly supported by ACT projects, either as new
or expanded activities. It can be disaggregated by male-or female-owned businesses, and by businesses owned by
vulnerable groups.
45
ACT 5: Mitigation
ACT Core Indicator 5: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced or avoided

Unit of Measurement: Metric tons of CO2 eq. per year (annual); Metric tons of CO2 eq (cumulative)
Disaggregation: Direct vs. Indirect; Additional disaggregation by GHG scope is optional
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Reported annually as an annualized achieved value (rate) against both
annual and lifetime targets; lifetime achieved values extrapolated/estimated13
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 1 (Mitigation) and corollary to NPC, REI,
CTF, SREP and FIP indicators
Overview:
This ACT core indicator measures the net change in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced or avoided due to
ACT interventions over the lifetime of the investment. Reduced or avoided GHG emissions are a core objective of
ACT, and they are expected to be achieved through decommissioning and closure of coal power plants and the
increased share of renewable energy. GHG emissions reduced or avoided should be reported in terms of metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) per year for annual targets and achievements, and metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) for lifetime targets and cumulative achievements. Together, these metrics
allow ACT to track both how much GHG emissions rates are changing due to the program (including related
metrics, like the grid emissions factor) and the total level of mitigation that the program enables over time.
Definitions:
Greenhouse gases (GHG) refer to gases in the earth’s atmosphere that trap or release heat and contribute to
maintaining an average temperature of the earth’s surface. There are six main GHGs defined under the Kyoto
Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydro fluorocarbon
(HFC), and per fluorocarbon (PFC). For reporting purposes, all GHGs are converted to their equivalent in CO2.
Emissions—combustion, process, or fugitive—refer to the release of GHGs into the atmosphere, typically due
to anthropogenic, or human-led, activities over a defined period of time. For the purposes of this indicator,
emissions are defined both on an annual basis (i.e., “annual emissions” or “emissions per year”) and a
cumulative basis (i.e., “cumulative emissions” or “lifetime emissions”).
Reduced emissions refers to the process of diminishing or displacing existing emissions due to a new ACT
intervention. In the context of ACT, this typically means that the power production of a pre-existing coal power
plant connected to the grid is reduced or eliminated altogether, with the likely investment into a new variable
renewable energy source to generate power in its place under the same ACT intervention.
Projects are encouraged to estimate GHG emissions reductions using a “whole of energy system” baseline
analysis, which would differentiate between reductions due directly to deliverables supported by ACT
investments (avoided emissions due to new installed RE capacity, carbon sequestration due to afforestation
of reclaimed mines), and the catalytic effects of investments (e.g., onward effects of installed energy storage
systems, negated transport or other auxiliary components of the coal-power generation that is repurposed) on
annual production cycles, as compared to the approved reference scenario (i.e., counterfactual).
46
Avoided emissions refers to the process of rendering obsolete the future emissions that would otherwise occur
to meet comparable power demand in a counterfactual scenario14 wherein the ACT intervention does not take
place. For example, this might be in the form of continuing to operate coal power plants to generate electricity.
CIF recognizes that MDBs have their own methodologies in place for estimating, monitoring, and reporting
on project-level GHG emissions. MDBs should specify the methodology they have selected to use for each
ACT project when reporting to CIF. Whenever possible, MDBs are encouraged to utilize the “IFI Guidelines for a
Harmonised Approach to Greenhouse Gas Accounting” and other international standards (UNFCCC 2021). For
instance, the IFI technical working group (TWG), which was established in 2012, comprises approximately 25
organizations, including UNFCCC, GCF, and GEF. The IFI TWG periodically releases new methodologies, such as
harmonized GHG accounting methodologies for renewable energy (2019), default grid factors (2022), and energy
efficiency (2023).15
The following steps provide general guidance on the approach that projects can expect to take at different
phases of the project cycle.
Baseline16: First, each project should identify its assessment boundary, which is the physical delineation or
geographical area that includes significant emissions sources and emissions sources that will be significantly
affected by the planned project. This might be the entire grid network, targeted communities for off-grid, or
another well-defined area where ACT is poised to intervene.
Sequentially, targets for ACT Core Indicator 8 (Installed capacity of renewable energy) may be calculated before
establishing expected results for ACT Core Indicator 5, since these inputs can help inform GHG accounting
methodologies. Grid-level studies, feasibility studies, and ACT country investment plans can also be used to map
out the current grid emissions factor, sources of emissions, and targeted deficiencies in grid services that limit
the emissions reduction potential of existing renewables before ACT intervention. In cases where the proposed
interventions do not involve the co-location or direct installation of renewable energy generation assets, a
theory of change and accompanying quantitative methodology are critical for articulating the causal pathway(s)
linking renewable energy integration interventions and activity-level emissions and estimating the value of the
targeted GHG emissions reduced or avoided.
Expected Results: ACT projects should establish both an annual target of emissions expected to be reduced or
avoided by the project completion date (i.e., annual net emissions reduced or avoided during the first year of
operations) and a lifetime target of emissions expected to be reduced or avoided over the economic lifespan of
the ACT-supported assets. These target values should be established and reported at the MDB Board approval
stage (see Section 5). While specific methodologies applied to ACT projects may vary, in general, the following
steps should be undertaken:
1. Determine the reference scenario (also known as the “baseline emissions” or “business-as-usual”
scenario) based on the emissions profile for the grid or assessment area and a reasonable expectation
of what would happen in the absence of an ACT project over the same two target periods (i.e., by project
completion and lifetime).17
2. Identify which activities contributing to the emissions are targeted by an ACT intervention and determine
the grid emissions factors or other relevant emissions factor(s).
3. Estimate the change in activity-level data resulting from the ACT intervention(s).
47
4. Multiply the emissions factor for the activity by the new activity-level data to estimate the net change in
GHG emissions in MtCO2 eq.
5. For greenhouse gases other than CO2, multiply the value by the Global Warming Potential (GWP) coefficient
to convert to CO2 eq. (For CO2, the coefficient = 1).
6. For lifetime estimates, multiply the annualized net reduction/avoidance of GHG emissions achieved by
project completion by the economic lifetime of the asset.18
GHG emissions = Activity data x emissions factor x GWP coefficient (per unit of time)
For reporting purposes, all assumptions on reference scenarios, changes in activity levels or fuel consumption,
and emissions factors need to be clearly explained with methodology and data sources cited during the first
year of reporting in the CCH (and updated if any changes occur thereafter).
Achieved Results: To monitor the real reduction or avoidance of GHG emissions due to ACT interventions, projects
should begin reporting annualized results (i.e., metric tons reduced/avoided per year) on an annual basis.
Achievements are expected as of the first year that coal plants close or become decommissioned or repurposed,
renewable energy generation assets become operational, or grid-level RE outputs are increased due to enhanced
integration. Projects should rely on real operational data on energy generation in MWh and other measurable
changes to the grid (or assessment area) following ACT intervention to confirm or revise the estimated activity-
level data used prior to ACT intervention. This can then be applied to the emissions factor, also updated if
necessary, to report on achieved results. Annual results should be reported until the project completion period.
To report cumulative lifetime achieved results of the project,19 the final year of emission reductions or avoidance
are extrapolated through the economic lifetime of the asset(s) unless ongoing monitoring of achieved results is
feasible.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in one way: Direct vs. Indirect.
MDBs are invited to further disaggregate by the scope of emissions, if feasible.
Direct vs. Indirect Emissions: All projects are required to identify at project approval whether the targeted GHG
emissions to be reduced or avoided due to ACT are direct or indirect in nature. The terms “direct” and “indirect”
in this context refer to a theory-based approach to determining causality and the proximity of effects from ACT
interventions. This is distinct from the notions of direct or indirect cited in the GHG emissions scopes, which
relate to direct control over assets by an investee and associated supply or value chains.
• An example of direct GHG emissions reduced/avoided is when an ACT project finances the closure of a coal
power plant that is to be replaced with renewable energy generation.
• An example of indirect GHG emissions reduced/avoided is when an ACT project finances the repurposing
of a coal plant with retrofit technologies, which would make the new building or site more energy efficient,
thus reducing the associated emissions while the energy source remains the same.
Scope of Emissions (optional): International standards for GHG accounting increasingly rely on differentiating
scopes of emissions, as defined in the GHG Protocol.20 In general, the scope of emissions refers to the level of
control that a company or plant operator can exercise over activities that produce GHG emissions as a result of
the project intervention. Based on guidance from the IFI Technical Working Group on GHG Accounting (UNFCCC
2021, 5), GHG accounting scopes are defined as follows:
48
• Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the investee (i.e., ACT plant/
grid operator or private company) and affected by the investment project
• Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from energy sources not owned or controlled by the investee but directly
utilized by the investment project (e.g., emissions associated with electricity, heating, or cooling purchased
for the investee activities)
• Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions from sources that are upstream or downstream of a value chain and
not owned or controlled by the investee or private company
It is likely that most monitoring and reporting for ACT Core Indicator 5 will correspond to Scope 1 emissions.
Prioritization of GHGs: Reporting of GHGs should focus on CO2 and CH4 (as converted to CO2 eq). Other GHGs, such
as N2O, HFCs, and SF6, can be considered when their contribution to overall levels of CO2 emissions is expected to
be significant.
Data Sources:
Grid-level studies and analyses, feasibility studies, technology and country-specific activity data and default
emissions factors, power system operational data, organization-level GHG data, project-level activity data and
(grid) emissions factors
References:
See References.
49
ACT 6: Co-Finance
ACT Core Indicator 6: Volume of co-finance leveraged

Unit of Measurement: USD
Disaggregation: Source of Co-Financing; Mitigation vs. Adaptation (Or Both or Other)
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Reported annually as an annual and cumulative achieved value against a
cumulative target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 4 (Co-Finance)
Overview:
This ACT core indicator measures the amount of direct financing leveraged (i.e., co-financing) from both public
and private sources as part of the ACT investment program. The concessionality of ACT resources is designed,
in part, to crowd in additional resources from both implementing MDBs and other sources of co-financing. This
combination of catalytic ACT financing and other resources forms the full financial package for each ACT project.
The amount of co-financing that actually materializes is tracked in USD over the course of ACT investment
program implementation to demonstrate the total amount of climate financing enabled through the program
over time. ACT Core Indicator 6 also directly feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 4, since leveraging co-financing is a
common objective of CIF across multiple programs.
Definitions:
Volume of co-finance refers to the total amount of resources mobilized separately from ACT funding that is
integrated into the financial package for a project being implemented as part of the program. Co-finance may
come from the MDBs, governments, the private sector, bilateral agencies, and other actors.
Leveraged refers to the mobilization process of non-ACT resources for the financial package of projects
implemented as part of the program. Although the concessionality of ACT funding is intended to catalyze the
mobilization of additional resources, for the purposes of this indicator, leveraging refers to all co-financing
sources.
Baseline: N/A
Expected Results: Setting the target for the total estimated volume of co-financing takes place as part of the
project origination and appraisal process (see Section 5). An initial estimate (in USD) should be included as
part of each project proposal submitted to the CTF Trust Fund Committee. If another currency is used for the
operation, the currency conversion rate should be clearly communicated along with the converted amount(s) in
USD. Co-financing targets should be updated, finalized, and reported at the MDB Board approval stage for each
project (see Section 5).
Achieved Results: While MDBs may adhere to different methodologies to report and track achieved co-financing,
each MDB should inform the CIF Administrative Unit of its preferred reporting methodology and apply the
methodology consistently to all projects in its ACT portfolio. In general, it is preferable for achieved co-financing
50
to be reported annually based on actual disbursement over the course of project implementation. MDBs are
strongly encouraged to draw from joint-MDB frameworks, such as the “Reference Guide by Joint-MDBs on Private
Capital Investment Mobilization,” to promote harmonized reporting on climate finance (Section 7).
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in two ways: (i) Source of Co-Financing and (ii)
Mitigation vs. Adaptation (or both or other).
CIF utilizes five main categories for sources of co-financing to which ACT adheres for this indicator: MDBs,
government, the private sector, bilateral agencies, and other actors.
All co-finance reported that qualifies as climate finance should be tagged as either mitigation or adaptation
finance, in line with MDBs’ Paris Alignment assessments of project financing and the methodology used in the
“Joint Report on MDBs’ Climate Finance” (see References). Although most co-financing in ACT is expected to
contribute to mitigation finance, any amounts considered by MDBs as adaptation finance should also be tagged
when reporting on ACT Core Indicator 6. Any amount of co-financing counted as both mitigation and adaptation
financing should be reported as such. Any co-financing amount that does not qualify as climate finance should
also be specified when reporting.
For private sector projects, confidential co-financing information can be reported as a confidential result in the
“Uploaded Documents - Co-Benefits” section of the CCH and formally marked as “Confidential.” The document
will then only be visible to members of the CIF Administrative Unit and the MDB responsible for the project.
Data Sources:
Financial data in MDB project proposals, appraisal documents, supervision, and completion reports.
References:
See References.
51
ACT 7: Coal Capacity Accelerated for Retirement
ACT Core Indicator 7: Capacity of existing coal power/heat generation assets accelerated for retirement
Unit of Measurement: MW or MWGJ
Disaggregation: By Type of Asset (electricity vs. heat)
cumulative target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: N/A
Overview:
This indicator captures coal power plant decommissioning through the existing capacity of coal assets
accelerated for retirement due to ACT interventions. It tracks the total capacity of electricity and heat plants
retired prior to the completion of the full lifetime of the asset, as well as cases where an asset’s retirement date
is brought forward due to ACT project interventions.
Definitions:
Installed capacity, measured in megawatts (MW), refers to the maximum amount of electricity that a power
plant can produce under specific conditions determined by the manufacturer. It is usually higher than the
actual average amount of energy a power plant produces, which may be affected by factors such as the sudden
unavailability of the fuel source, curtailment, or repairs and maintenance.
For assets or parts of assets specifically utilized for heat generation, installed capacity should be measured in
megawatts gigajoules.
This indicator requires information on two key variables: the installed capacity of the coal power plant at the
time of decommissioning, and an estimate and related validation of the full lifetime of the asset, both of which
should be determined by the MDB.
The installed capacity of a coal power plant is defined as the nameplate capacity of the plant.
The operating lifetime of a coal power plant may vary based on a range of factors but typically has a maximum
value of 50 years, an average value of 40 years in advanced economies, and an average value of 25 years in
emerging markets and developing economies (Yiyun Cui et al., 2019; IEA, 2021). The lifetime may depend on the
machinery used, the mining equipment (in cases where a mine and coal plant are co-located), and the operating
capacity (i.e., capacity factor), among other considerations. The capacity factor of a coal power plant usually
oscillates at around 60 percent, depending on seasonality and the age of the asset. The operating life of an asset
is generally estimated prior to it becoming operational.
Baseline: The baseline is estimated to be zero (0), as the indicator only considers the capacity of existing coal
power or heat generation that will be accelerated for retirement due to an ACT intervention.
52
Expected Results: The target value of the total capacity to be retired by a project should be determined by the
MDBs. It depends on the project and relevant studies estimating how much capacity of existing coal power or
heat generation will be reduced over time.
Achieved Results: Results are reported annually, covering the period from January 1 to December 31 of the
preceding year. In some cases, the achieved result may equal the full capacity of the existing power plant by
a particular date. In other cases, countries might apply a phase approach instead of a full decommissioning.
This depends on the duration of the project and on a variety of exogenous drivers, such as electricity and
heat demand profiles and the related replacment of generation previously fueled by coal. Coal generation is
often used as a base load capacity; it may not be exclusively replaced by non-dispatchable RE without other
alternatives or without the addition of battery storage.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in one way: Type of Asset (electricity vs. heat).
The electricity sector represents cases where coal is combusted as an asset to generate electricity at high scale.
The heat generation sector represents cases where coal is burned in furnaces to provide heating at a smaller
scale, such as for residential and commercial buildings. Coal usage is predominantly in the electricity sector.
N/A
Data Sources:
Information for the targeted installed capacity may be based on MDB project results data or the operational data
of the power plant involved in the project.
References:
See References.
53
ACT 8: Repowering
ACT Core Indicator 8: Installed capacity of renewable energy

