GC.18/CRP.

30 October 2019

English only

14

General Conference
Eighteenth session
Abu Dhabi, 3–7 November 2019
Item 12 of the provisional agenda
Midterm review of the medium-term programme
framework, 2018–2021

Integrated results and performance framework: Updated

indicators and definitions
I. Introduction
1. In resolution GC.17/Res.1, the General Conference encouraged “the Director
General to ensure that the integrated results and performance framework is updated
to reflect the changes in the medium-term programme framework, and, when
necessary, further developed in consultation with Member States”. In line with this
request, this document provides an update on the extensive efforts undertaken and the
progress achieved in this regard. It also complements the information provided in
PBC.33/CRP.5, GC.17/CRP.8, PBC.34/2, PBC.35/CRP.11 as well as the Annual
Reports 2017 and 2018.
2. Extensive efforts to update the IRPF have been conducted, inter alia in response
to the appreciation expressed by Member States in General Conference resolution
GC.17/Res.1 of the efforts by the Secretariat to “continuously develop the IRPF as a
tool to enhance the Organization’s results orientation and monitoring capacity”, and
“to ensure that the IRPF is updated” and, “when necessary, further developed in
consultation with Member States”.
3. After the approval of the Quality Assurance Framework in May 2019 1 , the
issuance of PBC.35/CRP.11, the Report of External Auditor on the accounts of
UNIDO for the financial year 1 January to 31 December 2018 (IDB.48/3), and the
comments thereon provided by the Audit Advisory Committee (AAC), in particular
as they relate to results-based management (PBC.35/6), the Organization has
accelerated its collective efforts to update and improve its results-based management
approaches, tools and processes. In this context, substantive progress has also been
achieved in updating the set of indicators, as outlined in the remainder of this
document.

II. A management tool of high significance for the Organization

4. Since its introduction in 2016, the integrated result and performance framework
has progressively reduced and now eliminated the initial gaps in its structural
__________________
1
DGB/2019/11.

V.19-10549 (E)

*1910549*
GC.18/CRP.4

alignment with the medium-term programme framework. Today, it is fully in line with
the Organizational theory of change outlined in IDB.45/8 and IDB.47/10. Such an
integrated and comprehensive approach requires indicators to be representative of
activities funded by both voluntary and assessed contributions.
5. This approach has and continues to improve the alignment of the main strategic
planning documents, including the programme and budgets, and between these and
the programme planning and implementation. In decision IDB.47/Dec.13, the Board
requested that the draft budget 2022–2023 be established “according to results-based
budgeting principles”. This results framework forms the basis for fulfilling this
request, clearly linking the work plan and budget. A set of appropriate and SMART 2
indicators to support the implementation of the IRPF are therefore of key importance.
6. Also of importance is the delicate equilibrium needed to connect indicators of
relevance to the programmatic results generated by UNIDO projects and programmes,
with national statistics tracking progress in the implementation of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). The complexity of the systems of actors, policies and
external factors determining the progress in inclusive and sustainable industrial
development (ISID) further highlights the need for a structured approach to UNIDO
results. By taking these considerations into account, the updated IRPF offers a
theoretically sound framework that is firmly grounded in the outcomes of the
Organization’s operations.
7. The work of the past two years on the corporate results indicators has revealed
an underrepresentation of the real impact of the Organization as a result of the
implementation of its programme. This is explained firstly by the selection of
measurable indicators of country results in the previous IRPF, which had little
informative value. Moreover, the monitoring of results in projects and programmes
has important room for improvement in terms of systematization and harmonization
of performance measurements: the current practices have led to metho dological and
practical barriers to aggregation both at the country and at the corporate levels.
8. The vision of Member States expressed, inter alia, in the Lima Declaration and
IDB.45/Dec.12, of an Organization driven by results and not solely by resources
highlights the importance of the updated IRPF as a tool that realistically tells the
UNIDO contribution story to ISID and the SDGs. Section III below describes the
nature of the selected indicators chosen and further refined to credibly show this
contribution story.
9. The ability of organizations to show their impact and contribution to
transformational change has rapidly grown in importance since the adoption of the
SDGs in 2015. Today, solid financial evidence of the delivery of technical cooperation
operations is a necessary, yet insufficient, condition to show the good performance of
international organizations for development. The emphasis of the SDGs on
nation-owned, systemic transformations at the country and global levels, requires the
design of projects and programmes that speak to these complex systems, and
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that are able to demonstrate contributions to
change at scale.
10. Member States, donors and development organizations are today revising their
approaches to funding, designing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating projects
and programmes to account for this greater orientation towards large -scale impact.
The reform of the United Nations development system responds partly to the same
demands for greater effectiveness and scaled-up impact. In UNIDO, the medium-term
programme framework 2018–2021 and the subsequent work on the new IRPF provide
strategic-level responses to these questions.
11. The current progress in the implementation of the dual management objective
of integration and scale-up is already showing potential for improved management
for transformational change in UNIDO projects and programmes. The updated IRPF
__________________
2
Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.

