measurable, reportable and verifiable - iges · 2017-08-30 · 4/8/2010 3 background measurable,...
TRANSCRIPT
4/8/2010
1
MEASURABLE, REPORTABLE AND
VERIFIABLE (MRV)MITIGATION COMMITMENTS AND ACTIONS
Sonya Dewi
OUTLINE
Background
Conceptual political scientific financial and Conceptual, political, scientific, financial and institutional principles for MRV
Mitigation commitments in developed countries
Mitigation actions in developing countries
Means of implementation
What’s changed after Copenhageng p g
Indonesia’s perspectives
4/8/2010
2
CARBONDIOXIDE
55%METHANE
15%
SECTORS AND GHG
Land use, Land use change and Forestry
Energy & Industry
CFCs24%
NITROUSOXIDE
6%
change and Forestry
Agriculture
City waste
7 000
GHG emissions (Mt CO2e yr-1) by sectorsSource: PEACE, 2007
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Common but differentiated responsibilities
Energy Agriculture
Forest change and peat lands Waste management
Total
4/8/2010
3
BACKGROUND
Measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) mitigation action is a key component in the Balimitigation action is a key component in the Bali Action Plan, and likely to be central to the negotiations about the future of the climate regime
quantifying action on mitigation, and the enduring balance between commitments and actions
In Kyoto: Annex I countries took on QELROs In Kyoto: Annex I countries took on QELROs (quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives), while non-Annex I Parties continued with mitigation programmes without quantified levels
BALI ACTION PLAN
The same balance was applied to an evolving context, outlined in paragraphs 1b(i) and 1b(ii):(b) E h d ti l/i t ti l ti(b) Enhanced national/international action on
mitigation of climate change(i) Annex I: MRV nationally appropriate mitigation
commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives –comparable but with national circumstances consideration
(ii) Non Annex I: Nationally appropriate mitigation ti (NAMA) i th t t f t i blactions (NAMA) in the context of sustainable
development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity building, in a MRV manner both in terms of actions and means of implementation
4/8/2010
4
BAR RAISING
To reduce –25% to –40% below 1990 levels by 2020, reductions in absolute emissions will be2020, reductions in absolute emissions will be needed in the key remaining non-Kyoto Annex I Party, the USA
Non Annex I move from qualitative commitments to mitigation actions that are quantifiable
technology transfer and financial resources from developed countries also need to pass the MRVdeveloped countries also need to pass the MRV test
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS: WHAT ARE WE
MRV’ING?
The need to keep stabilization levels low and hence avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
For any stabilization level the assessment considers absolute For any stabilization level, the assessment considers absolute emission reductions by Annex I and relative emission reductions for non-Annex I countries.
If we agree to pursue the lowest stabilization level assessed (450 ppm CO2-eq), then developed countries need to reduce their aggregate emissions by 25–40% from 1990 levels by 2020 and, from the same base year, by 80–95% by 2050
For developing countries, the reductions required in the most ambitious IPCC scenario are a substantial deviation below baseline in several regions by 2020 extended to all developingbaseline in several regions by 2020, extended to all developing regions by 2050 .
In short, developed countries must reduce absolute emissions, while developing countries must take action to reduce emission growth, i.e. keep emissions below business-as-usual emission trajectories – and increasing the gap between BAU and the actual emissions trajectory so that, over time, the deviation is represented as a ‘wedge’.
4/8/2010
5
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS: WHAT ARE WE
MRV’ING?
MRV FOR DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Efforts by developed countries (Kyoto and non-Kyoto) must be comparable in their legally bindingKyoto) must be comparable in their legally binding nature and effectiveness to reduce GHG emissions.
An obvious option is the range of mid-term emission reductions of 25–40% from 1990 levels by 2020. At this stage of the AWG-KP work programme, this has been considered for Annex I Parties as a group.Parties as a group.
4/8/2010
6
MRV MITIGATION ACTION BY DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)
the provision of technology financing and capacity the provision of technology, financing and capacity-building.