Unit of Measurement: MW
Disaggregation: By Type of RE; On-Grid vs. Off-Grid
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Reported annually as a cumulative achieved value against two targets
(cumulative at project completion and lifetime)
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Corollary to REI Core Indicator 2
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 8 measures the installed and operationalized generation capacity of renewable energy
projects developed as a result of ACT interventions. Installed capacity measures the potential energy production
from a project. This may refer to either greenfield renewable energy assets developed by ACT to replace
retired coal capacities, or brownfield renewable energy assets repurposing some or all of the infrastructure of
decommissioned coal plants. This indicator is measured in terms of MW available to the grid cumulatively.
Definitions:
Renewable energy (RE) is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they
are consumed. They usually have a low or zero-carbon footprint. Examples include solar power, wind power,
bioenergy, hydro, tidal, and geothermal.
Installed capacity of renewable energy (RE) refers to the maximum power generating capacity that a renewable
energy power plant can produce under normal conditions. Installed capacity, measured in megawatts (MW), is
also sometimes referred to as “nameplate capacity.”
For this indicator, the renewable energy installed capacity estimated should be directly replacing the coal-fired
generation that has been reduced or ceased by an ACT intervention. It may or may not be located on the same
site as the coal power plant for which it is replacing generation capacity, depending on renewable energy source
availability, land type, and climate, among other factors.
Baseline: During project design, the grid network or assessment boundary must be identified and clearly defined
by the MDB. The total installed capacity of the current power system (a non-zero value) is then determined as an
input to the baseline value for this indicator and recalibrated to zero (0) for the purposes of ACT M&R. In some
cases, this information may already be available from the ACT investment plan, diagnostics, or other recent grid
studies.
Expected Results: The target value for installed capacity in MW is estimated using data collected as part of
the due diligence work conducted through feasibility studies during the appraisal phase of the project and
reported at MDB approval (see Section 5). For cases of direct installation of solar or wind assets, for example,
54
this target value can be clearly established as the nameplate capacity of the plant. However, for other types of
ACT interventions, MDBs should rely on the project’s theory of change to articulate how the interventions are
expected to lead to increased installed capacity of renewable energy available to the grid. The target value(s)
should be provided using a suitable quantitative methodology in line with this theory. In addition, as relevant,
MDBs are encouraged to establish two targets for this indicator: the first as a target at project closure, and the
second as a lifetime target (i.e., additional RE installed capacity expected to be enabled after project closure due
to ACT interventions).
preceding year. Annual results refer to new or additional capacity of RE installed during the reporting period,
as evidenced through direct installation, technology-and country-specific data, or other relevant operational
data. Cumulative results cover all new or additional capacity installed over a project’s implementation period.
Although some projects may also be able to estimate a lifetime target beyond project closure, achieved results
should only be reported as real installed capacity.21 All data sources should be cited and specified at the time of
reporting.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in two ways: (i) Type of RE and (ii) On-Grid vs.
Off-Grid.
Examples of different types of RE are wind energy, solar energy, hydro, tidal, bioenergy and geothermal. On-
grid or off-grid refers to whether the generation plant or project is connected to a local distribution network.
If it is, then the installed capacity is on-grid. This is usually the case for large solar generation plants, such as
concentrated solar power (CSP), wind farms or parks, or of distributed generation solar photovoltaics (PV). If it is
not, it is off-grid. An example of off-grid generation is a solar mini-grid project.
The disaggregation should be identified within the CCH reporting platform during the first year of reporting and
is maintained throughout the lifetime of each project.
N/A
Data Sources:
Grid-level studies and analyses, national or sub-national feasibility studies, technology and country-specific
data, power system operational data.
References:
See References.
55
ACT 9: Coal Abatement
ACT Core Indicator 9: Amount of coal diverted

Unit of Measurement: Mt
Disaggregation: By Coal Industry Sector (power plants vs. industrial companies vs. district heating systems)
cumulative target
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 9 estimates the amount of coal diverted by examining the quantity of coal that would have
continued to be combusted had the ACT intervention not taken place. This indicator looks specifically at the
physical units of coal used in electricity or heat generation.
Definitions:
This indicator measures the total reduction in the volume of coal combusted (measured in metric tons) due
to the accelerated retirement of existing coal assets by ACT interventions. It is directly related to voided fuel
consumption values of the coal asset capacity tracked via ACT Core Indicator 7.
Where ACT project activities are directly responsible for the abatement or negation of already planned coal
capacity additions (tracked via ACT Optional Indicator 2 as highlighted in Box 3), the volume of coal diverted is
directly related to the capacity of the particular assets not developed.
To measure the metric tons of coal diverted in power generation, several parameters need to be determined,
including whether the coal plant decommissioning is progressive or immediate (i.e., the electricity generated
is phased out over time or shut down all at once with no transitory phase). In the latter case, the calculation
of the metric tons of coal diverted can likely be found within a plant’s annual operational reports or within
its coal purchase agreements. However, in cases where the purchase agreement states an obligatory amount
of coal to be purchased that may or may not subsequently be combusted, the metric tons stated could be an
overestimation of the actual amount of coal diverted (considering that the diverted coal would be combusted in
the counterfactual scenario).
Under scenarios of a phased decommissioning, the total amount of coal diverted can be calculated backwards
by looking at the estimated average annual generation of the voided capacity addition, multiplied by the
expected lifetime of the asset. This calculation computes the deduction of how much coal would have been
needed, had the coal-fired generation continued its due course without progressive decommissioning.
The two metrics that need to be determined in the “progressive decommissioning” scenario are the operating
lifetime and the average annual generation of the coal power plant. The operating lifetime of a coal power plant
56
should be set as per MDB guidelines. It varies by region. The maximum lifetime a coal plant can reach is about
50 years, but on average, it is 40 years in advanced economies and 25 years in emerging markets and developing
economies (Yiyun Cui et al., 2019; IEA, 2021). The operating lifetime of a coal power plant depends on the
machinery used, the mining equipment, and at what capacity it is operating (i.e., capacity factor), among other
considerations. As the coal power plants targeted in ACT are already built and operating, their lifetime should
have already been estimated when they first became operational.
Estimating the average annual generation of the coal power plant, if not readily available, requires information
on the total installed capacity (MW) of the plant and its capacity factor. The capacity factor of a coal power plant
usually oscillates around 60 percent, depending on seasonality and whether it is at the beginning or end of its
operating years.
Once the average annual generation of the voided capacity addition and the expected lifetime of the coal power
plant are known, the volume of coal (in metric tons) can be estimated. On average, it is estimated that 1.12
pounds (or 0.0005 metric ton) of coal can generate approximately one kilowatt-hour of electricity22. However, this
number may vary depending on the efficiency factor of each generation unit (i.e., heat ratio), as it accounts for
technical differences between older and newer generation units, as well as units have been retrofitted.
Baseline: The baseline is estimated to be zero (0), as the indicator only considers the amount of coal diverted
following an ACT intervention.
Expected Results: The target value for the amount of coal diverted should be set by MDBs in accordance with
the selected method and approach. It requires a deep assessment of the use of coal across the different
sectors of the economy to estimate how much coal is being diverted at the aggregate level. In cases of power
generation with a fixed shutdown date of the coal plant and no “transitory” phase to progressively reduce
coal-fired generation, the target value should be the total amount of metric tons combusted for electricity
generation, as per the sales and purchase agreement. In cases of progressive decommissioning, the target value
should consider the progress expected over multiple years, and what can be achieved by the end of the project,
depending on the completeness of the plant shutdown at that time. Optional lifetime targets (beyond project
completion) can also be reported if estimates are available from MDBs.
preceding year. Achieved results partly depend on the decommissioning of the coal power plant and the
electricity generation sector. For fixed shutdown cases, the achieved value is expected to increase from the
baseline zero (0) to its target over a single year due to the plant shutdown. For progressive decommissioning,
achieved results are expected to accrue more gradually. Beyond the energy generation sector, coal is also used
in many other economic sectors. For example, these other sectors may be affected by the closure of coal mines
under an ACT intervention if sector activities depended on the mine.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in one way: Coal Industry Sector (power plants
vs. industrial companies vs. district heating systems). Power plants use coal to generate electricity. Industrial
companies use coal and coal byproducts for the production of concrete, paper, and steel (indirect use of coal
coke). District heating systems rely on coal-fired furnaces to heat spaces.
57
One approach that MDBs could consider is to examine what happens to the volume of coal being diverted from
power plants, such as whether it continues to be mined or ends up being used for alternative purposes. MDBs
might also consider systemic dynamics related to the source(s) of energy replacing the diverted coal vis-à-vis
evolving energy demand.
Data Sources:
Information can be based on MDB project results data or the operational data of the power plant involved in the
project.
References:
See References.