2/14 V.19-10549
 GC.18/CRP.4

allows the systematic measurement of results and operational performance along the
different pathways leading to UNIDO-supported ISID. The resulting data will provide
evidence for organizational learning and further improvement of UNIDO ’s
programme design.
12. It is therefore vital for UNIDO to continue on this path of reform of its
management systems, which includes the development of a systematic results
monitoring system, and the update of the corporate results and performance
indicators. The next section describes the further refinement of the indicators already
presented in PBC.35/CRP.11, and the consultative process leading to the updated set
of indicators attached to this document.

III. Updated indicators and definitions

13. The list of preliminary IRPF indicators included in PBC.35/CRP.11 provided the
basis for the technical appraisal of the operational suitability of the intended
performance measurements. Building on the consensus reached within the
Organization on the theoretical structure and the programmatic result are as to
monitor, further work was undertaken towards the adoption of common definitions
and other methodological and procedural decisions. Organizational and
project-specific elements often determine the success and measurability of indicators
and the quality of data, as shown, inter alia, by the Joint Inspection Unit report
“Review of change management in United Nations system organizations ”
(JIU/REP/2019/4).
14. With a view to review and adopt the IRPF indicators, all departments and offices
of UNIDO participated in a technical exercise organized from July to
September 2019. Five working groups were established to identify precise definitions
of the approved preliminary indicators contained in PBC.35/CRP.11, and to formulate
methodological recommendations. Further streamlining of the list of indicators was
also sought and results statements were reformulated to better fit UNIDO ’s
operational processes and modus operandi. The resulting list of indicators, which
achieved the aimed-for streamlining, will form the working basis for IRPF reporting
in future Annual Reports. The overall structure of the indicators remained unchanged
from that laid out in PBC.35/CRP.11.
15. As anticipated in PBC.35/CRP.11, this exercise requires the reform of planning
and monitoring processes and architecture at the project, programme and corporate
levels, which may imply poor or insufficient data availability for the first years of
implementation. Member States can rest assured that all the necessary actions are
being taken to provide the most informative and transparent IPRF reporting in Annual
Reports, including in their quantitative results sections. The Secretariat will continue
to keep Member States updated on the status of these reforms.
16. The remainder of this section describes the updated set of IRPF indicators
resulting from the described two years of consultative work. It clarifies the rationale
behind the choice of some critical performance measurements and highlights elements
of relevance for their operationalization, including moni toring, analysis and
reporting.

IRPF indicators tell the UNIDO performance story

17. The updated IRPF indicators follow a results chain approach, which builds on
the actor-based, behavioural change model adopted by the Organization 3 . Results
indicators leading from inputs and outputs to outcomes and impact must be seen as a
continuum linking the stakeholders engaged by UNIDO, their improved knowledge
and capacity, and the changes in their key behaviours as a result of UNIDO
interventions. This explains the UNIDO performance story in terms of a clear and

__________________
3
See DGB/2019/11 on Quality Assurance Framework.

V.19-10549 3/14
GC.18/CRP.4

credible contribution to ISID and the SDGs. In synthesis, this narrative clarifies whom
the Organization has reached and what difference it has made.
18. As described in PBC.35/CRP.11 and in the Annual Reports 2017 and 2018, the
updated IRPF approach recognizes the need to complement aggregate data with
narratives that describe, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the contribution of
UNIDO interventions to their outcomes and impact. Naturally, the impact
contribution story of UNIDO programmatic delivery is compounded by the diversity
of the contextual environment of UNIDO interventions. Therefore, it will to a
significant extent include qualitative narratives describing the observed and,
wherever possible, measured change of capacities and behaviours of the main actors
engaged.