MEASURABLE - WHAT
fundamental data – the status of emissions in a country in tonnes of CO2-equivalent
‘national inventories with footnotes’ - a place for describing actions for emission reductions -enhance reporting on their actions, and thus gain recognition for actions taken.
start in the sectors with the best information, allowing the required human and institutional capacity to be developed, expanding the coverage to all sectors over time
establish national baselines to measure ‘deviations from baseline’ and recognize relative emission reductionsg
methodologies that apply MRV to both the local sustainable development and the emission reduction measures
The long-term goal (e.g. beyond 2020) would be to develop the MRV’ing of actions into MRV based on inventories, for all.
4/8/2010
7
REPORTABLE - HOW
All Parties have existing reporting commitments under the Convention (UNFCCC, 1992: Art. 4.1).
Procedures of how developing countries should report on inventories.
Establishing trends will be important in the long run. More regular reporting of GHG inventories is necessary. This could still be less frequent than the annual reporting by Annex I Parties, for example every 2 or 3 years.
Inventories measure emissions, not reductions. If developing countries implement unilateral mitigation actions (e.g. CDM, but also other policies and measures, or investment in cleaner technologies), how would one assess reductions?
REPORTABLE CON’T
Change in inventories would reflect not only mitigation supported from multilateral sources, but also unilateralactionaction.
Reporting would ideally include both unilateral mitigation actions and those implemented with international support (MRV finance and technology).
MRV would require separate tracking of domestically financed and internationally supported action; a separate format for reporting might be considered.
Changes in inventories would reflect reductions only if all actions are considered.
The purpose may differ, with unilateral action reported to provide recognition of action by developing countries and a comprehensive picture of the actions by a country, while international support action would be reported to enable verification.
4/8/2010
8
VERIFIABLE
WHAT, HOW, AND BY WHOM?
If emission reductions are to be real, long-term and measurable, then verification is critical.
One of the biggest challenges, in political terms, as it raises issues of sovereignty and differentiation.
the establishment of broadly acceptable principles might be useful. These principles could include: requirements for independence, acceptability of the verifying institutions, accuracy, and building on existing capacity and experience
domestic institutional capacity in developing countries to undertake both measurement and verification will be significant. A principle could thus be to build on national capacity for MRV – but to ensure that institutions measure and verify according to international standards (e.g. ISO, IPCC).
VERIFIABLE – CON’T
A dual-track approach: actions with international financial support would be verified internationallyfinancial support would be verified internationally (e.g. using mechanisms under the carbon market, or reporting on public funds spent), and unilateral mitigation actions would be verified domestically (e.g. unsubsidized energy efficiency measures), but then reported on in one reporting format/instrument under the Convention.
4/8/2010
9
THREE LEVELS OF VERIFICATION
VERIFIABLE – CON’T
Verification by peer-review: national institutions -other developing countries. Models of peer-reviewother developing countries. Models of peer review mechanisms: the African Union or the WTO, might provide useful lessons.
4/8/2010
10
MRV FOR MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Developing countries expect developed countries to fulfill their commitments on MRV support onfulfill their commitments on MRV support on technology, financing and capacity-building in the Bali Roadmap
Developed countries expect that this would facilitate MRV mitigation actions by developing countries that go beyond their mitigation actions already undertaken by developing countries with their ownundertaken by developing countries with their own resources.
FINANCE IN MITIGATION ACTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION
key enabler
Issue: to ensure that the financial flows actually occur Issue: to ensure that the financial flows actually occur
to operationalize the measurement, reporting and verification of finance.
Fact: the current scale of funding is several orders of magnitude below what is required and will be required in future. Adaptation funding of US$28–67 billion per year in developing
countries will be needed by 2030.
Investment in mitigation of US$200–210 billion per year is needed by 2030, of which 46% is in developing countries (UNFCCC, 2007b).
Where might such funds come from?
4/8/2010
11
OPTIONS
The simplest solution may be a mandatory formula for collecting money. g y
One option already proposed in the AWG-LCA is that developed countries set aside 0.5% of GDP to support climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Besides achieving scale by using this formula, an obvious advantage is that it would make it simpler to clearly distinguish between climate funding and official development assistance (ODA)official development assistance (ODA).
UNFCCC Secretariat provided a range of illustrative options in a paper on finance and investment flows (UNFCCC, 2007b).