• New coal capacity addition abated/negated (MW)
This indicator measures the expected/future addition of coal capacity replaced with renewable energy capacity.
58
ACT 10: Mine Closure, Reclamation
ACT Core Indicator 10: Mine area reclaimed and reforested or restored
Unit of Measurement: Ha
Disaggregation: N/A
cumulative target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Corollary to NPC, FIP and PPCR indicators
Overview:
The closure of coal power plants is likely to affect coal-related supply and value chains beyond the plants
themselves, in many cases leading to the closure of coal mines. After a transitional remediation phase, the land
that was previously used for mining can subsequently be reclaimed and either reforested or otherwise restored
to its natural environment.
The reclamation and reforestation or restoration of the mine area is key to the coal-to-clean transition. While
this transition comes with considerable job losses, it has the potential to create employment and enhance
wildlife. Such positive spillover effects may be a function of the income generated from new economic activities
(ACT Optional Indicator 1), ecosystems protected and strengthened (ACT Optional Indicator 3), and related
ecosystem services generated or protected (ACT Optional Indicator 4), all of which are associated with ACT Core
Indicator 10 (see Box 4).
Definitions:
This indicator measures the hectarage of discontinued coal mines that are reforested, afforested, or restored
to natural conditions, including reestablishment of soil or ecosystem qualities prior to mining. The land areas
covered include areas where coal mine operations have been discontinued as a direct result of ACT projects
retiring coal generation assets or otherwise engaging with coal mine phase out.
The first step before reclamation and afforestation or reforestation is remediation. The remediation phase
consists of investigating and cleaning up hazardous materials to decontaminate the land for new uses. It
requires collecting soil and ground water samples to investigate and document any contamination, followed by
developing a cleanup plan. The cleanup plan may vary, depending on the future use of the land. In some cases,
low levels of contamination might remain, restricting the future site’s activities. Any level of contamination not
remediated is documented and disclosed in legal notices.
Following remediation but before the land can be used for planting trees or restoration, it needs to be reclaimed.
Reclamation is the combined process through which adverse environmental effects of surface mining are
minimized and mined lands are returned to a beneficial end use. This end use could be an open space, wildlife
habitat, agricultural field, or a residential or commercial development. This indicator specifically considers
mine land that has been reforested or restored to natural conditions. It is also possible that mined land can be
reclaimed, restored, and then used as an agricultural field. It is the responsibility of MDBs, per their procedures,
59
to determine if such a case can be considered under this indicator. Reclamation also includes practices to
control erosion and sedimentation, stabilize slopes, replace topsoil, and revegetate with suitable plant species.
This final step requires an assessment of the suitability of plants, which is based on soil minerality, climate, and
other factors. Establishing a reclamation plan can be supported by a description of the post-mining topography,
though in cases of more complex sites, post-mining topographic maps might be needed.
The last step is afforestation or reforestation. Both terms refer to the establishment of trees on non-treed land.
Reforestation refers to the establishment of forests on land that had recent tree cover, whereas afforestation
refers to land that did not have recent tree cover. The distinction depends on how long the mine had been
operating, what was on the land prior to its operation, and what is considered a long time without trees (for
afforestation). The terminology applied is at the discretion of the MDBs.
Land contouring is essential to the measurement of this indicator. The methodology selected per ACT project
should be justified and disclosed. Determining factors might include the permit area boundaries, mining
boundaries, boundaries of cities and municipalities, property lines, existing watercourses, ponds, and haul roads.
Identifying the definition and approach for land contouring is the responsibility of the MDBs.
Baseline: The baseline is estimated to be zero (0), as the indicator only considers the hectarage of mine land
restored or reforested following a direct mine closure supported through an ACT intervention, or an indirect
mine closure closely linked to an ACT intervention decommissioning a coal power plant.
Expected Results: The target value for the land area covered can be determined by the MDBs based on a defined
methodology for estimating mine land contouring. If, for example, the land area reforested is smaller than the
area reclaimed, MDBs should consider this in their chosen methodology.
Achieved Results: Results are reported annually, covering a period from January 1 - December 31 of the preceding
year. The land area covered should only be considered as “achieved” upon completion of reforestation or
restoration of the relevant hectarage. This may only materialize toward the end of the project, considering the
multiple stages of work required to achieve results.
Disaggregation:
N/A
In the short term, the surface area of mine land reforested or restored is easy to estimate. In the long term,
other indicators to consider include the improvement of air quality on and around the land area (thanks to the
additional trees planted) and increased wildlife, especially endangered species.
If a project’s objectives include restoration of biodiversity or ecosystem services, it is recommended to include

ACT optional indicators, such as ACT Optional Indicator 3 (Coverage or scale of ecosystems protected and
strengthened), ACT Optional Indicator 4 (Value of ecosystem services generated or protected), or any other
relevant indicators capturing these aspects (see Box 4).
One additional consideration is to identify the actor(s) responsible for the various phases of land reclamation,
restoration, and/or reforestation: the public sector, the private sector, or a mix of both.
60
Data Sources:
Information for land area reclaimed can be based on MDB project results data.
References:
See References.
BOX 4. ACT Optional Indicators Related to ACT Core Indicator 10

• ACT Optional Indicator 1: Volume of incomes generated from new economic activity (USD)
This indicator tracks impacts from local economic activities that are directly supported by ACT projects, either as new
or expanded activities.
• ACT Optional Indicator 3: Coverage/scale of ecosystems protected and strengthened (#)
• ACT Optional Indicator 4: Value of ecosystem services generated or protected (USD)
These two indicators are only relevant to projects that include land reclamation resulting in reforestation or
environmental restoration.
61
ACT 11: Plant Closure, Repurposing
ACT Core Indicator 11: Annual energy savings

Unit of Measurement: GWh/yr or MWh/yr
Disaggregation: N/A
cumulative target
Overview:
ACT Core Indicator 11 considers the energy savings benefits of repurposing or converting a coal power plant or
coal mine by examining how energy efficient technologies can reduce energy consumption and increase annual
energy savings in coal-to-clean settings. The conversion might be into a residential building, a commercial
building, or an eco-industrial park, among other possibilities. To count as a result achieved under ACT Core
Indicator 11, the new building or site should incorporate energy efficient technologies that are directly associated
with an ACT intervention.
Definitions:
This indicator is a measure of increased energy efficiency (GWh or MWh per year) as a result of ACT interventions
that include energy savings objectives. These interventions might include, for example, the repurposing
or conversion of coal power plants for non-generation uses, such as industrial parks with energy efficient
technologies. Interventions could also include the redevelopment of a coal mining site after it has gone through
the multiple stages of reclamation, remediation, and restoration (if required). In either case, the repurposing
or conversion of the site into a residential building, commercial building, or eco-industrial park would typically
occur due to the site not being suitable for new power generation.
Energy efficient technologies that can be adopted in residential buildings, commercial buildings, or other
physical sites include: lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC), refrigeration, building
insulation, and controls (sensors, timers, dimming, automation, etc.).
Buildings should adhere to international standards, such as LEED or IFC’s EDGE, with the goal of reducing GHG
emissions through the use of energy efficient technologies.
To measure the annual energy savings of the coal power plant conversion, a counterfactual is needed to
estimate what the energy consumption of the converted plant would be in the absence of the ACT intervention.
One way to estimate the counterfactual is by establishing a baseline for the same building, site, or industrial
park without the energy efficient interventions under ACT. The baseline should be aligned with the respective
country’s energy efficient labelling and norms and based on an average from comparable buildings, sites,
or industrial parks with no intervention. One way to assess the energy efficiency of a building is by hiring a
company to conduct an energy audit. In some countries, these might even be compulsory or subsidized by the
62
government. The baseline could also come from an energy audit carried out in a building or site of similar size
and usage. It is the responsibility of the MDBs, along with recipient countries, to establish the counterfactual
based on national labelling and norms on energy efficiency.
There are different methodologies to estimate the energy consumption of a building. For example, the Energy
Use Index (EUI) is defined as the energy consumption per unit conditioned floor area. Other determining
variables include occupancy hours, weather, and occupancy. It is also possible to assess the consumption of
each type of energy efficient technology individually against its counterfactual (e.g., CFL versus LED light bulbs).
However, this requires access to more granular information about specific technologies adopted during the
building or site construction phase (or later upgrades).
Baseline: The baseline should be set to zero (0), as without the ACT intervention, the energy efficient
technologies would not have been adopted.
Expected Results: The target value for annual energy savings is the difference in energy consumption between
the counterfactual and the intervention, i.e., between the energy consumption of the building or site without
the ACT intervention of energy efficient technologies, and the energy consumption of the same building or
site supported by ACT. The energy consumption and energy savings can either be measured in monetary value,
based on the regular electricity bill, or in gigawatts per hour, based on the meter. Using the meter reading is
ideal, since it can sometimes be challenging to deduce the exact energy consumption from a regular electricity
bill (due to variations from time-of-use electricity pricing). It is, however, possible to estimate this value with
some additional information about the time-of-use electricity rates and the energy consumption patterns of the
residents, industries, or businesses.
preceding year. Achieved results should reflect real savings in energy due to the adoption of energy efficient
technologies under the ACT intervention, everything else held constant. They should be measured using the
same approach stipulated per ACT project when estimating expected results (i.e., meter reading or electricity
bill).
Disaggregation:
N/A
Annual energy savings from ACT interventions might be estimated at the beginning of a project and fixed
over time (as the technologies would be installed during construction of the building or site), but savings can
increase over time if upgrades or retrofits are carried out during project implementation.
Information on ACT Optional Indicator 5, which is closely related to ACT 11, is listed in Box 5.
Data Sources:
Information can be based on MDB project results data or the operational data of the power plant involved in the
project.
References:
See References.
63
• Value of coal assets reclaimed or repurposed (USD)
This indicator measures the economic value of assets reclaimed or repurposed for brownfield (e.g., repowering,
industry) or greenfield (e.g., commercial, residential) usage, thereby reducing economic and financial costs of
decommissioning.
64
3.4 ACT Co-Benefit Indicators (Category 4)
In a global policy environment where every last dollar of climate finance matters, governments, policymakers,
investors and their constituencies are increasingly interested in how scarce climate finance can achieve multiple
co-benefit objectives. Funding must not only contribute toward Paris Agreement goals but also toward inclusive
economic growth, SDGs, just transitions, and more. This approach further reflects the fact that MDBs, as both CIF
delivery vehicles and development institutions, are already delivering blended finance operations that aim to
achieve these multiple results objectives.
Co-benefits refer to development outcomes, achieved as a result of ACT projects, that are not directly linked
to ACT’s main objective of accelerating the transition from coal-powered to clean energy while supporting
socio-economic goals and environmental remediation. Examples of co-benefits might include the reduction
in atmospheric pollutants from mining and coal combustion activities, and the related health benefits to the
wider population, or enhanced energy access due to the addition of advanced and renewable energy capacities.
Overall, co-benefit indicators help demonstrate the wider development benefits of coal transition interventions
and can be measured through both quantitative and qualitative means, including through modeling approaches
(see Section 4.4).
Projects financed under ACT are required to identify at least one quantitative co-benefit indicator
and integrate it into their project-level results framework prior to MDB Board approval. Co-benefit
indicators can either be selected from the illustrative list in this toolkit or identified by the MDB. MDBs
must also provide a qualitative assessment of the co-benefit(s) as part of their annual reporting to
better demonstrate the development context of the quantitative result achieved.
The following section describes some example indicators for the co-benefits expected to be achieved through
ACT projects, as set forth in the ACT IRF.
65
ACT Co-Benefit 1: Pollutants
ACT Co-Benefit 1 Indicator Example: Pollutants

Unit of Measurement: Atmospheric fine particulate matter, PM 2.5, concentrations per cubic meter (μg/m³);
Metric tons of effluent discharge; USD equivalent of savings from avoided illness and premature mortality
Disaggregation: By Type (atmospheric vs. terrestrial vs. health)
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Varies by sub-indicator and adopted methodology
Overview:
This outcome is tracked via three sub-indicators:
i. Atmospheric pollution: Decrease in particulate matters PM2.5 concentration, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
nitrogen oxide (NOx) resulting from voided coal combustion. These pollutants are particularly relevant
when households or businesses use coal-fired furnaces for heating.
ii. Terrestrial pollution: Reduction in volume of contaminants discharged from energy systems.
iii. Health benefits: Value of avoided health costs and reduction of respiratory illnesses and premature
mortality, both due to the reduction of atmospheric pollutants tracked within sub-indicator i.
Definitions:
PM 2.5 is a type of atmospheric pollutant resulting from hydrocarbon combustion and other factors. It is the
leading atmospheric contaminant driving negative health impacts and is utilized as a proxy to measure total air
pollution. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) also result from coal combustion.
Terrestrial pollutants are defined here as any untreated or unsafe contaminant effluence discharged from coal
generation and mining assets.
Health benefits are defined as the value of avoided health costs and the reduction in respiratory illnesses and
premature mortality resulting from the reduction of atmospheric pollutants.
The reduction of atmospheric fine particulate matter, PM 2.5, can either be tracked by localized national
data, where available, or via the publicly available WHO Air Ambient Air Pollution Monitor. The reduction of
sulfur dioxide can be monitored in the ambient environment through U.V. fluorescence, semiconductors, and
electrochemistry. Nitrogen oxide can be measured using a chemical reaction or sensor technology. It can be
estimated through the Air Quality Index (AQI).
The reduction of effluent discharge can be estimated as the average annual volume of discharge recorded by a
discontinued coal asset at the time of project approval, multiplied by the years of operation voided due to the
retirement of the coal asset before the end of its expected lifetime.
The USD equivalent of savings from avoided illness and premature mortality can be estimated via the free, open-
source BenMap modeling tool. It quantifies avoided health burden in the following manner:
66
Cost of illness value = direct/tangible costs
Willingness to pay value = direct + intangible personal costs
The latter part represents the estimated monetary value that persons would be willing to pay to avoid negative
health impacts. The respiratory illnesses and premature mortality linked to PM 2.5 concentration in the air can
be estimated using the HAPIT methodology.
Disaggregation:
ACT Co-Benefit 1 should be disaggregated in one way: By Type (atmospheric vs. terrestrial vs. health).
Some methodologies might require field work at the intervention dissemination sites to demonstrate pollution
exposure before and after the intervention in a representative sample of households. This is the case for the
HAPIT methodology.
Data Sources:
Project-level tracking, local labor or employment databases, economic studies.
References:
See References.
67
ACT Co-Benefit 2: Just Transition
ACT Co-Benefit 2 Indicator Examples: Indicators or results analyses that relate to social inclusion or
distributional impact dimensions of a just transition
Unit of Measurement: Varies highly; Difficult to measure with standardized indicators
Disaggregation: Varies highly; By Gender or Other Vulnerable Groups (whenever the “number of people” is
measured)
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Reported as an annual and cumulative achieved value (or qualitative
result) against a cumulative target (or qualitative expected result); Significant potential for more targeted
studies or analyses
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Some indicators could feed into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries)
and corollary to NPC and REI co-benefit indicators
Overview:
Just transition is a complex concept that applies a social and economic equity lens to the transformational
change inputs, processes, and outcomes needed to address the climate crisis. Although there is no universally
agreed-upon definition, one framework proposed through the CIF-sponsored Just Transition Initiative identifies
social inclusion and distributional impact as two important dimensions to consider, along with the notion of
transformative intention as a cross-cutting element. These dimensions are illustrated in Figure 3.
68
FIGURE 3. Framework for Just Transitions
Empowerment
Intention: transformation II: Narrow Transition I: Systems Change
Inclusive but focused approach Inclusive process and broad impact
Social Inclusion: recognizes, includes, and Social Inclusion: recognizes, includes, and
empowers a diverse range of stakeholders empowers a diverse range of stakeholders
throughout transition process. throughout transition process.
Distributional Impacts: considers a narrow Distributional Impacts: considers a broad

