CC.4.4 Percentage of FLAs/MOUs/CCs for CSP activities with approved management plans that contain measures for mitigating environmental risks

CC.4.4 Percentage of FLAs/MOUs/CCs for CSP activities with approved management plans that contain measures for mitigating environmental risks

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

CC.4.4

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGR

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority Area: Integrating environmental sustainability

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is applicable at CSP activity level for all sub-activities.

It is applicable to all CSPs with activities implemented through Field Level Agreements (FLA), Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), and/or Construction Contracts (CC).

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of FLAs, CCs, MoUs

DEFINITION

This indicator measures how many of the Field Level Agreements (FLAs), Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) and construction contracts (CCs) that were screened for environmental risks have an associated approved Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) to mitigate environmental risks found during the Environmental and Social Risk Screening (ESRS).

Some key terminologies are listed below:

‘Environmental and Social Risk Screening (ESRS)’ is the process of assessing whether a proposed activity poses the risk of causing unintended harm to people (beneficiaries or others) or the environment. The ESRS allows to identify any environmental and social risks that might infringe any of the WFP Environmental and Social Standards. It can be done by means of the WFP Screening Tool or a valid alternative tool (agreed with the donor or provided by the national government). An FLA, MoU, or CC has been ‘screened for environmental and social risks’ when the ESRS for the interventions covered by the agreement or contract has been conducted.

‘Management Plan’, in the context of this indicator, refers to an Environmental and Social Management Plan.

‘Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMP)’: Project-level instruments that outline how the risks identified through the ESRS will be avoided, managed or mitigated. The ESMP provides a description of the risk mitigation measures that will be implemented, their cost, timelines and responsibilities for implementation, and applicable monitoring arrangements. As per WFP’s Environmental and Social Sustainability Framework (ESSF), ESMPs are mandatory for medium‑(Category B) and high‑risk (Category A) activities or interventions. An ESMP may be developed for a low-risk activity (Category C) if deemed appropriate.

‘Mitigation measures’: Actions designed to avoid, reduce, or offset adverse environmental and social risks or impacts, or to restore or rehabilitate negatively impacted environments or communities.

‘CSP Activities’ refers to “Free text Activities” in CSP logframes. These activities are defined in LOS guidance as interventions, actions taken, or work performed through which inputs – such as funds, technical assistance and other types of resources – are mobilized to produce specific OUTPUTS. This is different from Standard Activities as Multiple CSP ACTIVITIES can link to the same main STANDARD ACTIVITY. e.g. Ecosystem restoration, community infrastructure and livelihood opportunities (ECL), Financial solutions, information services and market access (FIM), School Meals Programmes (SMP), etc.

‘Interventions’ are, for the purpose of this indicator methodology, defined as parts of a CSP activity that are implemented through a Field Level Agreement (FLA) with a cooperating partner, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a partner, or a Construction Contract (CC) with a contractor. Thus, the number of interventions will be equal to the number of FLAs, MoUs and/or CCs required to implement a CSP activity each reporting year. As per the WFP screening guidelines, CSP activities are screened when their interventions are designed for implementation through FLAs, MoUs or CCs.

‘Proportion’ refers to the count of interventions (FLAs, MoUs or CCs under one CSP activity) whose proposals were screened for environmental and social risks before their implementation, divided by the total number of interventions (FLAs, MoUs, and CCs) planned to be implemented during a given reporting year (under the same CSP activity). More details on the calculation can be found in the ‘indicator calculation’ and ‘examples’ sections of this methodology.

More details on the screening process are available on WFPGo.

Note: please note that all FLAs/MoUs/CCs should be screened before implementation.

RATIONALE

A 2021 ED Circular established the Environmental and Social Framework (ESSF) as WFP’s principal framework to increase the environmental and social sustainability of its programme activities and support operations. The ESSF is built around the WFP Environmental and Social Standards, which summarize the commitments and minimum standards enshrined in existing WFP policies, directives, and guidelines, as well as in relevant international law. The WFP Environmental and Social Standards are mainstreamed in programme activities through the application of Environmental and Social Safeguards. The Environmental and Social Management Plan serves as WFP’s primary risk management instrument for operationalizing these safeguards at programme level.

The present indicator tracks the proportion of screened FLAs, MoUs, and CCs for which an ESMP was developed and approved for implementation. The need for the development of an ESMP is identified through the Environmental and Social Risk Screening (see definition above) which determines whether an intervention has associated environmental and/or social risks. Through the screening, interventions are classified in one of three levels of risk: low (Category C), medium (Category B), or high (Category A). As per the ESSF, ESMPs are required for Category B and Category A interventions, and could be deemed necessary for Category C if residual risks are identified.

