1 / 25

Paula Castro Center for Comparative and International Studies University of Zurich

Measuring, reporting and verifying mitigation actions by developing countries Topics for discussion. Paula Castro Center for Comparative and International Studies University of Zurich. Overview of presentation. Introduction MRV in the existing regime MRV in the negotiations

hhollis
Download Presentation

Paula Castro Center for Comparative and International Studies University of Zurich

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring, reporting and verifying mitigation actions by developing countriesTopics for discussion Paula Castro Center for Comparative and International Studies University of Zurich 2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships 26 August 2010

  2. Overview of presentation • Introduction • MRV in the existing regime • MRV in the negotiations • Some ideas and proposals from research • Lessons from the CDM experience • Questions for discussion

  3. MRV - general definitions • Measurement • Through direct physical measurement or estimation (e.g. using emission factors and activity data) • Can also use qualitative metrics (e.g. laws passed) • Reporting • Provision of information • Effective reporting: based on reliable data, in a transparent and standardised way • Verification • Independent assessment of the reliability and accuracy of reported information • Does not necessarily involve a (legal / political) judgement, but may be used for compliance purposes

  4. Accountability Making sure that: Mitigation actions are enabled by support Support results in effective mitigation Unilateral mitigation actions are recognised internationally Facilitating implementation: Coordination and planning within and between countries Information sharing Assessing effectiveness of the agreement Linking actions with support MRV - possible functions

  5. MRV in the existing regime • National GHG inventories • AI parties: • Annual, following IPCC guidelines and good practice guidance, standardised format • Subject to expert review process • --> Robust verification process - transparency and comparability • --> Accuracy depends on quality of data + estimations • --> Concern: insufficient number of experts • NAI parties: • Submitted as part of national communications • Frequency depends on funding; funding on a project basis • Use of IPCC guidelines optional, no specific reporting format prescribed (but one recommended) • Not subject to review, but receive technical advice from CGE

  6. MRV in the existing regime • National communications: policies and measures • AI parties: • Standardised set of information on each policy and measure • Projection of future emissions scenarios with and without policies • No standard methodologies for quantifying impact of PAMs • Reporting varies from country to country • In-depth review by team of experts: summarise and clarify information, no judgement of adequacy of efforts • NAI parties: • General report on programs containing mitigation measures • No standardisation, verification or review

  7. Are these tools appropriate for MRV of developing country NAMAs? 2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships 26 August 2010

  8. MRV in the existing regime • National inventories: • AI parties: • Comparable, transparent, verifiable emission targets and trends • Review process highly resource intensive • NAI parties: • Reporting requirements insufficient to ensure comparability • Additional funding necessary for ensuring continuity • Not sufficient for verification of mitigation actions or emission trends • National communications: policies and measures • AI parties: • Not comparable (lack of specific commitments and metrics) • No clear guidance for review • Verification of effectiveness not possible • NAI parties: • Not comparable, measurable or verifiable

  9. MRV in the negotiations • BAP 1(b)(i) and 1(b)(ii): • Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country parties … [and] • Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner.

  10. MRV in the negotiations • LCA text (developing country parties): • Annex / schedule attached to the agreement • --> Recording of planned actions • Mitigation mechanism • --> Provision of technical, financial and CB support • Registry • --> Reporting NAMAs and assessing their potential outcome • --> Matching NAMAs with TFCB support • --> Technical analysis of methodologies used to estimate costs / emission reductions / suitability • Part of mitigation mechanism? • Part of financial mechanism? • Part of mitigation window of financial mechanism?

  11. MRV in the negotiations • LCA text (developing country parties): • Reporting • Of registered / recorded NAMAs, following an agreed format • National communications every 6 / 4 years / according to disbursement of funds • Biennial reports of GHG inventories, NAMA implementation, emission reductions, methodologies, TFCB, domestic MRV • Verification • National verification for not supported NAMAs • International verification (and review) for supported NAMAs • International consultation and analysis • On the NAMA report • On NatComms and inventories • Aim: improve quality of reporting, share experiences, improve transparency, assess correct use of guidelines and methodologies • Independent panel of experts • Low Emission Development Plans