4/8/2010
12
MEASURABLE - WHAT
Money
If the deal in Copenhagen is to put numbers to If the deal in Copenhagen is to put numbers to mitigation, it will also need to put numbers to the financial flows.
4/8/2010
13
REPORTABLE - HOW
Reporting may be specific, depending on the source of the funding.source of the funding.
Markets – be they carbon or other markets – tend to track financial flows anyway, although robust market rules need to be established.
Allowances auctioned by Parties might be measured and reported through registries.
F nds raised nationall o ld also ha e to be Funds raised nationally would also have to be reported into the international system.
A key question is how to track scaled-up public investment.
VERIFIABLE – WHAT, HOW, WHOM?
The most difficult area Who verifies financial flows? Verifying flows of ODA committed in terms of the Monterrey
Consensus has proved difficult and controversial. Ultimately MRV of finance is political. How does one verify that funding for climate change is new
and additional, and not merely a redirection of existing ODA away from poverty eradication and development priorities in favour of climate imperatives?
If funds were collected at the national level, they would also have to be made subject to international scrutiny e ghave to be made subject to international scrutiny, e.g. independent third-party verification.
The consideration of the issue of scaled-up funding also raises issues of the governance of international funding.
The guiding principle should be equitable partnership between donors and recipients. The financial mechanism needs to be guided and under the authority of the COP.
4/8/2010
14
MRV TECHNOLOGY
Technology has to be transferred or traded on preferential terms in a measurable, reportable andpreferential terms in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner.
HOW MIGHT THIS BE IMPLEMENTED? OPTIONS
The funding for technology. But what needs to be measured on technology is broader than
technology transfer (if that means the movement oftechnology transfer (if that means the movement of technology that has a higher cost than the commercial standard practice, and is also lower emitting).
It also encompasses the diffusion of technology through commercialization, as well as long-term R&D. Attention should be given to different stages in the technology and the appropriate funding at each stage.
MRV could start, however, with following funding for technology. It may be necessary to distinguish different kinds
f fi i l t d di b dl d fi d lif tof financial support, depending on broadly defined life stages of technologies:■ Funding for wider deployment of existing technology and
retrofitting■ Venture capital to commercialize emerging technology■ Public and private investment in long-term R&D of new
technology.
4/8/2010
15
INDICATORS
For the purpose of measuring, reporting and verifying technology transfer, indicators will assist.verifying technology transfer, indicators will assist.
What needs to be verified is the actual transfer of technology, not just long-term R&D.
Measurement would also need to include technology transfer under the CDM.
INSTITUTION
Institutional mechanisms should align the type of financial support appropriate to different kinds of
ftechnology transfer and trade. This suggests that institutional arrangements might be considered for the means of implementation in an integrated manner.
Such an integrated institution would need to be placed clearly under the authority and guidance of the COP.
The more difficult issue is how to quantify technology support where it is not financial. Important aspects
l ti t t h l t f h f ti lrelating to technology transfer, such as preferential access, collaborative R&D in the form of human resources, and building local institutional capacity to apply technology, are some of the less tangible forms of support.
4/8/2010
16
Reporting and reviewing systems for Annex I Parties
Source: Jigme, UNFCCC
REPORTING AND REVIEWING SYSTEMS FOR
NON-ANNEX I PARTIES
Source: Jigme, UNFCCC
4/8/2010
17
PROPOSAL EXAMPLE
Source: Jigme, UNFCC
Source: Jigme, UNFCC
4/8/2010
18
EXPECTATION FOR COPENHAGEN
In Bali, the Parties decided to reach an agreed outcome in Copenhagen, by December 2009.outcome in Copenhagen, by December 2009.
The Copenhagen deal will first need to build on the agreement to MRV in principle, elaborating it politically and conceptually in the agreed outcome and decision.
What is not yet clear is whether Parties will be ready to put numbers on mitigation commitmentsready to put numbers on mitigation commitments for all developed countries, mitigation actions for developing countries, and a technology finance package on the table to fill out the details in terms of this new architecture.
REFERENCES
Winkler. 2008. Measurable, reportable and verifiable: the keys to mitigation in the Copenhagenverifiable: the keys to mitigation in the Copenhagen deal. Climate Policy 8 (2008) 534–547
Jigme. 2009. Concept of “measurable, reportable and verifiable ” measures and actions: where we are now. UNFCCC
4/8/2010
19
COPENHAGEN
The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) took place at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7 and December 18 2009between December 7 and December 18, 2009.