Programme Activity Managers are responsible for the approval of ESMPs based on their assessment of the appropriateness and completeness of the proposed mitigation measures, implementation arrangements, and monitoring framework. ESMPs are considered approved when they have been endorsed by the Activity Manager.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

N/A

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

The indicator is calculated on the subset of FLAs, MoUs, and CCs that:

a) Have been screened for environmental and social risks;

b) Have been categorized as either medium risk (Category B) or high risk (Category A), thus requiring an ESMP.

Consider each CSP activity (e.g. ECL, FIM, SMP, …) that was implemented during year X separately.

IF the CSP activity is implemented by Cooperating Partners through FLAs, or by partners through MoUs, or by contractors through CCs,

AND IF those FLAs, MoUs, or CCs have been screened for environmental and social risks,

THEN, for each CSP activity (e.g. ECL, FIM, SMP, …):

1. Count the number of screened FLAs, MoUs, or CCs that have been classified as Category B or Category A.

2. As a subset of (a.), count the number of FLAs, MoUs, or CCs for which an ESMP was developed and approved for implementation.

3. Divide (b.) by (a.) and convert in percentage:

Note 1: If an ESMP is approved in year X-1, but implemented in year X, it is considered for the indicator calculations during both years

Note 2: ESMPs developed either based on WFP’s standard ESMP template or alternative templates all count towards the indicator, provided that the alternative template is approved for use by the GHQ ESS team.

Note 3: ESMPs developed either by WFP or by a partner (with WFP oversight) all count towards the indicator as long as approved by the corresponding programme activity manager.

Note 4: If an ESMP was developed and approved for an FLA, MoU, or CC categorized as low risk (Category C), it does not count towards the indicator as they are not considered in the denominator of the above formula.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

This indicator is reported at CSP activity and sub-activity level as follows:

All values in the last column should be between 0% and 100% and calculated by COMET. The total values of column X and Y are the sum of the corresponding values 1, 2 and 3.

Corporate dashboards in WFP will however display ESMP analysis disaggregated by CRF activity categories (ECL, FIM, SMP, etc.) and activity tags or aggregated at CO and RO level.

BASELINE

This indicator requires a yearly baseline. Every year the baseline is the latest follow-up value reported for the same CSP activity in the previous year. The first year of the CSP the baseline is always 0.

TARGET SETTING

Annual target:

Country offices should strive to develop and implement ESMPs for all FLAs, MoUs, and CCs for which environmental and social risks have been identified. If unable to set a 100 percent target, a justification of the limitations needs to be provided in the data notes.

End of CSP targets:

By the end of the CSP, ESMPs would have been developed and approved for all FLAs, MoUs, and CCs screened and categorized as A or B. If unable to set a 100 percent target, a justification of the limitations needs to be provided in the data notes.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Reporting on this indicator happens on a yearly basis.

INTERPRETATION

A score of 100 percent means that for each FLA, MoU, and CC that was screened and categorized as either Category B (medium risk) or Category A (high risk) under a given CSP activity, an ESMP was developed and approved for implementation.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

The CSP of country Z includes an activity of the ECL type. In 2024, 8 FLAs were signed with Cooperating Partners for the implementation of several ECL interventions. All eight FLAs were screened for environmental and social risks prior to implementation.

Out of the eight FLAs, two of them were categorized as medium risk (Category B) based on the outcome of the screening. However, an ESMP was approved only for one of those agreements that year, because the other ESMP required significant revisions and its approval was deferred to the following year.

As a result, the 2024 value for the cross-cutting indicator 4.2 for the ECL activity was calculated as follows:

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

CC.4.1 Proportion of field-level agreements/memorandums of understanding/construction contracts for CSP activities screened for environmental risks

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

N/A

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

Alongside indicator CC.4.1, this indicator informs programme managers, auditors, donors and senior management on WFP’s compliance with its Environmental Policy and commitment to upholding the “do no harm” principle. It provides insights into WFP’s efforts towards preventing or minimizing adverse impacts on people and the environment.

In addition, it helps to identify and address gaps where risk mitigation planning is missing or insufficient, as well as areas where additional capacity building or guidance may be needed.

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

The indicator does not track the amount of ESMPs developed by country offices, nor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures contained therein. In addition, it does not provide insights regarding how many of the approved ESMPs are implemented alongside the interventions.

While the indicator’s title only captures ‘measures for mitigating environmental risks’, in practice, management plans also include measures for mitigating social risks.

For this reason, the quantitative information provided by the indicator needs to be complemented with a narrative description of screening practices in the dedicated section of the Annual Country Report (ACR).

FURTHER INFORMATION

General guidance on the ESMP can be found in Module 3 of the ESSF.

WFP’s Environmental and Social Management Plan template can be downloaded from WFPGo here (see Annex 5).