Criteria, methodology and scoring instrument for certifying, under section 30 of the National Climate Change Act 2021, that the Budget Framework Paper is climate change responsive and carries adequate allocation for climate measures.
\nEvery vote is assessed the same way, in the same order, by the same tests. The assessor never invents a number: each score is the arithmetic result of two recorded judgements — the Rio marker and the NDC alignment tier — so two assessors working the same Budget Framework Paper reach the same total.
\n\n{{ c.body }}
\nThe weighted score is not a free judgement on a nought-to-five feeling. It is read off a matrix from two prior decisions, each of which has a written evidence test. Where a cell is empty, the combination is not admissible and the assessment must be reworked.
\n\nMeasured against the priority actions of Uganda’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution — adaptation actions A1–A81, mitigation actions B1–B18 and enabling actions C1–C18.
\nMarker down the side, NDC tier across the top. The cell is the weighted score, and the score carries the verbal label the guidance already uses.
\nA score without all three elements is not admissible and the worksheet flags it. This is the audit trail: it is what makes the assessment replicable when it must be repeated or defended.
\n{{ q.body }}
\nRead the programme goal, objective or purpose as written in the Budget Framework Paper, then answer the four tests. The verdict is computed — a rationale is established where the objective identifies a climate hazard or a source or sink of greenhouse gases, and connects it either to a stated climate objective or to a measurable climate result.
\n\n{{ rationale.note }}
\n{{ rationale.consequence }}
\nOne measure per line. Optionally add the programme short code and the budget in Ush bn, separated by a vertical bar or a tab: Construct 20 valley tanks | NRECCLWM | 42.5
\n \nOne row per policy measure, intervention or output in the Budget Framework Paper — every one, not only those that look climate related, because the denominator depends on the full list. The score column is computed from the marker and the tier; it cannot be typed.
\n\n \n{{ finance.intro }}
\n\n{{ finance.sheetNote }}
\n{{ finance.totals.note }}
\n\nA single band of thirty to forty per cent forced the assessor to choose a figure with no rule behind it, and gave the same weight to a measure that merely enables climate action as to one that contributes directly. Tying the coefficient to the weighted score removes that discretion and keeps the financial estimate consistent with the technical score, which is what allows the allocation figure to be defended.
\nTwo indices are reported, never one. Coverage divides the achieved weight by the maximum the whole programme could have earned, and so answers whether the Budget Framework Paper as a whole is climate responsive. Intensity divides by the maximum the climate-relevant measures alone could have earned, and so answers how well those measures are aligned to the NDC. A programme can score well on one and badly on the other, and the difference is the finding.
\n\n{{ rollup.balanceNote }}
\nSection 30 requires two things of the certificate, so the determination applies two tests and both must pass. The thresholds below are a recommendation for endorsement by the Minister responsible for climate change in consultation with the chairperson of the National Planning Authority; they are settings of this instrument, not law. The certificate is issued for all the programmes of the National Budget Framework Paper as a consolidated determination; the same tests can also be applied to a single programme, and a certificate issued for it alone.
\n\n{{ t.rule }}
\n{{ cert.consolidatedNote }}
\n{{ cert.statement }}
\n