4/8/2010

MEASURABLE, REPORTABLE AND VERIFIABLE (MRV)

MITIGATION COMMITMENTS AND ACTIONS
Sonya Dewi

OUTLINE
Background Conceptual political scientific financial and Conceptual, political, scientific, institutional principles for MRV Mitigation commitments in developed countries Mitigation actions in developing countries Means of implementation Whats changed after Copenhagen g p g Indonesias perspectives

4/8/2010

SECTORS AND GHG

METHANE 15%

CARBON DIOXIDE 55%

NITROUS OXIDE 6%

CFCs 24%

Land use, Land use change and Forestry

Energy & Industry City waste

Agriculture

GHG emissions (Mt CO2e yr-1) by sectors Source: PEACE, 2007

7,000 7 000 6,000 5,000

Common but differentiated responsibilities

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000

Energy Forest change and peat lands Total

Agriculture Waste management

4/8/2010

BACKGROUND
Measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) mitigation 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 (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 Enhanced national/international action on d ti l/i t ti l ti 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 actions (NAMA) i th context of sustainable ti in the t t f t i bl 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

BAR RAISING
To reduce 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, 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 MRV test

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS: WHAT ARE WE MRVING?

The need to keep stabilization levels low and hence avoid the worst impacts of climate change. For any stabilization level the assessment considers absolute level, 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 2540% from 1990 levels by 2020 and, from the same base year, by 8095% 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 developing 2020, 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

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS: WHAT ARE WE MRVING?

MRV FOR DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Efforts by developed countries (Kyoto and nonKyoto) 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 2540% 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.

4/8/2010

MRV MITIGATION ACTION BY DEVELOPING

COUNTRIES Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) the provision of technology financing and capacitytechnology, 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 reductions g 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 MRVing of actions into MRV based on inventories, for all.

4/8/2010

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 CONT

Change in inventories would reflect not only mitigation supported from multilateral sources, but also unilateral action. action 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

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 CONT

A dual-track approach: actions with international financial 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

THREE LEVELS OF VERIFICATION

VERIFIABLE CONT

Verification by peer-review: national institutions other developing countries. Models of peer-review peer review mechanisms: the African Union or the WTO, might provide useful lessons.

4/8/2010

MRV FOR MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Developing countries expect developed countries to fulfill 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 own resources.

FINANCE IN MITIGATION ACTION AND

IMPLEMENTATION

key enabler 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$2867 billion per year in developing countries will be needed by 2030. Investment in mitigation of US$200210 billion per year is needed by 2030, of which 46% is in developing countries (UNFCCC, 2007b).

Where might such funds come from?

10

4/8/2010

OPTIONS
The simplest solution may be a mandatory formula for g y collecting money. 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) (ODA). UNFCCC Secretariat provided a range of illustrative options in a paper on finance and investment flows (UNFCCC, 2007b).

11

4/8/2010

MEASURABLE - WHAT
Money If the deal in Copenhagen is to put numbers to mitigation, it will also need to put numbers to the financial flows.

12

4/8/2010

REPORTABLE - HOW
Reporting may be specific, depending on the 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 would also ha e to be Funds nationally o ld have 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 g 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.

13

4/8/2010

MRV TECHNOLOGY

Technology has to be transferred or traded on preferential 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 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 of financial support, depending on b dl d fi d lif stages f fi i l t d di broadly defined life t 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.

14

4/8/2010

INDICATORS
For the purpose of measuring, reporting and 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 technology transfer and trade. This suggests that f 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 relating t technology transfer, such as preferential l ti to t h l t f h f ti l 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.

15

4/8/2010

Reporting and reviewing systems for Annex I Parties

Source: Jigme, UNFCCC

REPORTING AND REVIEWING SYSTEMS FOR NON-ANNEX I PARTIES

Source: Jigme, UNFCCC

16

4/8/2010

PROPOSAL EXAMPLE

Source: Jigme, UNFCC

Source: Jigme, UNFCC

17

4/8/2010

EXPECTATION FOR COPENHAGEN

In Bali, the Parties decided to reach an agreed 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 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 Copenhagen deal. Climate Policy 8 (2008) 534547 Jigme. 2009. Concept of measurable, reportable and verifiable measures and actions: where we are now. UNFCCC

18

4/8/2010

COPENHAGEN

The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) took place at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7 and December 18 2009 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.

WHATS CHANGED AFTER COPENHAGEN

The Accord, which promises big (lots of money by 2012, a REDD mechanism, technology gy mechanism, 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, came into existence, the extent to which the Accord has garnered international political support is uncertain and its future role remains difficult to pinpoint.