range of impacts for specific sectors and range of impacts across sectors and
stakeholders. stakeholders.
Intention: seeks transformation through Intention: seeks transformation through

inclusive and empowering processes. the overhaul of systems incompatible with
sustainable development and social equity.
Social Inclusion
III: Incremental Reform IV: Top-Down Transition
Less inclusive and focused approach Less inclusive process but broad impact
Social Inclusion: recognizes and includes Social Inclusion: recognizes and includes
select stakeholders in aspects of the transition select stakeholders in aspects of the transition
process. process.
Distributional Impacts: considers a narrow Distributional Impacts: considers a broad

range of impacts for specific sectors and range of impacts across sectors and
stakeholders. stakeholders.
Intention: seeks reform via changes within Intention: seeks transformation through
existing social and economic systems. consideration of a broad range of
Participation
distributional impacts.
Intention: Reform
Focused Expansive
Intention: Reform
Distributional Impacts Intention: transformation
Source: Reproduced from https://justtransitioninitiative.org/about-just-transitions/
Definitions:
Just transition elements should be defined by each MDB in the context of the project.
Potential just transition-related indicators should be selected with careful attention paid to the social inclusion
or distributional impact context of each ACT project. Due to the complex, context-dependent nature of just
transitions, results in this area may defy universal measurement approaches, such as standardized indicators.
ACT projects are encouraged to focus on one aspect of just transitions, identify a related indicator or results
measurement approach, and anchor this selection with an appropriate theoretical framework. Box 6 lists some
examples of potential just transition-related indicators.
69
BOX 6. Framework for Just Transitions
Social Inclusion:
Measuring meaningful engagement with and empowerment of relevant stakeholders (including labor, business, civil
society, and different levels of government) at national, subnational, and local levels of government
• Categories of stakeholders involved (including percentage of labor and vulnerable community members
relative to the project)
• Number of agreements reached with stakeholders in the context of the ACT investment program and just
transition processes
Distributional Impacts:
Measuring a range of potential positive and negative impacts on workers and communities that require
identification, tracking, and redress
• Potential social and economic development impacts identified and tracked during project development and
implementation
• Potential impacts (beyond education and skills development) identified and mitigated during project
implementation
Measuring ways to create, provide, or support access to sustainable and decent employment through a just
transition lens
• Number of new job opportunities directly created that are sustainable and decent jobs
Measuring the proactive identification of existing and anticipated future skills and training gaps in the context of the
coal-to-clean transition
• Number of people (men/women) trained for employment in the RE sector (or other sector)
• Number of people (men/women) in communities neighboring renewable energy integration infrastructure

with improved livelihoods
• Number of workers or community members (men/women) who find employment (or achieve promotions)
based on training provided by ACT projects
Disaggregation:
Reporting on just transition-related indicators should be disaggregated in at least two ways: (i) Gender and
(ii) Vulnerable Groups (whenever measuring the number of people). Other types of disaggregation should be
applied at the discretion of MDBs.
Just transition elements may be further assessed through evaluative approaches, studies, and learning activities.
See the ACT Maximizing Transformational Impact toolkit for more detailed guidance.
Data Sources:
Project-level tracking, local labor or employment databases, economic studies, social impact assessments,
process data from stakeholder engagement activities.
References:
See References.
70
ACT Co-Benefit 3: Enhanced Energy Access
ACT Co-Benefit 3 Indicator Example: Enhanced energy access

Unit of Measurement: Number (#) of women and men (converted from households, if necessary), businesses,
and community services (four separate units of measurement)
Disaggregation: Direct vs. Indirect; By Gender; By Women-Headed Households and Women-Owned
Businesses, where possible
cumulative target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Corollary to REI Core Indicator 7
Overview:
This ACT co-benefit indicator measures new or enhanced energy access for households (women and men),
businesses, and community services. The enhanced access must come from an increased share of renewable
energy sources developed to replace decommissioned coal sources as a result of ACT interventions. The indicator
can measure increased, more affordable, and/or more reliable access to clean energy. ACT Co-Benefit 3 feeds
into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries).
Definitions:
For this indicator, benefiting from improved access to electricity is defined by MDBs based on the specific context
of each project. According to the International Energy Agency (2020), some common aspects of energy access
include the following:
• Household access to minimum level of electricity
• Household access to safe and more sustainable (i.e., minimum harmful effects on health and the
environment as possible) cooking and heating fuels and stoves
• Access to modern energy that enables productive economic activity (e.g., mechanical power for agriculture,
textile, and other industries)
• Access to modern energy for public services (e.g., electricity for health facilities, schools, and street
lighting)
The Multi-Tier Framework for Energy Access (MTF) is an international standard that assigns a tier level of energy
access to targeted households or communities by taking into consideration a range of energy access attributes.
For example, Tier 1 refers to “limited access to small quantities of electricity for a few hours per day, enabling the
household to use electric lighting and phone charging.”23 If using the MTF, enhanced refers to any upgrade from
a lower tier of energy access to a higher one (e.g., Tier 0 to Tier 1, or Tier 2 to Tier 4). Figure 4 illustrates the key
criteria required to reach each tier of energy access (i.e., horizontal axis) in relation to each attribute (i.e., vertical
axis).
71
FIGURE 4. Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Access to Electricity
ATTRIBUTES TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5
Power Less than 3 W At Least 3 W At Least 50 W At Least 200 W At Least 800 W At Least 2 kW
capacity
Capacity At Least 3.4 At Least 8.2
ratings Less than 12 Wh At Least 12 Wh At Least 200 Wh At Least 1 kWh
(W or daily Wh) kWh kWh
Lighting of 1,000 Electrical

Imhr per day lighting, air
circulation,
Services
television, and
phone charging
are possible
Daily Less than 4 At least 16 At least 23

At least 4 hours At least 8 hours
Availability hours hours hours
Availability
Evening
Availability Less than 1 hour At least 1 hour At least 2 hours At least 3 hours At least 4 hours
At most 14
disruptions per (>3 to 14
At most 3
week or at most disruptions
disruptions per
3 disruptions / week) or <
Reliability More than 14 disruptions per week week with total
per week with disruptions /
duration of less
total duration week with > 2
than 2 hours
of more than 2 hours of outage
hours
Voltage problems do not affect

Quality Household experiences voltage problems that damage appliances
the use of desired appliances
Cost of a standard consumption package of 365 kWh Cost of a standard consumption package of 365 kWh
Affordability per year is more than 5% of household income per year is less than 5% of household income
Bill is paid to the utility, prepaid

Formality No bill payments made for the use of electricity card seller, or authorized
representative
Health and
Serious or fatal accidents due to electricity connection Absence of past accidents
Safety
Source: Reproduced from https://mtfenergyaccess.esmap.org/methodology/electricity
For ACT, electricity access typically refers to circumstances where solar, wind, or other renewables have been
installed or replaced previous coal-generated energy through the ACT investment program, and resulted in
enhanced electricity access to households, businesses, and/or communities.
Modern energy services refer to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy services that meet the needs of
households and businesses. Renewable sources like solar and wind have the potential to provide these services
to households and businesses in a variety of circumstances. For example, modern energy services that can be
specifically powered by off-grid rooftop solar PV systems might include the following:
• Lighting: LED lights in homes and businesses
• Heating and cooling: Solar thermal systems heating and cooling in homes and businesses
• Cooking: Electric cookstoves for clean cooking
72
• Water pumping: Solar-Powered water pumps used to extract water from wells to provide clean drinking
water to communities
• Telecommunications: Solar-powered cell towers and internet connectivity in remote areas
ACT Co-Benefit Indicator 3 measures the total number of men, women, households, businesses, and
communities benefiting from modern energy services. The indicator does not measure the number of modern
energy services added to a household, business, or community service.
Baseline: During project design, an assessment area must be identified by the MDB and the level of energy
access within the assessment area established using a suitable methodology. The total number of households
(women/men), businesses, and community services (a non-zero value) is then determined as an input to the
baseline value for this indicator and recalibrated to zero (0) for the purposes of ACT M&R. In some cases, this
information may already be available from the ACT investment plan, diagnostics, or other recent grid studies.
If feasible, energy access should be established using a multi-tier framework for energy access rather than a
binary approach. Data from ESMAP’s MTF, RISE scores, the multi-dimensional energy poverty index, SDG-7 sub-
indicator, or other national energy statistics are all good sources of information to report on energy access.
Expected Results: The target value(s) for households, businesses, and other community services (four separate
units of measurement) with enhanced access to electricity or modern energy services are estimated using data
collected as part of the due diligence work conducted during the appraisal phase of the project. If a project is
reporting on businesses or community services in particular, additional information should be provided on the
nature and definition of these units within the context of the project reporting.24 Overall, the target(s) should be
provided in line with the project-level theory of change on how ACT interventions are expected to affect energy
access and include a suitable quantitative methodology.
preceding year. They should reflect observed net changes in the energy access rate for the assessment area, as
evidenced by primary data from household surveys or operational data from utilities. Cumulative results cover
all new women, men, businesses, or other community services with improved access to electricity or other
modern energy services over the project implementation period.
If the MTF approach is used, achieved improvements should count any upgrade from a lower tier to a higher one
(e.g., Tier 0 to Tier 1 or Tier 2 to Tier 4). A household’s tier status is defined in relation to each of the attributes
in the MTF (i.e., capacity, availability, reliability, quality, affordability, formality, health, and safety). The overall
tier status is measured by applying the lowest tier obtained for any of the attributes (see more on MTF in the
References).
All data sources should be cited, and the methodology specified at the time of reporting.
Disaggregation:
Apart from the four sub-units of measurement that are already incorporated in the measurement units of the
indicator, monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in two ways (and three if possible):
(i) Direct vs. Indirect, (ii) By Gender, and (iii) By Women-Headed Households and Women-Owned Businesses, if
possible.
73
Direct energy access refers to households, businesses, or other community services that have improved access to
electricity as a result of improved electricity production from renewable energy sources directly enabled by ACT
project intervention(s). Examples include the following:
• New grid connections from an ACT intervention
• Businesses receiving improved access to electricity as a result of grid connection improvements
• Households provided with more reliable electricity as a result of projects integrating additional clean
energy sources into the grid
Indirect energy access refers to households, businesses, or other community services that have improved access
to electricity as a secondary or follow-on effect from ACT projects’ direct interventions. Examples include the
following:
• Capacity building projects to foster policy changes that enable enhanced energy access
• Enhancing the resiliency of existing grid connections as a knock-on effect from ACT interventions
Gender disaggregation (i.e., the number of men vs. women) is required for all projects that specifically monitor
households with improved access to electricity or other modern energy services. This disaggregation is fully
incorporated in the measurement units of the indicator.
Disaggregating by the number of women-headed households25 and women-owned businesses is strongly