The structure of the IRPF reflects the UNIDO theory of change

19. The IRPF structure maintains the four levels of the 2016 framework. However,
it integrates it more clearly with the Organizational theory of change of the MTPF
2018–2021 and the adopted results chain model. The updated set of indicators
integrates the programmatic results framework at the project and programme level,
the programmatic work funded by the Regular Budget (Levels 2 and 3) and the
operational performance measurements (Level 4), which support and underlie the
work of the Organization. It also provides an official reporting platform for the
contribution to SDG indicators of which UNIDO is the custodian agency (Level 1).
20. Level 4 builds on existing performance measurement of UNIDO internal
operations, as well as of UNIDO financial and human resources. The new element for
this level is the clearer link between these indicators and the overall re sults of the
Organization. These are made possible by an efficient and effective management of
the existing human and financial resources.
21. Levels 2 and 3 provide the core of the programmatic results of the Organization,
summarized by the MTPF priority of strengthening knowledge and institutions.
Level 3 provides measurements of the standard UNIDO outputs delivered, as well as
quantitative and qualitative result assessments of portfolio and programme
management. Level 2 unites the outcomes and related contribution to impact of
UNIDO’s programmatic work, structured from bottom to top along the categories of:
(a) Reach and engagement;
(b) Reactions;
(c) Knowledge and capacities;
(d) Behavioural change: changes in business practices, technology, po licy and
standards, investments, governance, and scale-up;
(e) ISID impact: advancing economic competitiveness, creating shared
prosperity and safeguarding the environment, each of which are broken down into
three main result areas.
22. Further links to SDGs in addition to Goal 9 will be mapped and reported in
level 1, starting from the ISID impact areas outlined above.

The IRPF indicators help manage for integration and scale-up of results
23. The imperative of integration and scale-up embedded in the MTPF 2018–2021
and stemming from the SDGs and the UNIDO ISID mandate, calls for a revamped
appraisal and approval process for the prioritization of projects and programmes that
enable change at the systemic level (market, sectors, country economic structure,
etc.), as well as a robust results monitoring and reporting system. The IRPF indicators
were chosen, inter alia, to provide elements and measures for assessing the scale -up
of potential and actual results (replication, mainstreaming, etc.) of UNIDO projects
and programmes.

4/14 V.19-10549
 GC.18/CRP.4

24. Demonstrating the actual contribution to transformational change, the

large-scale impact and transformation triggered by the interventions of development
organizations beyond the group of beneficiaries, is not a simple endeavour. Periodic
market or country surveys, a more systematic use of adequate impact evaluation
methods, ex-post follow-up on the ground, and other affordable approaches are being
explored by UNIDO, to improve the current underreporting of its indirect impact and
a better and deeper understanding of how contributions to impact can be generated.
While more systematic ways to show this scaled-up impact are explored,
extrapolations, modelling and other assessment calculations may be tested and used
in reporting. The IRPF provides the basis for all these assessment methodologies.

The updated IRPF indicators harmonize the project-level data entry indicators with
the corporate reporting indicators
25. The IRPF indicators will replace the current set of indicators available for data
entry at project level. Given the resource constraints of the Organization, considerable
attention is being devoted to minimizing the worktime intensity of data management
processes. UNIDO is conducting an assessment of the automation potential and the
streamlining of processes for data entry, collection and analysis, along with a study
on affordable upgrades of existing systems. The standardization and harmonization
of project, programmes, country, and corporate results indicators is likely to generate
efficiencies. These will progressively become apparent as new projects are designed
and approved.
26. At least in the first and second years of implementation, the updated IRPF
reporting will be dependent on the availability and quality of data on the new
indicators. As this structured and comprehensive results monitoring at the corporate
level is a new introduction for UNIDO, the next editions of the Annual Report may
have partial data reports, possibly with data based on estimates rather than actuals or
similar flexible solutions.