  12. Ideas and proposals from research 2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships 26 August 2010

  13. Possible MRV frameworks • Some guiding principles: • Urgency - MRV requirements should not become a major obstacle for mitigation actions • Flexibility - Towards different types of actions and national circumstances - allowing innovativeness in policy design • Continuous improvement - both of the MRV capacity and of the mitigation action (through learning from others)

  14. Possible MRV framework for NAI parties TBD / Continuously Biennially Periodically Registry of NAMAsseeking support NationalCommunication Update NationalCommunication • Description of NAMA • Estimated costs • Financial resources, technology and CB needed / received / provided • GHG inventory • Implementation of NAMAs • Outcomes of NAMAs (incl. domestic MRV) • Support received • National circumstances • GHG inventory • Vulnerability assessment • Adaptation measures • Mitigation actions • Enabling activities • Support received R E P O R T I N G National verification Internationalverification / ICA VERIFICATION • Domestic NAMAs • COP agreed guidelines • Supported NAMAs • Inventories and methodologies • National verification procedures

  15. Lessons from the CDM experience • Complex project cycle: national approval - validation - registration - verification - issuance • Quality checks to ensure environmental integrity (additionality) and sustainable development benefits • Long delays until a project actually gets CERs • Want to avoid such bottlenecks in MRV of NAMAs looking for support • If requirements are too high, countries most in need of support won’t be able to access it • Developed countries will want to ensure that supported actions deliver

  16. Questions for discussion 2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships 26 August 2010

  17. Why to MRV? • Monitoring progress towards UNFCCC ultimate goal • Collectively • By individual parties • Enable recognition of developing country actions • Matching of action with support • Trust building • Ownership, facilitation of national planning • Learning from the others (capacity building)

  18. Types of NAMA • According to types of actions: • Regulation • Efficiency standards • Technology mandate • Renewable energy targets • Subsidy • Feed-in-tariff • Investment support • R&D support • Emission tax • Information instruments • Labels Immediate and direct emissions impact Extremely different measurability! Lagged and indirect emissions impact

  19. What to MRV? • Baseline indicators • Historical emissions of sector/subsector covered by NAMA (before start of support) • Process indicators • Date of policy introduction • Performance indicators • Enforcement of regulation • Volume of tariff paid • Volume of tax collected • Marginal abatement cost • Size of new capacity installed; area of forest planted • Emissions indicators • Emissions level in sector/subsector covered by NAMA for each year • Emissions reductions achieved • Difficult to establish cause and effect!

  20. What to MRV? • Quantitative indicators • Technical (capacity, units installed, etc.) • Financial (funds granted, investment triggered) • Process (number of workshops, studies, etc.) • Qualitative indicators • Content (policy is defined, adopted and enforced) • Process (stakeholder process in place, national strategy agreed) • Institutions (new responsible institution created)

  21. Why and what • Aim determines what / how to MRV. E.g.: • Monitoring progress --> Trends in emission levels, emission reductions • Enable recognition --> Description of actions, costs, implementation, goals, achievements (not necessarily GHG-related), (barriers) • Matching with support --> Estimated cost, estimated emission reductions / other expected results • Trust building --> Effectiveness of TFCB support and mitigation actions; verification reports • National planning --> Description of actions, implementation, timeframes, goals, relation with other planning processes • Learning --> Cost-effectiveness, barriers and solutions, institutions, implementation and enforcement

  22. How to MRV? • Measuring • Standardised indicators • Guidelines • Again, according to aims • According to types of actions? • NAMAs could be: • Intensity-based reductions • PAMs • Sectoral-level intensity / absolute reductions / performance goals • Linked to the carbon market

  23. How to MRV? • Reporting • Frequency • Content • Where • Linkage between registry of “planned actions” (e.g. seeking support) and report of “implemented actions” and their outcomes • According to types of actions?

  24. How to MRV? • Verifying • Who? • National verification - through gov. agencies, NGOs, independent experts, auditors (e.g. fisheries agreements) • Other states (e.g. WTO Trade Policy Review) • International organisation / secretariat (e.g. IAEA, CITES) • Independent experts (UNFCCC, KP) • Accredited private third parties (CDM, MARPOL) • NGOs (generally informally; in CITES formally) • What? • Sources of information? • On-site inspections (CITES, Ramsar, IAEA) • On-site monitoring (fishing, MARPOL) • Remote monitoring (LRTAP) • Information from international institutions • NGOs

  25. Thank you! 2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships 26 August 2010

More Related