encouraged for all projects that monitor improvements in access to electricity or modern energy services at the
household and business level, respectively.
Converting households to women and men: When energy access data available are reported in terms of
households, the values should be converted to the number of men and women and the methodology for making
this conversation cited during the first year of reporting. CIF suggests using country data (or sub-national
data, if possible) on the average number of people per household, as made available by sources like the UN’s
Population Division.26
Other national energy access metrics: As a complement to the information tracked in ACT Co-Benefit 3, the
country-driven proxy impact reporting window of the ACT M&R System is positioned to capture metrics, such as
national RISE scores, national MTF rates, and national off-grid access rates. This may be particularly suitable to
project contexts where robust primary data collection (e.g., household surveys) is not possible at the relative
scale of the project.
Data Sources:
In addition to MDB project results, household surveys, and other national or sub-national energy statistics,
number of people and businesses with improved access to electricity can be found through the World Bank
ESMAP MTF data, SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework, and operational data from utilities.
References:
See References.
74
ACT Co-Benefit 4: Gender- and Vulnerable Groups-Specific Co-Benefits (and Other
Co-Benefits)
ACT Co-Benefit 4 Indicator Example: MDBs may propose any other co-benefit indicator that tracks social,
economic, or environmental results beyond the scope of ACT’s primary objectives. One applicable example
could be co-benefits specific to gender or vulnerable groups due to ACT project interventions.
Unit of Measurement: Number of persons reached (#)
Disaggregation: By Gender; By Vulnerable Groups or Persons
Reporting Scope and Frequency: Reported as an annual and cumulative achieved value against a cumulative
target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Feeds into CIF Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries)
Overview:
This example indicator measures the persons reached via ACT project activities that directly target women or
vulnerable social groups for inclusion/development co-benefits.
ACT Co-Benefit 4 should be reported as an annual and lifetime estimate for each investment. It feeds into CIF
Impact Indicator 3 (Beneficiaries).
Definitions:
People supported might include beneficiaries of the following illustrative activities:
• Improved employment opportunities in the renewable energy sector or science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) skills development
• Livelihood and skills development, entrepreneurship training, and credit access
• Gender-specific financial products, especially for productive-use applications
• Gender-specific design measures in energy-related services or outreach
• Institutional measures, such as policy, planning and budgeting support, inclusive human resources
policies, or other policies aiming to reduce inequality, including in procurement practices, actions against
gender-based violence, and measures, such as subsidies, to reduce connection fees for vulnerable groups
like women-headed households
• Other measures designed to reduce gender and inequality gaps in the sector/sub-sector targeted by ACT
interventions
Gender-responsive aspects can be studied in more detail through targeted research, evaluations, and case
studies. These activities can better assess the program’s impacts in reducing gender imbalances and expanding
inclusion, including the relevance of interventions, women’s access to the labor force, and the viability of
women-owned enterprises in economic regeneration programs. Studies might focus on either or both of the
following phases:
75
a. Coal plant or coal mine retirement/re-purposing phase: Gender and social policy and strategy
preparedness assessment, including mapping of: i) institutional linkages to Ministry of Women’s Affairs or
equivalent, gender focal points in line ministries (including in Social Protection and Labor, and Education
ministries, as well as Environment, and Energy); ii) expected poverty impacts of the transition, including
social and gender-based care burdens for workers affected directly and indirectly by the energy transition;
and iii) policy mandates and measures to ensure gender equality outcomes in skills development and
workforce transition.
b. Post-coal regional transformation phase: Social protection assessment of readiness and completeness
of short and long-term social assistance programs, active labor market programs, and education and
reskilling programs targeting jobs of the future, including gender assessments of gaps between women
and men in education, skills, employment, and participation rates in new or similar jobs-related programs;
and measures to reduce gender imbalances in the impact of proposed interventions.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in two ways: (i) Gender and (ii) Vulnerable
Groups or Persons (such as youth or elderly persons, persons with disabilities, labor migrants, racial or ethnic
minorities, etc.).
Health and other development co-benefits may be further assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using a
variety of other indicators.
Data Sources:
Information can be based on MDB project results data or data from organizations or agencies hosting or
implementing ACT-related interventions.
76
3.5 ACT Optional Indicators (Category 5)
ACT optional indicators are monitored and reported at the project level, based on MDBs’ own M&E systems.
They are intended to capture probable results expected to be achieved through the ACT investment program and
may be useful for MDBs to incorporate in their project-level results frameworks on a project-by-project basis
(although this is not required). CIF will analyze the project results frameworks for all ACT projects at MDB Board
approval phase and identify which, if any, ACT optional indicators are reflected in the MDB-approved project
results framework. Upon agreement from the MDB, the selected optional indicator(s) are uploaded to the CCH
alongside the core indicators for results reporting.
Optional indicators are reported by MDBs on an annual basis using the information already available in their
own project-level M&E systems. Projects that have not incorporated any of the ACT optional indicators do not
require any further action during annual reporting.
Some ACT optional indicators are situated at the outcome level and are closely linked to certain ACT core
indicators (i.e., ACT 4, ACT 9, ACT 10, and ACT 11) in terms of the results area that they aim to capture (see Section
3.3). However, not all ACT core indicators have corresponding optional indicators. Most ACT optional indicators
are situated at the output level, as they relate to the short-term intervention results of discrete projects.
BOX 7. ACT Optional Indicators
OUTCOME LEVEL:
ACT Optional 1: Volume of incomes generated from new economic activity (USD), related to ACT 4 and ACT 10
ACT Optional 2: New coal capacity addition abated/negated (MW), related to ACT 9
ACT Optional 3: Coverage/scale of ecosystems protected and strengthened (Ha), related to ACT 10
ACT Optional 4: Value of ecosystem services generated or protected (USD), related to ACT 10
ACT Optional 5: Value of coal assets reclaimed or repurposed (USD), related to ACT 11
OUTPUT LEVEL:
ACT Optional 6: Number of persons re-skilled/retrained (#)
ACT Optional 7: Number of programs deployed/implemented to minimize environmental and social losses from coal
transitions (#)
ACT Optional 8: Number of programs designed to minimize environmental and social losses from coal transitions (#)
ACT Optional 9: Number of roadmaps, action plans, assessments, and/or related due diligence completed on
minimizing environmental and social losses from coal transitions (#)
ACT Optional 10: Number of communications plans designed and rolled out (#)
ACT Optional 11: Number of persons consulted via local/multi-stakeholder consultations regarding project impacts
and related economic and social regeneration strategies (#)
ACT Optional 12: Number of local/multistakeholder consultations regarding project impacts and related economic
and social regeneration strategies (#)
77
3.6 ACT Project-Specific Indicators (Category 6)
The ACT M&R System is designed to track project-specific indicators selected by the MDBs to monitor the goals,
outcomes, and outputs of individual ACT projects, based on their approved project-level results frameworks.
Unlike optional indicators, CIF does not provide any suggested list of project-specific indicators. These indicators
are entirely driven by the MDBs in a decentralized fashion. The CIF Administrative Unit’s role must review all ACT
projects’ MDB-approved results frameworks to identify, harmonize, and capture commonly reported indicators
that can complement the results reported through the core indicators and other indicator categories. The
approach also helps to highlight notable achievements from individual projects as part of the annual results
reporting process.
The MDBs should supply the CIF Administrative Unit with the full project-level results frameworks of individual
ACT projects at MDB Board approval. The most recently available progress reports or implementation status
reports generated by the MDBs through their own project supervision protocol should also be submitted during
each annual reporting period.
Identification and analysis of commonly reported indicators may take place at various stages of the program’s
lifetime, as new projects come onboard and the effectiveness of capturing results via the core indicators is
iteratively reassessed.
78
3.7 Energy Storage Indicators (Category 7)
Energy storage indicators are monitored and reported at the project level, based on MDBs’ own M&E systems.
They must be integrated into project-level results frameworks for all ACT-funded projects with an energy
storage component. These two indicators on energy rating and power rating of storage systems are borrowed
from CIF’s Global Energy Storage Program (GESP) M&R System. They are straightforward to measure and are
specifically selected to allow results to be aggregated and learning to flow between CIF’s GESP and the ACT
investment program. If an ACT project does not include an energy storage component, it is not required to report
any information under Category 7.
Energy storage indicators are the reporting responsibility of MDBs on an annual basis.
GESP 1: Energy Rating
GESP Indicator 1: Energy rating of storage systems installed

Unit of Measurement: MWh
Disaggregation: Storage Technology Type (thermal, mechanical, electrochemical); Location on the Energy
Value Chain (generation, transmission, distribution, stationary end-use, mobile end-use); Distributed vs.
Utility-Scale
cumulative target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Aligns with GESP Indicator 1
Overview:
This indicator tracks the energy rating of deployed battery or other energy storage systems in ACT projects, as
measured in MWh. It is intended to demonstrate the total increase in energy storage capacity deployed across
all ACT projects with an energy storage component and is designed to be aggregated with energy storage results
from other CIF programs, notably GESP. Energy Storage Indicator 1 is required for all ACT projects with an energy
storage component.
Definitions:
The energy rating of an energy storage system indicates the maximum amount of energy that can be stored
in the battery or storage system. It is the product of the power rating in MW and the discharge duration at this
power rating, where power rating is the maximum power at which the energy storage system can operate. See
Energy Storage Indicator 2 for more on power rating. In some settings, the terminology energy storage capacity is
used interchangeably with energy rating.
In general, the following formula applies:
Energy rating = Power rating (Energy Storage Indicator 2) x Duration of energy storage discharge
at the rated power in number of hours
Baseline: N/A
79
Expected Results: Energy ratings should be estimated based on country or technology-specific standards
expected within the targeted energy system. This specification is typically well known in advance of deploying an
energy storage system.
Achieved Results: For annual monitoring and reporting, this indicator should report on the energy rating of a
battery or energy storage system rendered operational during the 12-month reporting period. Optional annual
operating data on actual delivery of energy from storage should be shared over time, as available.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in three ways: (i) Storage Technology Type, (ii)
Location on the Energy Value Chain, and (iii) Distributed Storage vs. Utility-Scale Applications.
The storage technology type refers to thermal, mechanical, or electrochemical.
The location on the energy value chain refers to generation, transmission, distribution, stationary end use, or
mobile end use.
Distributed storage refers to systems installed in end-user facilities, such as public services, industries,
households, or businesses (e.g., mini-grids, off-grid systems, and electric vehicles). Utility-scale applications
typically refer to the grid network.
When feasible, MDBs should report additional data on the total measured vs. expected discharge and duration
of energy storage operations at rated power (and below rated power) over a given year. The product of measured
duration and rated power equals delivered energy at rated power, which can be compared against the energy
rating of the storage system. Note that for storage systems that provide various rated energy values as a function
of discharge power, this measurement is conducted at each discharge power. This can also be used to calculate
the project-specific energy-to-power ratio, which can be compared with the ratios of other ACT energy storage
projects in a learning context.
Data Sources:
Country-level data, technological specifications of battery or energy storage systems.
References:
See References.
80
GESP 2: Power Rating
GESP Indicator 2: Power rating of storage systems installed

Unit of Measurement: MW
Disaggregation: Storage Technology Type (thermal, mechanical, electrochemical); Location on the Energy
Value Chain (generation, transmission, distribution, stationary end-use, mobile end-use); Distributed vs.
Utility-Scale
cumulative target
Alignment with CIF-Level Indicators: Aligns with GESP Indicator 2
Overview:
This indicator tracks the power rating of deployed battery or other energy storage systems in ACT projects, as
measured in MW. It is intended to demonstrate the total increase in power capacity deployed across all ACT
projects with an energy storage component and is designed to be aggregated with energy storage results from
other CIF programs, notably GESP. Energy Storage Indicator 2 is required for all ACT projects with an energy
storage component.
Definitions:
The power rating indicates how much power can flow into or out of the energy storage system continuously,
i.e., a measure of the maximum continuous power output capacity. In some settings, the terminology “power
capacity” and “rated power” are used interchangeably with “power rating.”
Baseline: N/A
Expected Results: Power ratings should be estimated based on country or technology-specific standards
expected within the targeted energy system. This specification is typically well known in advance of deploying an
energy storage system.
Achieved Results: For annual monitoring and reporting, this indicator should report on the power rating of a
battery or energy storage system rendered operational during the 12-month reporting period.
Disaggregation:
Monitoring and reporting for this indicator must be disaggregated in three ways: (i) Storage Technology Type, (ii)
Location on the Energy Value Chain, and (iii) Distributed Storage vs. Utility-Scale Applications.
The storage technology type refers to thermal, mechanical, or electrochemical.
The location on the energy value chain refers to generation, transmission, distribution, stationary end use, or
mobile end use.
Distributed storage refers to systems installed in end-user facilities, such as public services, industries,
households, or businesses (e.g., mini-grids, off-grid systems, and electric vehicles). Utility-scale applications
typically refer to the grid network.
81
N/A
Data Sources:
Country-level data, technological specifications of battery or energy storage systems.
References:
See References.
82
4. Other Key Features of ACT
M&R and Results
ACT uses multiple, complementary approaches to monitor, evaluate, generate evidence, and learn from aspects
of the program that are not easily captured through indicators. Many of these approaches are based on targeted
and demand-driven research, analytics, and/or stakeholder engagement activities, which various teams in the
CIF Administrative Unit oversee in close coordination with MDBs.
4.1 Multi-Stakeholder Review Mechanism for Investment Plans

Multi-stakeholder review mechanisms are an important tool for ACT recipient countries to utilize as part of their
ACT M&R approach. They enable recipient countries to self-assess progress made on their investment plans with
a diverse group of ACT stakeholders. Mechanisms include national workshops, South-South learning events,
joint discussion of progress on the ACT country impact indicators, or other modalities. CIF encourages countries
to deploy this flexible mechanism at least three times over the course of the investment plan’s implementation
period (approximately at baseline, mid-term, and end-line of the full investment plan). CIF also aims to support
recipient countries to implement the mechanism, in coordination with MDBs, on a demand-driven basis.
Approaches may be customized per country and/or combined with other evaluative approaches and learning-
oriented activities, such as those described in ACT’s Maximizing Transformational Impact toolkit.
Multi-stakeholder review mechanisms should also be inclusive, with equitable participation of men and women,
representation from civil society organizations (including organizations representing women), and participation
from other marginalized social groups. The content discussed through this mechanism should take into account
the differentiated impacts of ACT projects on men vs. women and marginalized social groups, as well as
stakeholder differences in needs and expectations of ACT by gender and other social groups. Gender and social
inclusion should be considered cross-cutting themes to be addressed throughout workshop discussions (or
otherwise in the content of the selected mechanism).
4.2 Signals and Dimensions of Transformational Change