Towards commonly agreed definitions

27. Work on the IRPF indicators has provided a platform for internal dialogue on
critical aspects of UNIDO interventions to promote ISID. In particular, it has allowed
useful discussion on the choice of key terms and definitions underlying UNIDO ’s
programmatic offer. The scope of this work has ranged from technical terms of
result-based management, such as outcomes or impact, to the definitions of key terms
of the Organization’s thematic interventions and knowledge products. The
harmonization of concepts such as “industry”, “firms”, “innovation” or “technology”
is an important part of the IRPF work. Very importantly, the fast -paced evolution of
manufacturing and production, epitomized by the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
renders some traditional boundaries between industry and services outdated and
deserve a serious and consensus-based reflection within UNIDO and the industrial
development community.
28. The update of the IRPF has thus provided many more benefits than just a list of
reporting indicators. The IRPF should be seen as a vehicle for a continuous
improvement process towards better UNIDO development results in line with the
2030 Agenda. The underlying theory of change approach and the system of indicators
are expected to contribute to improved design of projects, programs and other
initiatives with a view to impact and transformational change. Annex II lists a few
working definitions resulting from the IRPF working groups deliberations.

IV. A conducive environment for greater results orientation

29. The breadth and depth of the work undertaken by the Organization to update its
results-based management approaches and its IRPF highlight the need for synergizing
efforts to reform critical aspects of corporate management. The improvement of the
Organization’s results orientation, and the associated required changes in processes

V.19-10549 5/14
GC.18/CRP.4

and policies, go hand in hand with changes in management areas such as enterprise
risk management and the accountability framework, among others. In fact these areas
mutually reinforce each other. The Secretariat has shown unequivocal leadership in
pursuing these reforms in a concerted and effective manner, without however
disregarding the attention to avoiding disruptions in UNIDO operations.
30. In this context, a series of senior management meetings and workshops were
organized in the past months, to ensure the appropriate discussion and communication
of priorities and steps ahead for the Organization. A workshop on the IRPF was held
shortly ahead of the eighteenth session of the General Co nference, to discuss and
agree on critical aspects of the operationalization of the updated IRPF. These aspects
include the strengthening of existing results monitoring practices, processes and
policies, as well as support mechanisms for project design, quality assurance, progress
reporting, and post completion results assessment.
31. Some of the elements listed above require deep changes in the current service
delivery of the Organization. To avoid undesirable hindrances in the delivery of
programmatic services, UNIDO has been firm but cautious in making decisions
ranging from the choice of indicators to the adoption of new policies and processes.
Member States may consider the importance of this phase of the internal reform and
support the choice of this steady-paced approach.
32. The adaptation and upgrade of current results monitoring processes and
practices represents a significant learning curve, particularly as they relate to data
collection and aggregation on IRPF levels 2 and 3. The collected data will in turn
contribute to better understanding the full implications on the level and feasibility of
efforts, as well as the adaptation of the supporting information and communication
technology software. Partial automation of data processing will facilitate the process,
but only after an initial transition period. Such an iterative process is estimated to
require at least two years to generate useful learnings. Member States may wish to
take note of this initial phase and consider the list of indicators as subjec t to further
refinement until the completion of the current MTPF cycle.
33. The financial and human resource constraints faced by UNIDO further
compound the difficulties in investing in internal reforms to further strengthen the
Organization, as it faces a world of increasing political volatility and fast changes in
technologies, markets and other aspects of industrial development.
34. UNIDO management is committed to providing a conducive environment for
the ongoing reforms, including prominently the IRPF. Staff, Member States and
stakeholders will continue to observe steady progress in the area of management for
integration and scale-up of results. Thanks to these and other efforts for continuous
improvement, the Organization will be able to progressively better realize and
demonstrate its critical contribution to transformational change for inclusive and
sustainable industrial development and the SDGs.