One of the aims of the conference was to negotiate a legally binding agreement that would be in place when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. In that respect, the Conference was intended to be monumental, though it had been apparent for weeks, perhaps months beforehand that this goal would be unachievable.
By far the most widely-discussed outcome of the Conference was the “Copenhagen Accord”, which emerged in the final days of the Conference. This document summarises the key elements of the Accord. It also includes a summary of emissions targets and mitigation actions submitted by Parties in early 2010.
WHAT’S CHANGED AFTER COPENHAGEN
The Accord, which promises big (lots of money by 2012, a “REDD” mechanism, technology gymechanism, and even more money by 2020), but which is devoid of any legal obligation to deliver.
Countries were already distancing themselves from the Accord during the plenary session that considered its fate on the last day of negotiations, only hours after it had been “agreed”.
Further even almost two months after the Accord Further, even almost two months after the Accord came into existence, the extent to which the Accord has garnered international political support is uncertain and its future role remains difficult to pinpoint.
4/8/2010
20
WHAT’S IN THE ACCORD?MITIGATION (ANNEX I)
Annex I (developed) Parties commit to implement individually or jointly quantified economy-wide emissions
ftargets for 2020. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed
countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the COP, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent. Thi h id f l t t b f tti This perhaps provides a useful start by way of setting up a non-binding “depositary” for the US’s emission reduction target. However, targets in this Appendix are not legally binding and are not subject to an international compliance mechanism like a target under the Kyoto Protocol.
WHAT’S IN THE ACCORD?MITIGATION (NON-ANNEX I)
Mitigation actions by Non-Annex I Parties shall be communicated through national communicationscommunicated through national communications every two years subject to domestic MRV in compliance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the COP
Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology,in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support
Supported NAMAs will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification (MRV)
4/8/2010
21
WHAT’S IN THE ACCORD?MITIGATION (NON-ANNEX I)
Different levels of MRV between developed and developing countries. This represents the “MRVdeveloping countries. This represents the MRV compromise” that was necessary to unlock the negotiations.
Domestic MRV will be possible in developing countries; except that where a NAMA is supported the MRV guidelines will be “international”. This helps to assuage concerns about nationalhelps to assuage concerns about national sovereignty and ensure that when developed countries provide support to developing countries they will be able to verify that such support leads to genuine emissions reductions.
INDONESIA’S PERSPECTIVES
Emisi CO2 di Indonesia meningkat Proyeksi: 1.72 Gt (2000) menjadi 2.95 Gt (2020), dany ( ) j ( ),
3.6 Gt (2030) Target pengurangan emisi (SBY, Desember 2009), 26 %
dengan dana sendiri, 41% dengan dukunganinternasional pada 2020
Sumbangan emisi GRK dari lahan gambut dankehutanan: 45%
Sektor kehutanan bisa mereduksi 1 16 Gt (50%) dan Sektor kehutanan bisa mereduksi 1.16 Gt (50%) dangambut 0.6 Gt (26%)
Pengurangan 26%: 14 % dari sektor kehutanan, 6% darisektor pengelolaan limbah dan 6% dari sektor energi
Dengan program terpadu: 2.3 Gt pada tahun 2030 (4.5% dari yang diperlukan pada tingkat global)
4/8/2010
22
INDONESIA’S PERSPECTIVES
Source: Directorate for Climate Change Impact Control
SIKLUSSIKLUS
PENGURANGAN EMISI
SECARA SUKARELA
OLEH NEGARA
BERKEMBANG
4/8/2010
23
National Mitigation Actions
National GHG-Inventory System or SIGN (Sistem
MEASUREABLE
REPORTABLE
VERIFIABLE
National GHG Inventory System or SIGN (Sistem Inventarisasi GRK Nasional)
• Sustainable GHG-inventory process (national, regional and local level);
• Monitor level- and status of GHG emission; • Evaluate implementation of emission reduction actions; • Report GHG emission status.
• As one of the important instruments for MRV-implementation related to national mitigation actions.