If feasible, recipient countries and MDBs are encouraged to incorporate the signals and dimensions of
transformational change, including just transition elements, into aspects of their monitoring and reporting
on ACT results. This can take place during the implementation of the multi-stakeholder review mechanism
(see Section 4.1), as part of narrative reporting (see Section 4.6), or through other avenues. A comprehensive
description of transformational change is available in the ACT Maximizing Transformational Impact toolkit.
83
4.3 Gender and Social Inclusion Results and Analytics
ACT results related to gender and social inclusion are captured through an array of mechanisms that collectively
build a body of evidence on progress toward the objectives of CIF’s Gender Action Plan.
First, within the ACT M&R System, all indicators measuring the “number of people” are required to be gender
disaggregated. This enables CIF Administrative Unit and MDBs to better track projects’ contribution toward
reducing gender gaps, to assess potential gender-differentiated outcomes, and to monitor the overall
distribution of results achieved over time.
Second, MDBs have the option to include gender- and social inclusion-related indicators as part of their co-
benefits reporting (see Section 3.4). This could be as a part of the social inclusion dimension using a just
transition lens or as a separate gender-related indicator proposed by the project and identified by the MDB to be
monitored at CIF level over time.
Third, the CIF Gender Team and MDBs review the full project results frameworks of ACT projects at MDB Board
approval with the aim to identify gender- and social inclusion-related indicators. Based on this exercise, the
indicators identified are extracted and entered into the CCH Gender module for CIF to track and analyze ACT’s
annual progress on the CIF Gender Action Plan(s) throughout program implementation. The indicators should be
linked to any gender gaps identified in the gender analysis and project activities designed to address those gaps.
The reporting is carried out through the Gender Module of the CCH portal. The CCH Gender Module also records
information on analyses of gender gaps and gender-focused project activities.
Encouraging projects to develop a gender action plan built on the social inclusion and gender analyses
undertaken at the design stage can be an effective strategy for MDBs to monitor gender-related results and
ensure that gender-related considerations are explicitly embedded in project design and implementation. ACT
projects should select gender indicators for which information is likely to be available and affordable to collect,
using various data sources and methodologies to set baseline and target values for both gender-disaggregated
and gender-specific indicators. This approach promotes the inclusion of such indicators in projects’ results
framework, in turn, enabling the CIF-level approach to extract and track such information.
In addition to collecting quantitative data points, qualitative approaches at the project level are also critical
tools to analyze the gender issues affecting projects. ACT projects will often need to capture gender-related
information through focus groups, in-depth interviews, key informant interviews, and other qualitative methods.
Teams should be prepared to adjust project implementation if monitoring reveals that women, men, boys, and
girls do not benefit equally or as expected from activities or if there are harmful effects on women, men, boys, or
girls. Project teams are also encouraged to report on lessons learned on gender reported in project progress and
completion reports, as well as to explore opportunities for more in-depth studies on the gendered impact of the
projects. For example, mixed-method evaluations are typically more effective at capturing gender-related results,
such as changes in norms, attitudes, and behaviors resulting from women and girls’ economic empowerment.
In addition, Women Led Coal Transition Grant Mechanism (WOLCOT) is set up under ACT to go beyond regular
gender mainstreaming and test bold, innovative “business unusual” models that directly support local
communities and organizations working on the rights of women and other excluded groups. WOLCOT aims to
foster women’s climate leadership and effective participation in the design and implementation of coal-to-
clean transition strategies and plans. Activities under WOLCOT are expected to contribute in particular to ACT
Core Indicator 1 (Number of policies, regulations, codes, or standards that have been amended or adopted) and
84
ACT Core Indicator 4 (Number of direct beneficiaries of implemented social plans and economic regeneration
activities). Further reporting for WOLCOT grants is also required, as set out in the WOLCOT results framework.
The CIF Gender Team is available to support MDBs and country teams based on demand and to provide targeted
technical support on gender equality and social inclusion issues, such as inputs to analytical products exploring
gender gaps, assessment of gender results, and capacity building events. In addition, the team facilitates
meetings of the CIF Gender Focal Points Working Group to discuss challenges and opportunities related to
gender integration in ACT and enable peer support.
Finally, ACT recipient countries are encouraged to incorporate deeper dive analyses of gender and social
inclusion issues as part of their multi-stakeholder review mechanism for investment plans conducted around
the beginning, mid-term, and end of country investment plan implementation (see Section 4.1).
4.4 Modeling
The CIF Administrative Unit utilizes economic modeling tools, such as the Joint Impact Model (JIM),27 Employment
Factors, and the International Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (I-JEDI) model to estimate the larger
social and economic impacts of its investments. For energy investments, CIF mostly employs the JIM model,
which yields estimations of the direct, indirect, and supply chain impacts of investments on jobs, as well as
economic value addition from project construction, operation, and via the forward effects of additional power
generated in the investee economies.
Further model enhancements led by CIF aim to enhance the granularity and accuracy of estimates and expand
knowledge on distributive impacts and the quality of jobs created. They focus on the following:
• Direct and Backward Effects (i.e., improving the ex-ante estimation of direct and backward supply-chain
and induced effects)
• Forward Effects (i.e., improving estimates of power-enabling or forward effects)
• Distributive Impacts (i.e., investigating opportunities to calculate distributive impacts)
The work differentiates impacts related to technology types (i.e., onshore wind, offshore wind, solar PV, CSP, large
hydro, small hydro, green hydrogen, biomass, ocean, storage, etc.), the location of investments on the energy
value chain (i.e., generation vs. transmission vs. distribution), and utility-scale vs. distributed applications (i.e.,
grid, off-grid, mini-grid, rooftop solar, and other distributed solutions). It increasingly considers the treatment of
life-of-project analyses and construction vs. operational phases of renewable energy investments.
The expansion of modeling foci and tools also explores metrics for health co-benefits (see Section 3.4), such
as impacts from reduced atmospheric pollutants associated with fossil-fuel emissions, the quantification of
avoided health burdens, and benefits from preventing premature mortality. These areas of modeling help
strengthen the collective understanding of development outcomes linked to CIF’s energy sector financing, while
providing potential metrics for similar investment types (such as those expected in ACT).
Based on demand, MDBs and recipient countries are encouraged to exploit modeling tools—including through
coordination and collaboration with the CIF Administrative Unit—to enrich their estimations of total expected
results from ACT projects.
85
4.5 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
The CIF Administrative Unit catalogs ACT through the lens of the SDGs by mapping each ACT project to the SDGs
that relate to its objectives and expected outcomes. These include SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 5: Gender Equality,
SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and
Infrastructure, and SDG 13: Climate Action. This enables the program to estimate how much of its total financing
is contributing toward these SDG objectives, and as implementation progresses, to triangulate achieved results
with the related SDGs.
4.6 Narrative Reporting

MDB project implementation narrative reporting is an important aspect of the ACT M&R System. In addition
to the narrative reporting that complements quantitative data for some of the core indicators (e.g., ACT Core
Indicators 1 and 2), MDBs should submit their own recent supervision reports (redacted where necessary) to
the CIF Administrative Unit alongside their annual submission of quantitative results data. The ACT M&R System
makes further use of MDB operational reporting in the CCH that MDBs already undertake as part of CIF’s portfolio
management function (i.e., qualitative reporting on implementation updates). These types of narrative data help
strengthen interim monitoring at the portfolio level before longer-term outcomes and impacts can be realized.
ACT recipient countries are encouraged to share narrative reporting at the Investment Plan level with the CIF
Administrative Unit on an annual basis, or when feasible. This can include national reports and other documents
related to ACT that are already being produced by the country (which can be uploaded directly to the CCH), as
well as direct text inputs to the CCH alongside recipient country reporting on country impact indicators.
4.7 Program Evaluation

Per the CIF MEL Policy and Guidance document, the program evaluation function is separate from – and
complementary to – the ACT M&R System. In general, the CIF-wide Evaluation and Learning (E&L) Initiative covers
the ACT investment program alongside other CIF programs. Three different modalities are expected to be used to
conduct ACT-related evaluations and studies: (i) Commissioning of independent evaluation firms or individuals,
in line with CIF procurement policies; (ii) CIF Administrative Unit-led evaluative studies; and (iii) CIF partner-led
studies, including from MDBs and recipient countries (CIF 2022, 10-13 and 19-21).
An ACT investment program-level mid-term evaluation is expected to occur approximately five to seven years
into the program’s implementation, when deemed appropriate and subject to approval from ACT’s governing
TFC. A program level, end-of-term evaluation is expected to occur approximately 8-12 years into the program’s
implementation, also when deemed appropriate and subject to approval from ACT’s governing Trust Fund
Committee.
Results data and other information generated through the ACT M&R System are expected to help build an
evidence base that can be used for and as part of ACT-related evaluations and studies.
4.8 Capacity Building and Learning

Support for ACT M&R-related capacity building is available upon demand from the CIF Administrative Unit,
in close coordination with MDBs. For instance, ACT recipient countries can undertake the multi-stakeholder
86
review mechanisms for investment plans (see Section 4.1) without any CIF Administrative Unit involvement, with
limited CIF Administrative Unit involvement, or direct CIF guidance and capacity building support for investment
plan review. This mechanism is also an opportunity for a broad range of local stakeholders to strengthen their
awareness and build capacity in M&R for coal-to-clean transition, in addition to the country focal point and
project implementation teams who are typically involved in the M&R process.
Additional analytics and learning activities related to ACT results are expected to occur through a variety of
channels over the implementation lifetime of the program. These might include aspects related to gender,
stakeholder engagement, development impacts, just transition, thematic or sub-sectoral deep dives, project
delivery case studies, or other activities. Such activities are selected on a demand-driven basis in close
coordination with MDBs.
87
5. Reporting Definitions and
Guidelines
5.1 Reporting Definitions

The ACT M&R System sets targets and tracks results based on the whole of projects implemented. As a result
of ACT refers to the effects of interventions and activities funded by ACT, as well as those leveraged by the
co-financing reported in ACT Core Indicator 6. Typically, this refers to singular projects or programs structured
through blended finance (CIF + MDB + other potential co-finance).
The expected reporting closure date is the date when the MDB expects final, end-line results data points to
become available for all approved project indicators. This can vary per MDB and may occur at financial closure,
around physical completion of project implementation, or upon submission of a project completion report.
MDBs may have different terminology and parameters for establishing this date. The date can also vary between
public and private sector operations and can be modified if projects are extended, restructured, or terminated.
The reporting year for CIF refers to project performance from January 1 to December 31 of the year before
results are submitted. In general, ACT results are submitted by March 15 of the following calendar year from
the reporting year, although in some cases, the period reported may differ between MDBs, which have different
cutoff dates for their internal results reporting. The ACT M&R System provides flexibility for MDBs’ respective
reporting protocols while striving for coherent CIF-level reporting to the greatest extent possible.
Stakeholders refer to parties with an interest in a project, including government authorities, the private sector,
utilities, civil society organizations, and other groups at local and country level.
5.2 Baselines, Expected Results, and Achieved Results

Reporting quantitative baselines is not necessary for ACT indicators since these values are implicitly set at zero
(0). This is because these indicators each measure an increase in activities “as a result of ACT interventions.”
Nonetheless, MDBs may need to conduct their own baseline assessments that will feed into these and other
aspects of the ACT M&R System, such as intermediary input calculations for GHG accounting, qualitative
reporting, and certain project-specific and co-benefits indicators (e.g., energy access and employment figures).
The baseline year for ACT projects is the year of MDB Board Approval.
88
Expected results refer to the intended results to be achieved by a project by its end-line and are interchangeably
referred to as targets. The ACT M&R System does not track annual or mid-term targets. Targets are proposed
in project proposal documents at the time of CIF Trust Fund Committee funding approval and are verified or
modified at the time of MDB Board approval, alongside the reporting of any additional indicators and targets for
project-specific and co-benefit indicators. MDBs and the CIF Administrative Unit jointly track targets via the CCH.
In most cases, the standard target year refers to the year of project closure.28
Achieved results are submitted by MDBs via the CCH during the annual results reporting period. They are
submitted by March 15 of each calendar year and should cover the preceding reporting year (i.e., January 1–
December 31). Data from MDBs’ project-level monitoring systems must be used to report actual, observed results,
rather than projections or ex-ante estimates.
All documents containing the evidence base for reported results are auditable. These should be uploaded to the
CCH under the Supporting Documents tab in the Results section. If a document is marked as confidential, only
members of the reporting MDB and members of the CIF Administrative Unit can view it.
5.3 Data Entry and Validation

For each project, MDBs must fill in the CCH sections covering ACT core indicators. MDBs should also report data
for the relevant co-benefit indicator(s) and all other indicators agreed to be reported for the corresponding
projects, as established at MDB Board approval. A list of these indicators will be pre-populated for each
reporting period after they are identified and entered into the CCH system during the first year that a project
reports.
If a project is co-funded by two MDBs, the MDBs must agree which one will report on the project to the CIF
Administrative Unit. Each project can only have one report (to avoid double-counting project results). If
each MDB invests in and implements distinct components of a project, and if each MDB reports only on the
components that are directly relevant to their investment, the risk of double counting is avoided. However, in
such an instance, the relevant components and targets should be clearly delineated, communicated formally to
CIF, and remain congruent with the total targets at the project level.
Project leads within MDBs and MDBs’ CIF coordination focal points should review and validate the data before
uploading the annual results to the CCH.
The CIF Administrative Unit is responsible for communicating the annual results reporting deadline to all MDBs
during each reporting period. Results data should be submitted by March 15 of each calendar year for the results
achieved during the previous year, i.e., the reporting year.
5.4 Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement

MDBs and ACT project teams are encouraged to invite stakeholders in the ACT recipient country to review the
annual results of the program before sharing the annual results with the CIF Administrative Unit.
Results can also be disseminated, discussed, and shared through targeted stakeholder engagement activities,
such as the multi-stakeholder investment plan review mechanism, CIF-sponsored learning forums, in-country
renewable energy events, or other platforms.
89
5.5 Timing of Results Achieved
Given the nature of ACT projects and the fact that all eleven of the ACT core indicators are outcome indicators,
significant progress may only occur once projects have reached a mature stage of implementation or are
completed.
Projects no longer need to report annual results once they have reached completion and have submitted their
final results in the CCH, along with a copy of the MDB’s project completion report.29 Cumulative achieved results
will be deemed final at this time. For annual achieved results (e.g., annual GHG emissions reductions) the CIF
Administrative Unit will continue to use the final year’s result as an annual proxy for future reporting years
unless otherwise notified by MDBs.
90
6. Navigating the CIF
Collaboration Hub
Detailed guidelines on accessing the CCH and its general usage are presented within the CCH Results User Guide,
which is available upon request. MDB personnel responsible for results reporting tasks should take the following
key steps.30
Step 1: Identifying Indicators and Entering Targets for ACT Projects

Timeline: Upon MDB Board approval for both public and private sector projects; no later than the first results
reporting period to follow the project’s MDB Board approval.
Procedure: First, MDBs should provide the CIF M&R Team with the full project results framework, as approved in
the project appraisal document (i.e., project design document)31 at MDB Board approval. Both MDB and CIF M&R
teams should review the results framework for each ACT project, consult, and agree on the full list of indicators
that are applicable to the ACT M&R System (see Section 2.2).
Once this has been completed, MDBs are responsible for entering the agreed-upon indicators and their targets
into the CCH.
• Users should go to the “Project Portfolio” section of the CCH, identify the project, scroll over the far-left
column, and click on “Update Project.”
• Users should next, identify the “Results” section in the task bar on the left-hand side and click on
“Targets.” After clicking on the “Targets” link, the user is navigated to the “Targets” screen, as shown in
Figure 5.
FIGURE 5. Entering Targets in the CCH
91
• Users can add indicators per category (“Core Indicator,” “Co-Benefit Indicator,” “Optional Indicator,” “Project-
Specific Indicator,” and “Energy Storage Indicator” as relevant) and target values on the screen. The “Core
Indicator” section is first, followed by the other indicator categories. These indicators can be selected
via the dropdown function or entered manually if the indicator identified is not already reflected in the
dropdown list.
• Users can enter multiple targets by clicking the “+” sign on the right side of each indicator line.
• Each indicator’s required disaggregation populates in the CCH structure once the indicator is selected.
Users should select the appropriate disaggregation and populate all targets/sub-targets accordingly.
• When prompted, users should provide additional text or information on the methodology used.
• Users can enter co-benefit indicators and targets in the lower section of the page, as well as indicators
from the other categories.
• Users must click “Save” at the bottom of the page once all the targets have been added, and the data
entered will be submitted in the system (see Figure 6).
• Co-financing data are automatically transferred from the “Financials” tab.
FIGURE 6. Targets Entered in the CCH
Changing Targets: Targets cannot be modified after results have been reported unless a formal restructuring has
occurred. If this is the case, MDBs must notify the CIF Administrative Unit of the change, provide the necessary
rationale, and submit the relevant documentation validating the rationale, methodology, and new target value(s).
The numbers will be changed by the CCH administrator.
Step 2: Entering Achieved Results for ACT Projects

Timeline: Results must be submitted on an annual basis during the first quarter of the calendar year (i.e.,
January–March). The submission should cover the annual results achieved during the reporting period from
January 1 to December 31 of the previous calendar year, regardless of differing fiscal years among MDBs. Exact
reporting deadlines are communicated by the CIF Administrative Unit and may shift over time (in line with the
timing of CIF TFC meetings). At the time of publication, the annual reporting deadline for MDBs is March 15.
92
Procedure:
• Each year, MDBs should go to the “Project Portfolio” section of the CCH, identify the project to be reported
on, and click on “Update Project.”
• Users should identify the “Results” section in the task bar on the left-hand side and click on “Achieved
Results.” After clicking on the “Achieved Results” link under the Results section, the user is navigated to the
“Achieved Results” screen as shown in Figure 7.
• The “Achieved Results” screen is available for data entry during the first part of each calendar year. At
other times, the screen is in “View Only” mode.
• The core indicators and all related fields are automatically populated from the “Targets” screen to the
“Achieved Results” screen.32 Users are not able to enter new indicators on this screen.
• Users have the option to enter values in either the “Annual” or “Cumulative Results” field; the CCH will
automatically calculate the values for the other field.33
• Users should enter results for all fields per core indicator: both total and disaggregated achieved results.
• Each core indicator line has the option to add comments in case further explanation is required for an
achieved result reported.
• Some indicators may prompt the user to enter additional information on the related qualitative results,
methodology, or other related information.
• Users must click “Save” at the bottom of the page once all achieved results have been added, and the data
entered will be submitted in the system.
FIGURE 7. Entering Achieved Results in the CCH
93
• Users should follow the same procedure for reporting achieved results on co-benefit indicators, optional
indicators, project-specific, and energy storage indicators.
• These indicators are also automatically populated based on the information entered in the “Targets” tab at
MDB Board approval. Users only need to enter the achieved results values for the corresponding reporting
year.
• Qualitative results or explanation must be provided for the selected co-benefit indicator(s) and can be
provided for other indicators on an optional basis.
• Users must click “Save” after each round of entering new data or text in the CCH.
Changing Achieved Results: Previous years’ results cannot be modified after results have been reported unless
a formal restructuring has occurred or a documented error has been identified. If this is the case, MDBs must
notify the CIF Administrative Unit of the change, provide the necessary rationale, and reference the relevant
formal documentation validating the rationale, as well as the new result value. The numbers will be changed by
the CCH administrator. In the case of a reporting error identified from a previous reporting year, the values are
corrected during the reporting year when they have been identified.
Step 3: Uploading Documents

Procedure:
• The “Uploaded Documents” link on the left-hand side of the page navigates to the screen, as shown in
Figure 8.
• During the first year of reporting, MDBs should upload the full project results framework.
• During subsequent reporting years, MDBs should upload the most recently available document(s) with key
updates on the project’s implementation status and results, such as implementation status/supervision
reports, mid-term reviews, and implementation restructuring documents.
• Since this function is open-ended, MDBs also have the option to upload other relevant documents in
this section (e.g., methodological notes, explanatory documents, results highlights and communications
products, recent case studies, etc.)
During the final year of reporting, MDBs should upload the project completion report34 and confirm with CIF
that achieved results are final.35 Once this has occurred, the MDB is no longer required to submit annual results
reporting updates on that project.
FIGURE 8. Uploaded Documents Screen in the CCH
94
References
Climate Investment Funds. 2020. ACT 1: International Labor Organization.
CIF Gender Action Plan – Phase 3. 2016. Investment in infrastructure-
Tryndina, Nicole, Jaehyung An, Igor
Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Assessment of employment
Varyash, Oleg Litvishko, Lyubov outcomes using macro-level
Climate Investment Funds. 2021a. Khomyakova, Sergei Barykin, and analysis: Approach and indicators.
Accelerating Coal Transition Olga Kalinina. 2022. Renewable Employment Policy Brief. Geneva:
Investment Program Integrated energy incentives on the road to ILO.
Results Framework. Washington, sustainable development during
DC: World Bank Group. climate change: A review. Frontiers International Labor Organization.
in Environmental Science, 10. 2021. Employment Impact
Climate Investment Funds. 2021b. Assessments (EmpIA): Analyzing
Accelerating Coal Transition United States Energy Information the employment impacts of
Investment Program Design Administration. Website. Renewable investments in infrastructure.
Document. Washington, DC: World energy explained. Employment-Intensive Investment
Bank Group.
Energy Sector Management Program (EIIP). Geneva: ILO.
Climate Investment Funds. 2021c. Assistance Program. World Bank International Labor Organization.
Global Energy Storage Program Group. Website. Rise Scores. 2003. Guidelines concerning a
Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit.
International Energy Agency. statistical definition of informal
Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Website. Policies database. employment. Geneva: ILO.
Climate Investment Funds. 2023. International Labor Organization.
CIF Monitoring, Evaluation, and 2015. Guidelines for a just
Learning Policy and Guidance. ACT 2: transition towards environmentally
sustainable economies and
International Energy Agency. 2022.
Energy Sector Management societies for all. Geneva: ILO.
Coal in Net Zero Transitions:
Assistance Program. World Strategies for rapid, secure and International Labor Organization.
Bank Group. Website. Multi-Tier people-centred change. World Website. International Standard
Framework for Energy Access. Energy Outlook Special Report. Classification of Occupations
Energy Sector Management (ISCO).
Assistance Program. World Bank World Bank. 2018. Managing Coal
Group. Website. Rise Scores. ACT 3:
Mine Closure: Achieving a Just
World Bank Group. Website. Living Joint Impact Model. 2021. Transition for All. Washington DC:
Standards Measurement Study. Methodology paper 2.0. World Bank Group.
95
ACT 4: World Resources Institute Joint-MDBs Working Group. 2022.
and World Business Council Joint Report on Multilateral
Millennium Challenge Corporation. for Sustainable Development. Development Banks’ Climate
2017. Guidelines for Economic and Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 2004. Finance (2021).
Beneficiary Analysis. A Corporate Accounting and
World Bank. 2018. Managing Coal Reporting Standard: Revised
Mine Closure: Achieving a Just Edition. ACT 7:
Transition for All. Washington DC: World Resources Institute, World Cleary, Kathryne, and Karen Palmer.
World Bank Group. Business Council for Sustainable 2020. Renewables 101: Integrating
Development, and Carbon Trust. Renewable Energy Resources into
Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 2013. the Grid. Resources for the Future.
ACT 5: Technical Guidance for Calculating
Scope 3 Emissions. International Energy Agency. 2022.
Carbon Trust. Website. Briefing: Average age of existing coal power
What are Scope 3 Emissions? World Resources Institute plants in selected regions in 2020.
and World Business Council
UNFCCC. International Financial International Energy Agency. 2021.
for Sustainable Development.
Institutions Technical Working Phasing out coal. World Energy
Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 2015. GHG
Group on Greenhouse Gas Outlook 2021.
Protocol Scope 2 Guidance.
Accounting. 2019. GHG Accounting
for Grid Connected Renewable Spath, Pamela L., Margaret K. Mann,
Energy Projects. and Dawn R. Kerr. 1999. Life Cycle
ACT 6: Assessment of Coal-fired Power
UNFCCC. International Financial Production. National Renewable
Institutions Technical Working Climate Investment Funds.
Energy Laboratory/TP-570-25119.
Group on Greenhouse Gas 2021. Comparative Analysis of
Accounting. 2020. Methodology/ Private Sector Mobilization Thomson Reuters Glossary. 2023.
Approach to Account Project Reporting Practices and Potential Website. Installed Capacity.
Emissions Associated with Grid Implications for New CIF Programs.
Washington, DC: World Bank Group. United States Energy Information
Electricity Consumption.
Administration. Website. FAQs:
UNFCCC. International Financial Joint-MDBs Working Group. 2015. What is the difference between
Institutions Technical Working Tracking Climate Co-Finance: electricity generation capacity and
Group on Greenhouse Gas Approach Proposed by MDBs. electricity generation?
Accounting. 2021. International Joint-MDBs Working Group. 2018. United States Energy Information
Financial Institutions Guideline Reference Guide. MDB Methodology Administration. Website. Coal
for a Harmonized Approach to for Private Investment explained: Use of coal.
Greenhouse Gas Accounting. Mobilization.
United States Energy Information
Russell, Stephen. 2019. World Joint-MDBs Working Group. 2021. Administration. Website. Electricity
Resources Institute. Estimating Joint Report on Multilateral explained: Electricity generation,
and Reporting the Comparative Development Banks’ Climate capacity, and sales in the United
Emissions Impacts of Products. Finance (2020). States.
(Working Paper).
Joint-MDBs Working Group. 2021.
Mobilization of Private Finance
by Multilateral Development
Banks and Development Finance
Institutions.
96
ACT 8: United States Energy Information California Department of
Administration. Website. FAQS: Conservation. Website. What is
International Renewable Energy What is the efficiency of different Mine Reclamation?
Agency. 2022. Renewable Capacity types of power plants?
Statistics 2022. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
United States Energy Information Change. 2.2.3.1 Afforestation.
Office of Nuclear Energy. Energy. Administration. Website. FAQS: Special Reports on Land Use, Land-
Gov. Website. What is Generation What is the heat content of U.S. Use Change and Forestry.
Capacity? coal?
Marchant, Natalie. 2021. The
Solar Reviews. Website. Watts, United States Energy Information organization planting millions
Kilowatts, and Kilowatt-Hours Administration. Website. What is of trees in old coal mines. World
Explained. the difference between electricity Economic Forum.
Thompson Reuters. Website. generation capacity and electricity
Norman, David K., Peter J.
Installed Capacity. generation?
Wampler, Allen H. Throop, E.
Dodson, Sam. 2014. Coal matters: Frank Schnitzer, and Jaretta M.
coal and transport. World Coal. Roloff. 1997. Best Management
ACT 9: Practices for Reclaiming Surface
Yiyun Cui, Ryna, Nathan Hultman, Mines in Washington and Oregon.
International Energy Agency. 2022. Mirgan R. Edwards, Linlang He, Washington Division of Geology and
Average age of existing coal power Arijit Sen, Kavita Surana, Haewon Earth Resources Open File Report
plants in selected regions in 2020. McJeon, Gokul Iyer, Pralit Patel, Sha 96-2.
Yu, Ted Nace, and Christine Shearer.
2019. Quantifying operational Pietrzykowski, Marcin. 2019. Tree
Phasing out coal. World Energy
lifetimes for coal power plants species selection and reaction
Outlook 2021.
under the Paris goals. Nature to mine soil reconstructed at
Spath, Pamela L., Margaret K. Mann, Communications, 10(4759). reforested post-mine sites: Central
and Dawn R. Kerr. 1999. Life Cycle and eastern European experiences.
Assessment of Coal-fired Power Ecological Engineering, 142.
Production. National Renewable ACT 10: United States Environmental
Energy Laboratory/TP-570-25119.
Adams, Mary Beth. 2017. The Protection Agency. 2016. Coal
United States Energy Information Forestry Reclamation Approach: Plant Decommissioning: Plant
Administration. Website. Coal guide to successful reforestation Decommissioning Remediation
explained: Use of coal. of mined lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. and Redevelopment. EP Publication
NRS-169. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. #560-F-16-003.
Department of Agriculture, Forest
Administration. Website. Electric
Service, Northern Research Station:
Power Annual.
128 p. ACT 11:
Burger, James, and Carl E. Zipper. EDGE. Website. Homepage.
Administration. Website. FAQS:
2011. Reforestation Guidelines for
How much coal, natural gas, or Energy Sector Management and
Unused Surface Mined Lands in
petroleum is used to generate a Assistance Program. 2021. Coal plant
the Eastern United States. Virginia
kilowatthour of electricity? repurposing for ageing coal fleets
Cooperative Extension publication
in developing countries. Technical
# 460-144.
Report 016/21. Washington, DC:
World Bank Group.
97
Fairey, Philipp, and David B. World Health Organization. United Nations Sustainable
Goldstein. 2016. Metrics for Energy Website. Ambient air pollution Development. Department of
Efficient Buildings: How Do We data. Economic and Social Affairs.
Measure Efficiency? ACEEE Summer Website. SDG 7.
Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings. ACT Co-Benefit 2:
GESP 1 and 2:
Just Energy. Website. Understanding Climate Investment Funds
the Energy Audit: Why It’s Worth and Center for Strategic and Climate Investment Funds. 2021c.
Doing? International Studies. Website. Just Global Energy Storage Program
Transition Initiative. Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit.
USAID. Website. Overview of
Energy-Efficient Technologies.
United States Green Building ACT Co-Benefit 3:

Council. Website. LEED rating
system. Energy Sector Management
Assistance Program. 2015. Beyond
Connections: Energy Access
Redefined.
ACT Co-Benefit 1:
Energy Sector Management
AirNow. Website. Air Quality Index
Assistance Program. World Bank
(AQI).
Group. Website. Rise Scores.
Bishop, Sienna. 2021. Air Quality
Measurements Series: Nitrogen
Assistance Program. World
Dioxide. Clarity.
Bank Group. Website. Multi-Tier
Pillarisetti, A., Sumi Mehta, and Framework for Energy Access.
Kirk R. Smith. 2015. Household Air
Pollution Intervention Tool (HAPIT
Assistance Program. World
III). Clean Cooking Alliance.
Bank Group. Website. Multi-Tier
Davda, Kruti. 2020. SO2 monitoring: Framework for Energy Access
All you want to know about (Methodology).
Sulphur dioxide. OIZOM.
Jarvis, Debbie J., Gary Adamkiewicz, Website. Defining Energy Access:
Marie-Eve Heroux, Regula 2020 Methodology.
Rapp, and Frank J. Kelly. 2010.
Sustainable Energy for All. 2017.
WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air
Global Tracking Framework:
Quality: Selected Pollutants.
Progress Toward Sustainable
National Library of Medicine:
Energy.
National Center for Biotechnology
Information. United Nations Population Division.
Department of Economic and Social
United States Environmental
Affairs. 2022. Website. Household
Protection Agency. Website.
Size and Composition, 2022.
Environmental Benefits Mapping
and Analysis Program - Community
Edition (BenMAP-CE).
98
endnotes
1 One exception relates to the 5 For more information on ESMAP, 14 A counterfactual is an estimation
deployment of energy storage see: https://www.esmap.org/. of what would occur in the
systems. ACT projects with energy For more information on RISE absence of an intervention in
storage components must report scores, see: https://rise.esmap. this context. The counterfactual
on energy rating and power org/. For more information on is typically the same as the
rating, since energy storage is MTF, see: https://www.esmap. business-as-usual emissions
an important result area for org/mtf_multi-tier_framework_ trajectory.
CIF already standardized in the for_energy_access.
Global Energy Storage Program 15 For IFI technical working
(GESP). 6 For more information on the group’s list of harmonized
World Bank’s Living Standards GHG accounting standards
2 This toolkit does not cover Measurement Study, see: https:// and guidelines, see https://
all aspects reflected in www.worldbank.org/en/ unfccc.int/climate-action/
The ACT Integrated Results programs/lsms sectoral-engagement/ifis-
Framework. Instead, it focuses harmonization-of-standards-
on operationalizing the core 7 In the form of the ACT for-ghg-accounting/ifi-twg-list-
monitoring and reporting Operational and Results Report. of-methodologies
functions of the integrated results
management approach. Other 8 As MDBs’ respective information 16 “Baseline” here refers to the
evaluation, learning, and gender disclosure policies allow. M&E sense of the term (i.e.,
aspects are described in more the defined situation before a
detail in additional documents. 9 As MDBs’ respective information project is implemented). To avoid
They are cross-referenced disclosure policies allow. confusion, the term “reference
throughout this toolkit to the scenario” is used to refer to the
extent possible. 10 As MDBs’ respective current and anticipated GHG
information disclosure policies emissions levels in the absence
3 ACT is expected to support both allow. of a project (which is sometimes
programs with sub-projects referred to as “baseline
and standalone projects. For 11 As MDBs’ respective information emissions” in the GHG accounting
the sake of editorial clarity, this disclosure policies allow. literature).
toolkit henceforth only refers
to “projects,” which should 12 Acceleration Coal Transition 17 Projects should take into
be understood implicitly to Investment Program: Integrated consideration both “reduced”
encompass different kinds of ACT Results Framework. Washington GHG emissions based on the
investments. DC: CIF. early retirement or closure of
coal power plant generation as
4 And all other CIF M&R systems 13 For example, over 20, 25, or 30 new renewable energy capacity
for new programming areas (but years comes online, and “avoided”
not in CIF’s PPCR, FIP, CTF, SREP GHG emissions based on the
programs). preclusion of new coal power
generation that would come
online in the absence of the ACT-
supported coal transition.
99
18 Alternatively, this can be 25 It should be noted that ACT 33 This function provides flexibility
computed based on a longer- Co-Benefit Indicator 3 does not to MDBs to report achieved values
term, dynamic reference scenario directly measure households and, based on the latest validated
covering the full economic therefore, cannot disaggregate data they have available through
lifespan of the ACT-supported by the number of women- their own M&R systems. In some
asset(s). headed households. However, cases, a validated value may be
MDBs are encouraged to provide cumulative, and in other cases, it
19 CIF is responsible for this information whenever may be annual. In the case of a
extrapolating future achieved such household-level data are discrepancy, validated cumulative
results following project closure, available before being converted values should take priority over
or as agreed with the MDBs per to the number of women and annual values. The CCH will
project. men. calculate the annualized value as
a proxy, and the discrepancy will
20 See https://ghgprotocol.org/ 26 See https://population.un.org/ be corrected as of the following
household/#/countries/840 reporting year.
21 It is likely that projects will not
be able to report additional 27 See https://www. 34 As MDBs’ respective information
achieved installed capacity jointimpactmodel.org/ disclosure policies allow.
toward the lifetime target beyond
their closure date. However, in 28 Some indicators also have 35 From a results perspective, which
some cases, additional national/ lifetime targets that extend may not be the same timing as
grid-level studies, IP-level beyond the project closure date. the project’s financial closure
monitoring, or evaluations Investment plans may also have date.
conducted beyond the scope of target years that go beyond
project-level M&R could provide the implementation period of
this information. The lifetime projects.
target is nonetheless a useful
proxy estimate for how much 29 As MDB’s informational disclosure
total installed capacity the policies allow.
interventions are expected to
enable over longer periods of 30 Development of the CCH
time (i.e., expected contribution, module and guidance for ACT
not attribution). It will not be recipient country focal points is
used for accountability purposes. forthcoming.
22 This estimate comes from 31 Terminology for this document

“Electric Power Annual” data varies across MDBs.
for the US for the year 2021
from the US Energy Information 32 At the time of publication, it has
Administration official webpage. not yet been determined whether
core indicators and other ACT
23 https://mtfenergyaccess.esmap. indicator categories will have
org/methodology/electricity. separate sub-headings in the
“Results” section for entering
24 As opposed to the number of achieved results.
women and men, which are
universal units of measurements.
100
The
Climate
Investment
Funds
The Climate Investment Funds (CIF) is one of the
largest multilateral climate funds in the world. It
was established in 2008 to mobilize finance for low-
carbon, climate-resilient development at scale in
developing countries. 15 contributor countries have
pledged over US$11 billion to the funds. To date CIF
committed capital has mobilized more than $64
billion in additional financing, particularly from the
private sector, over 70 countries. CIF’s large-scale,
low-cost, long-term financing lowers the risk and cost
of climate financing. It tests new business models,
builds track records in unproven markets, and boosts
investor confidence to unlock additional sources of
finance. Recognizing the urgency of CIF’s mission,
the G7 confirmed its commitment to provide up to $2
billion in additional resources for CIF in 2021.
CLIMATE
INVESTMENT
FUNDS
The Climate Investment Funds @CIF_action

c/o The World Bank Group
1818 H Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20433 USACIFaction
@CIF_action
Telephone: +1 (202) 458-1801 CIFaction
Internet: www.cif.org
CIFaction CIFaction
@CIF_action CIFaction CIFaction
CIFaction CIFaction @CIF_action
CIFaction CIFaction
CIFaction @CIF_action

Coal Transition Toolkit Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coal Transition Toolkit Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coal Transition Toolkit Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLIMATE

AcT Investment Program M&R Toolkit Series //

Monitoring and Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit

Operational Guidance on the ACT M&R System Topics

This toolkit was commissioned by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), a

Co-benefit indicators are designed to capture additional social,

Several additional features of ACT M&R and related CIF approaches

The ACT M&R Toolkit concludes with practical guidance on how

ACT Accelerating Coal Transition

2. ACT Monitoring and Reporting Approach 19

3. Indicators and Definitions 28

4. Other Key Features of ACT M&R and Results 83

6. Navigating the CIF Collaboration Hub 91

1.2 ACT Integrated Results Theory and Design

FIGURE 1. ACT Theory of Change

OUTCOMES GOVERNANCE PEOPLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Countries Increased Sources Affected Countries GHG Private Land and

OUTPUTS High-level policy dialogues Implementation of social Mine closure

• Evaluation and learning

Results Levels Monitoring Approach Evaluation and Learning Approach

CIF Impact Results • CIF-level indicators • Transformational change signals across

TABLE 1. Summary of ACT Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Approach

Results Level Summary of Monitoring, Evaluation, and

ACT Co-Benefits: At least one co-benefit reported by MDBs per ACT

1.3 Objectives and Scope of ACT M&R Toolkit

1.4 Key Elements of the ACT M&R System

1.5 CIF Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Principles and Approach

• Integrated MEL Approach

2.1 ACT M&R Levels

BOX 1. Monitoring ACT Progress on Gender Issues

Investment Plan Development and Endorsement

Investment Plan Review at Mid-Term and Completion

Project Design, Appraisal, and Approval

Project Mid-Term, Restructuring, and Completion

Whole-of-Energy-System or Grid-Level Analyses

Data Collection Protocol

Disaggregation by Gender and Other Factors

Opportunities for Learning and Knowledge Development

TABLE 2. List of Indicators for ACT

Category 1: CIF Impact Indicators (CIF Global)

Category 2: ACT Country Impact Indicators (Country Investment Plans)

Category 3: ACT Core Indicators (Projects)

PILLAR 1: GOVERNANCE Must be reported by MDBs

Category 4: ACT Co-Benefits (Examples for Projects)

Terrestrial Pollution: Reduction in volume of contaminants discharged

Category 5: Optional Indicators (Projects)

Outcome Level: Can be adopted by MDBs

Category 7: Energy Storage (Projects)

TABLE 3. CIF Impact Indicators in Relation to ACT M&R System

CIF Impact Indicator 1: Mitigation

CIF Impact Indicator 2: Adaptation

CIF Impact Indicator 4: Co-Finance

Examples of Possible ACT Country Impact Indicators:

These indicators are the reporting responsibility of MDBs on an annual basis.

• Human resources policies that support gender equality or women’s employment

ACT Core Indicator 2: Coal transition strategies adopted

• Strategies that support gender equality and women’s employment

ACT 3: Income Security for Employees of Subset Industries

• Coal-sector employees retained or redeployed to new jobs (#, %)

2. ACT Monitoring and Reporting Approach 19

3. Indicators and Definitions 28

4. Other Key Features of ACT M&R and Results 83

6. Navigating the CIF Collaboration Hub 91