V. Action required of the Conference

35. The Conference may wish to take note of the information contained in the
present document.

6/14 V.19-10549
 GC.18/CRP.4

Annex I
Updated list of IRPF indicators
Level 1: Global industrial development context
UNIDO-related SDG indicators
This section reports data on the SDG indicators of which UNIDO is custodian agency

Strategic Priority: Advancing economic competitiveness

SDG 9.2.1: Manufacturing value added as a proportion of GDP and per capita
SDG 9.b.1: Proportion of medium and high-tech industry value added in total value
added
Strategic Priority: Creating shared prosperity
SDG 9.2.2: Manufacturing employment as a proportion of total employment
SDG 9.3.1: Proportion of small-scale industries in total industry value added
SDG 9.3.2: Proportion of small-scale industries with a loan or line of credit
Strategic Priority: Safeguarding the environment
SDG 9.4.2: CO2 emissions per unit of value added

Level 2: Country and global result with UNIDO support

ISID and related SDG indicators
This section reports data on outcome and impact indicators related to ISID

ISID impact indicators

Strategic Priority: Advancing economic competitiveness
ECO.1: Number of firms with economic gains (additional sales, savings)
ECO.2: Number of firms with improved labour productivity
ECO.3: Number of firms with an increase in exports
Strategic Priority: Creating shared prosperity
SOC.1: Number of additional jobs created and jobs retained
SOC.2: Number of SMEs with increased inclusion in value chains
SOC.3: Number of people living under poverty line who gain access to quality -assured products
Strategic Priority: Safeguarding the environment
ENV.1: Cumulative reduction of CO2eq emissions
ENV.2: Cumulative tons of pollutants reduced or phased out
ENV.3: Cumulative improved energy efficiency
ENV.4: Cumulative improved material efficiency
ENV.5: Number of new or improved green products made available or used

Outcome indicators
Strategic Priority: Strengthening knowledge and institutions

Business practices
BUS.1: Cumulative/Annual number of firms with improved management practices
BUS.2: Cumulative/Annual Number of actors developing new products
BUS.3: Cumulative/Annual Number of established start-ups
Technology
TEC.1: Number of new technologies developed or adapted
TEC.2: Number of countries showing the adoption of new technologie s
TEC.3: Number of new technologies adopted
Policies and standards
POL.1: Cumulative number of new or revised policies adopted by policymakers

V.19-10549 7/14
GC.18/CRP.4

POL.2: Cumulative number of new standards adopted or implemented

POL.3: Number of guidelines adopted by relevant actors
Investments
INV.1: Number of investment-ready proposals elaborated
INV.2: Number of projects or businesses financed
INV.3: Value ($) of new investments leveraged
Governance
GOV.1: Number of institutions established or strengthened
GOV.2: Number of actors participating in enhanced collaboration settings (clusters, networks)
Scale-up
SCA.1: Percentage of UNIDO interventions with demonstrated results at scale
Awareness and knowledge
KASA.1: Number of actors gaining awareness/knowledge on UNIDO knowledge areas 1
Capacity building
KASA.2: Number of actors gaining skills on UNIDO knowledge areas
Reactions to UNIDO interventions
REACT.1: Percentage of actors satisfied with UNIDO interventions
Reach
REA.1: Number of actors reached (by kind of actor 2)
Engagement
REA.2: Number of actors engaged (by kind of actor)

Level 3: Programmatic offer and programme management effectiveness

This section reports data on outputs and portfolio management indicators

Output indicators
Technical cooperation
TCO.1: Number of capacity building activities provided
TCO.2: Value of assets provided
TCO.3: Number of toolkits and guidelines produced
TCO.4: Number of business plans developed
Policy analysis and advice
PAO.1: Number of industrial strategies and industrial policy documents drafted/prepared
PAO.2: Number of analytical and statistical publications produced
Norms and standards
NOO.1: Number of standard-setting processes with UNIDO participation
Convening and partnerships
CPO.1: Number of global fora, workshops/EGM/side events organized
CPO.2: Number of UN interagency mechanisms with UNIDO participation
__________________
1
Knowledge areas include: Industrial occupations (technical and managerial); best available
technologies, best management practices and international standards; industrial intelligence
(statistics, data) for evidence-based policymaking; good governance and institutional
arrangements; public and private investments gaps and opportunities, innovative financial
instruments; innovation and 4th industrial revolution; green industry and circular economy;
low-carbon industrial development; climate resilient industrial development; sustainable cities ;
international good practices in value chain operations; product and process quality and safety in
industry; sustainable food systems; gender equality and the empowerment of women in the ISID
context.
2
Actors are classified by people, firms, intermediary institutions, government bodies, and global
actors.