• SIGN level of achievement on emission reduction (measurable) through current emission status (reportable) and re-checking process/“back-tracking” to the emission sources/sectors (verifiable), considering:
• Sector/location• Source of fund;• Technology; • Energy sources/emission sources;• level of removal.
The governance of National GHG-Inventory System or SIGN (Sistem Inventarisasi GRK Nasional)
Report of Emission
Status
Report of Emission
Status
Dept. of IndustryDept. of IndustryDept of Forestry
(Indonesia National Carbon Account System/INCAS)
Dept of Forestry
(Indonesia National Carbon Account System/INCAS)
KLHSIGN-Center
KLHSIGN-Center
KLH- Waste management (Adipura)- Manufactures (Proper)- Emisi Bergerak (Blue Sky)- Agro Industry: Migas(Proper)
KLH- Waste management (Adipura)- Manufactures (Proper)- Emisi Bergerak (Blue Sky)- Agro Industry: Migas(Proper)
Dept of AgricultureDept of AgricultureLocal GovernmentsLocal Governments
DESDMDESDM
Remarks:
Dept. Of Transportation
Dept. Of Transportation
Other Sources:PLN, PJB2, BPS,
Universities, research institutions, other
institutions
Other Sources:PLN, PJB2, BPS,
Universities, research institutions, other
institutions
e a sSIGN-Center requests data
to related sectors.Related sectors provide data
to SIGN- Center
INVENTORYPengembangan
1. Methodology (IPCC guideline)2. Emission Factor
Mekanisme1. Data collection2. Data compilation3. Data analysis Q/A & Q/C4. Data and information report
4/8/2010
24
ALUR INVENTARISASI GRK
Departemen b ik d t
Pusat SIGNInventarisasi emisi GRK nasional
Profil Inventory tk. nasional
memberikan data aktivitas (raw data)
BPLHDInventarisasi (kompilasi dan penghitungan) emisi
GRK tk.propinsi
Dinas Tk.propinsi
sektor Energi(kompilasi data)
Dinas Tk.propinsi
sektor Sampah(kompilasi data)
Profil Inventory tk. Propinsi
Gubernur
Data aktivitas Tk.Kabupaten sektor spesifik (single data)
Data aktivitas Tk.Kabupaten sektor spesifik (single data)
Data aktivitas Tk.Kabupaten sektor spesifik (single data)
Data aktivitas Tk.Kabupaten sektor spesifik (single data)
Data aktivitas Tk.Kabupaten sektor spesifik (single data)
Data aktivitas Tk.Kabupaten sektor spesifik (single data)
Profil Inventory tk. Kabupaten/kota
- Pengiriman single data aktivitas (contoh: energi, sampah, etc) dari Kabupaten/kota ke Dinas Tk. Propinsi.
ALUR MRV NASIONAL
Data of GHG emission for last 2-years and
projection of GHG emission for next 10-years
Conducted by SIGN-Center under the supervision of KLH
Output: a document of national GHG emission bi ll
InstitutionsActivities
p j y
National Planning on Climate Change Mitigation
bi-annually
•Sector submit climate change mitigation plan•Bappenas compiles mitigation plan for formulating of RPJMN and RPJP- Expert Panel validates mitigation plan (under the coordination of KLH, compare to the result of inventory)
Report of target achievement on 26% emission reduction in
2020
Bi-annual report (as a part of NATCOM)
National Report on the implementation of mitigation actions and reduction target
Prepared by KNLH
Verification on specific aspects (emission reduction, financial)
Verified by related institutions (e.g.: BPK/independent auditor)
4/8/2010
25
Flow chart of monitoring and evaluation for regional actions of GHG emission (MONEV RAD-GRK)
Report of MONEV RAD-GRK
K L H
Provinces coordinate MONEV RAD GRK i
The
DEPDAGRI
MONEV RAD-GRK in provincial level
implementation of RAD-GRK
(provincial level)
The implementation of RAD-GRK (district level)
Districts coordinate MONEV RAD-GRK in
district level
Report the result of MONEV
GLOBALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION ACTIONS
(GAMA)
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)
Landscape approaches to adaptation +
Locally Appropriate Adaptation & Mitigation Actions
(LAAMA)
adaptation + mitigation
Source: van Noordwijk
4/8/2010
26