2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships26 August 2010

Measuring, reporting and verifying mitigation actions by developing countries

Topics for discussionPaula Castro

Center for Comparative and International Studies

University of Zurich

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

MRV - possible functions

AccountabilityMaking 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

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

2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships26 August 2010

Are these tools appropriate for MRV of developing country NAMAs?

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

2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships26 August 2010

Ideas and proposals from research

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

NationalCommunication

Biennially Periodically

-National circumstances-GHG inventory-Vulnerability assessment-Adaptation measures-Mitigation actions-Enabling activities-Support received

TBD / Continuously

NationalCommunication Update

-GHG inventory-Implementation of NAMAs-Outcomes of NAMAs (incl. domestic MRV)-Support received

Registry of NAMAsseeking support

-Description of NAMA-Estimated costs-Financial resources, technology and CB needed / received / provided

National verificationInternational

verification / ICA

-Domestic NAMAs-COP agreed guidelines

-Supported NAMAs-Inventories and methodologies-National verification procedures

R

E

P

O

R

T

I N

G

VE

RIF

ICA

TIO

N

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

2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships26 August 2010

Questions for discussion

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

Extremelydifferent

measurability!

Immediate and direct emissions impact

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

2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships26 August 2010

Thank you!