8/14 V.19-10549
 GC.18/CRP.4

CPO.3: Number of international networks and platforms for which UNIDO is providing
secretariat functions
CPO.4: Number of interventions or Joint Programmes with UN System entities
CPO.5: Number of interventions (projects/programmes) in partnership with non -UN institutions

Portfolio management indicators

POR.1: Number of projects, CPs and PCPs approved by EB (Disaggregated by region)
POR.2: Percentage of programmes/projects whose design quality was assessed as satisfactory at
entry
a. Overall design quality
b. Relevance
c. Technical design
d. Effectiveness & RBM
e. Scale-up potential
f. Sustainability likelihood
g. Efficiency
h. Implementation arrangements
i. Gender equality and women's empowerment (GEEW)
POR.3: Number and volume of ongoing projects, CPs and PCPs (by them. focus area; by region)
POR.4: Percentage of programmes/projects whose quality was evaluated satisfactory at
completion:
a. Relevance
b. Effectiveness
c. Scale-up
d. Efficiency
e. Likelihood of sustainability
f. Programme/project management
g. M&E
POR.5: Percentage of overall number of UNIDO programme/projects per gender marker
category:
a. Approved in this calendar year
b. Ongoing (entire portfolio)
c. Percentage of programmes/projects with gender-informed design
d. Compliance with UN SWAP and UNCT GEEW Scorecard
POR.6: Transparency (as per IATI standards)
a. Timeliness
b. Comprehensiveness
c. Forward-Looking
POR.7: Number of UNCTs with UNIDO participation

Level 4: Organizational resources and efficiency

This section reports data on financial and human resources, as well as on efficiency of UNIDO
corporate services

Input and Resources

FIN.1: Regular Financial Resources
FIN.2: Voluntary Contributions
FIN.3: Programme Support Costs recovered
HR.1: UNIDO Workforce: composition and diversity
EXP.1: Regular financial resources implementation rate
EXP.2: Technical cooperation delivery (in USD)

V.19-10549 9/14
GC.18/CRP.4

Corporate service efficiency

OPM.1: Procurement timeline (or % of procurement processes completed within 110 days)
OPM.2: TC start up rate
OPM.3: ICT Operational Efficiency

10/14 V.19-10549
 GC.18/CRP.4

Annex II
Key terms and definitions
The below section summarizes the working definitions of a non-exhaustive list of
terms and concepts underlying the updated IRPF indicators, based on the work of the
IRPF working groups and IRPF supporting material. Wherever possible, UNIDO
adopts United Nations and SDGs standard definitions. External references are
included when available.
Assumptions. Hypotheses about factors or risks which could affect the progress or
success of a development intervention. Necessary conditions for the achievement of
results at different levels. These are conditions that must exist if the project is to
succeed but which are outside the direct control of the project management. This is
called the external logic of the project because these conditions lie outside the
project’s accountability and can be related to laws, political commitments, political
situation, financing, etc.
Baseline. The situation prior to a development intervention against which progress
can be assessed or comparisons made.
Effectiveness. The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were
achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative
importance.
Efficiency. A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time,
etc.) are converted to results.
Firm. For the purpose of the IRPF, a firm is an establishment. International
recommendations for industrial statistics 2008 (IRIS 2008) (United Nations, 2011)
define an enterprise as the smallest legal unit that constitutes an organizational unit
producing goods or services. The enterprise is the basic statistical unit at which all
information relating to its production activities and transactions, including financial
and balance-sheet accounts, are maintained. An establishment is defined as an
enterprise or part of an enterprise that is situated in a single location and in which
only a single productive activity is carried out or in which the principal productive
activity accounts for most of the value added. An establishment can be defined ideally
as an economic unit that engages, under single ownership or control, that is, under a
single legal entity, in one, or predominantly one, kind of economic activity at a
single physical location. Mines, factories and workshops are examples.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-09-03-01.pdf.
Green goods and services. Green goods and services are goods and services that
benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. These goods and services are
sold to customers, and include research and development, installation, and
maintenance services. Green goods and services fall into one or more of the following
five categories:
1. Energy from renewable sources. Electricity, heat, or fuel generated from
renewable sources. These energy sources include wind, biomass, geothermal,
solar, ocean, hydropower, and landfill gas and municipal solid waste.
2. Energy efficiency. Products and services that improve energy efficienc y.
Included in this group are energy-efficient equipment, appliances, buildings, and
vehicles, as well as products and services that improve the energy efficiency of
buildings, industries and transport, and the efficiency of energy storage and
distribution, such as Smart Grid technologies.
3. Pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse gas reduction, and recycling and
reuse. These are products and services that:

V.19-10549 11/14
GC.18/CRP.4

i. Reduce or eliminate the creation or release of pollutants or toxic

compounds, or remove pollutants or hazardous waste from the
environment.
ii. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through methods other than renewable
energy generation and energy efficiency, such as electricity generated
from nuclear sources.
iii. Reduce or eliminate the creation of waste materials or collect, reuse,
remanufacture, recycle, or compost waste materials or wastewater.
4. Natural resources conservation. Products and services that conserve natural
resources. Included in this group are products and services related to organic
agriculture and sustainable forestry; land management; soil, water, or wildlife
conservation; and storm water management.
5. Environmental compliance, education and training, and public awareness. These
are products and services that:
i. Enforce environmental regulations.
ii. Provide education and training related to green technologies and
practices.
iii. Increase public awareness of environmental issues.
Definition based on https://www.bls.gov/ggs/ggsfaq.htm.
Impact. Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by
a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
Indicator. Quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and
reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an
intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development actor. Means by
which a change will be measured. Example: Total wastewater in tons per year.
Input. Financial, human and knowledge resources available in UNIDO to perform its
work and used in the delivery of UNIDO interventions. Inputs are typically measured
by counting the level of money and/or human time spent and levels of expertise by
the Organization. The knowledge content of UNIDO ’s input is another aspect to take
into consideration. While capturing levels of expertise in quantitative and qualitative
terms can be a difficult endeavour, it is an important part of the value proposition of
specialized organizations like UNIDO.
Integration. Integration within UNIDO development interventions enable the
scaling-up process. In line with, inter alia, the MTPF 2018–2021, “integration” of
UNIDO development interventions is defined as (a) the complementary and
systematic use of the organization’s core functions, which are technical cooperation,
policy analysis and advice, norms and standards, and convening and partnerships; and
(b) the holistic approach to ISID adopted by the Organization that integrates at the
country, regional and global results levels the three dimensions of sustainable
development as they relate to ISID, namely advancing economic competitiveness,
creating shared prosperity, and safeguarding the environment. While single
interventions may focus on specific aspects of ISID, the o verall offer of support
interventions at the country, regional and global level by UNIDO must ensure a
balance among these dimensions, and should be duly considered in the programme
and project design.
Monitoring. A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on
specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing
development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement
of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds. Results monitoring and
reporting themselves are subject to quality assurance and quality monitoring to ensure
high-quality and reliable data are regularly provided, sourced and analysed at the
project, programme, portfolio, country, and global level. This is fundamental,

