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