19

4/8/2010

WHATS IN THE ACCORD? MITIGATION (ANNEX I)

Annex I (developed) Parties commit to implement individually or jointly quantified economy-wide emissions targets f 2020. for 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. This Thi perhaps provides a useful start b way of setting up h id f l t t by f tti a non-binding depositary for the USs 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.

WHATS IN THE ACCORD? MITIGATION (NON-ANNEX I)

Mitigation actions by Non-Annex I Parties shall be communicated 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, finance and capacity building support Supported NAMAs will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification (MRV)

20

4/8/2010

WHATS IN THE ACCORD? MITIGATION (NON-ANNEX I)

Different levels of MRV between developed and developing countries. This represents the MRV 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 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.

INDONESIAS PERSPECTIVES

Emisi CO2 di Indonesia meningkat Proyeksi: 1.72 Gt (2000) menjadi 2.95 Gt (2020), dan y ( ) j ( ), 3.6 Gt (2030) Target pengurangan emisi (SBY, Desember 2009), 26 % dengan dana sendiri, 41% dengan dukungan internasional pada 2020 Sumbangan emisi GRK dari lahan gambut dan kehutanan: 45% Sektor kehutanan bisa mereduksi 1 16 Gt (50%) dan 1.16 gambut 0.6 Gt (26%) Pengurangan 26%: 14 % dari sektor kehutanan, 6% dari sektor pengelolaan limbah dan 6% dari sektor energi Dengan program terpadu: 2.3 Gt pada tahun 2030 (4.5% dari yang diperlukan pada tingkat global)

21

4/8/2010

INDONESIAS PERSPECTIVES

Source:DirectorateforClimateChangeImpactControl

SIKLUS
PENGURANGAN EMISI SECARA SUKARELA OLEH NEGARA BERKEMBANG

22

4/8/2010

National Mitigation Actions

National GHG Inventory System or SIGN (Sistem GHG-Inventory 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.

MEASUREABLE REPORTABLE VERIFIABLE

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

Dept of Forestry (Indonesia National Carbon Account System/INCAS)

Dept. of Industry
KLH - Waste management (Adipura) - Manufactures (Proper) - Emisi Bergerak (Blue Sky) - Agro Industry: Migas(Proper)

DESDM

KLH SIGNCenter

Local Governments
Other Sources: PLN, PJB2, BPS, Universities, research institutions, other institutions

Dept of Agriculture Dept. Of Transportation

Remarks: e a s SIGN-Center requests data to related sectors. Related sectors provide data to SIGN- Center

INVENTORY Pengembangan
1. Methodology (IPCC guideline) 2. Emission Factor

Mekanisme
1. Data collection 2. Data compilation 3. Data analysis Q/A & Q/C 4. Data and information report

23

4/8/2010

ALUR INVENTARISASI GRK

Pusat SIGN Inventarisasi emisi GRK nasional
Profil Inventory tk. nasional

Departemen memberikan d t b ik data aktivitas (raw data)

Gubernur

Profil Inventory tk. Propinsi Dinas Tk.propinsi sektor Sampah (kompilasi data) Profil Inventory tk. Kabupaten/kota

Dinas Tk.propinsi sektor Energi (kompilasi data)

BPLHD Inventarisasi (kompilasi dan penghitungan) emisi GRK tk.propinsi

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)

Pengiriman single data aktivitas (contoh: energi, sampah, etc) dari Kabupaten/kota ke Dinas Tk. Propinsi.

ALUR MRV NASIONAL

Activities Institutions

Data of GHG emission for last 2-years and projection of GHG emission for next 10-years p j y

Conducted by SIGN-Center under the supervision of KLH Output: a document of national GHG emission bi-annually bi ll

National Planning on Climate Change Mitigation

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)

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)

Bi-annual report (as a part of NATCOM)

Report of target achievement on 26% emission reduction in 2020

24

4/8/2010

Flow chart of monitoring and evaluation for regional actions of GHG emission (MONEV RAD-GRK)
Report of MONEV RADGRK

KLH

DEPDAGRI

Provinces coordinate MONEV RAD GRK i RAD-GRK in provincial level

Report the result of MONEV

The implementation of RAD-GRK (provincial level)

Districts coordinate MONEV RAD-GRK in district level

The implementation of RAD-GRK (district level)

GLOBALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION ACTIONS (GAMA)

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)

Locally Appropriate Adaptation & Mitigation Actions (LAAMA)

Landscape approaches to adaptation + mitigation

Source: van Noordwijk

25

4/8/2010

26