12/14 V.19-10549
 GC.18/CRP.4

amongst others, for the IRPF reporting, in line with UNIDO ’s Quality Assurance
Framework, adopted in 2019.
Outcome. The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an
intervention’s outputs.
Outputs. The products, capital goods and services which result from a development
intervention within UNIDO’s sphere of control; may also include changes resulting
from the intervention which are relevant to the achievement of outcomes.
Programme. A group of complementary projects designed and managed in a
coordinated and coherent way, simultaneously or sequentially, to obtain broader
benefits and long-term results (impact) not directly attainable from managing the
projects individually. A programme is further typically characterized as a systematic
and complex intervention to address a development problem or need to attain specific
sectoral, national, regional, or global development objectives.
Project. A development intervention, which is designed to achieve specific objectives
(outputs/outcomes) contributing to a higher objective (impact) within a given budget
and a specific period of time, i.e. it has a beginning and an end.
New products. New products are goods and services that differ significantly in th eir
characteristics or intended uses from products previously produced by the firm or
used by the firm and/or relevant market. New products are goods and services that
differ significantly in their characteristics or intended uses from products previously
produced by the firm [Source: OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms (in the context of
Innovation)].
Policy. A policy is any document that spells out the broad framework of values and
objectives, within which government decisions are taken to solve a problem
(henceforth referred to as strategy) and/or the specific measures to be pursued in
relation to such a problem. Depending on the branch of government that issues the
document, one can distinguish between primary legislation (laws approved by the
legislative body) and secondary legislation (regulations, directives, guidance notes
approved by the executive body). For practical reasons related to UNIDO operations,
guidance document resulting from statements of the judiciary are not covered in this
document.
Productivity. Productivity is defined as total value added divided by number of
person/hours worked.
Result. Specific and measurable change (output, outcome and impact; intended or
unintended; positive and/or negative) that is derived from a cause -and-effect
relationship, achieved or facilitated by UNIDO in line with the Organization ’s
mandate and MTPF in force.
Results-based management. A management strategy at project and programme,
portfolio, organizational, country, and global levels, based on managing for the
achievement of intended results within a given context by integrating a results
philosophy and principles into all aspects of management and by integrating good
practices and lessons learned from past performance into management
decision-making.
Scale-up. Scale-up is defined as the multiplication of an achieved result from a
UNIDO intervention, in which a greater number of beneficiaries (people or
institutions) benefit more lastingly from ISID. The scaling -up process may be:
(a) horizontal, expanding geographical reach to cover more people through replication
and adaptation; and/or (b) vertical, expanding institutional reach to guide principles
of practice through mainstreaming. Scaling-up may require an integrated approach of
horizontal and vertical scaling-up. Therefore, scaling-up can be implemented with or
without an increase in the monetary volume of UNIDO’s technical cooperation
portfolio, and may entail strategic or operational partnerships with other
complementary organizations, agencies or institutions.

V.19-10549 13/14
GC.18/CRP.4

Technology. “The application of knowledge for practical purposes into products,

materials, tools, processes, techniques, devices, etc.”
(UNESCO-http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/measuring -scientific-
technological-services-consultation-2017-en.pdf), consistent with OECD definitions
in the Oslo Manual (http://www.oecd.org/sti/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-
en.htm and https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2692 ).
New technology. Technology displacing previous technology or practice with
positive impact on ISID. It includes incremental, architectural, disruptive, and radical
innovation, as long as they bring about positive socio -economic and environmental
benefits in the markets into which they are being introduced.
Theory of change. Theory of change or programme theory is similar to a logic model,
but includes key assumptions behind the causal relationships and sometimes the major
factors (internal and external to the intervention) likely to influence the outcomes (see
also UNIDO program Evaluation Manual, section 3). UNIDO ’s theory of change is
underpinned by an actor-based, behavioural change results chain logic, which
identifies the key institutions and actors targeted by UNID O’s interventions, as well
as their reactions, knowledge, capacities, and changes in practices and behaviours
influenced by the Organization.
Value added. Value added […] is derived as the difference between gross output or
census output and intermediate consumption or census input (United Nations, 2011).
The value added at basic prices is calculated as the difference between the gross
output at basic prices and the intermediate consumption at purchasers’ prices. The
valuation of value added closely corresponds to the valuation of gross output. If the
output is valued at basic prices, then the valuation of value added is also at basic
prices (the valuation of intermediate consumption is always at purchasers ’ prices).
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-09-03-01.pdf

14/14 V.19-10549