Second  Regional  Technical  Dialogue  on    Intended  Nationally  Determined  Contributions  

 Asia-­‐Pacific  &  Eastern  Europe  

     

 24-­‐26  February  2015  Bangkok,  Thailand  

   

   

MEETING  REPORT      

     

 

                 

  2  

Introduction    At  the  17th  Conference  of  the  Parties  (COP)  in  Durban  in  December  2011,  Parties  to  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change  (UNFCCC)  decided  to  launch  a  process  to  develop  a  protocol,  another  legal  instrument,  or  an  agreed  outcome  with  legal  force  under  the  Convention  applicable  to  all  Parties,  to  be  completed  no  later  than  2015.    At   COP   19   in   Warsaw   in   November   2013,   Parties   were   invited   to   initiate   or   intensify   domestic  preparations  for  their  intended  nationally  determined  contributions  (INDCs)  and  to  communicate  them  well  in  advance  of  COP  21  (by  the  first  quarter  of  2015  by  those  Parties  ready  to  do  so),  in  a  manner  that  facilitates   the  clarity,   transparency,  and  understanding  of   the   intended  contributions.    While   the  most  recent  COP   in  Lima  provided   further  guidance  on   INDCs,   including  upfront   information   to  be   included  when   submitting   INDCs   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   countries   are   preparing   their   INDCs   under   some  degree  of  uncertainty.        COP  19  also  decided  to  urge  and  request  developed-­‐country  Parties,  operating  entities  of  the  financial  mechanism,  and  any  other  organizations  in  a  position  to  do  so  to  provide  support  as  early  as  possible  in  2014  for  developing  country  Parties  to  prepare  their  INDCs.     In  response  to  this  request,   in  April  2014,  the  United  Nations  Development  Program  (UNDP),  in  cooperation  with  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  and  the  World  Resources  Institute  (WRI),  launched  a  series  of  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  to  support  countries  in  the  process  of  preparing  and  putting  forward  their  INDCs.    This  project  is  receiving  financial  support  form   Australia,   Austria,   Belgium,   the   European   Union,   France,   Germany,   Japan,   Norway,   the   United  Kingdom,  and  the  United  States.    The  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  have  the  following  objectives:  

• To  ensure  that  participants  understand  the  scientific  context  and  UNFCCC  origins  of  INDCs;    • To   share   experiences   and   best   practices   in   developing   INDCs,   and   to   identify  solutions   to  

challenges  that  countries  are  facing;    • To  address  issues  related  to  the  underlying  technical  basis  required  to  prepare  robust,  realistic,  

and  achievable  INDCs;  and  • To   identify   support   needs   required   to   reach   domestic   agreement   on   INDCs   and  follow-­‐up  

actions.        The   first   Regional   Technical   Dialogue   on   INDCs   in   Asia-­‐Pacific   &   Eastern   Europe   was   held   in   Hanoi,  Vietnam  from  9-­‐11  July  2014.    This  dialogue  in  Bangkok,  Thailand,  the  second  dialogue  in  the  region,  was  held   from   24-­‐26   February   2015.     Approximately   105   participants   attended   the   dialogue   in   Thailand,  including   representatives   of   developing   countries   in   the   region,   developed   countries,  multilateral   and  bilateral  agencies,  and  regional  organizations,  as  well  as  other  experts.    The  agenda  of  the  three-­‐day  Thailand  dialogue  included  sessions  on  National  Processes  to  Inform  INDCs,  Design   Options   for   INDCs,   Data   &   Analysis,   Putting   Forward   Adaptation   Action,   and   Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  (Upfront  Information).    Most  of  these  sessions  included  an  opening  presentation  to   set   the   stage   for   discussion,   followed   by   presentations   of   countries’   national   experiences   (e.g.,  progress   on   INDCs,   lessons   learned,   and   challenges   being   encountered)   and   a   plenary   discussion.    Participants   also   took   part   in   two   Breakout   Working   Group   Sessions   and   a   Panel   Discussion   on  Brainstorming  the  Way  Forward  on  INDCs.        

  3  

This  report  summarizes  the  information  presented  and  discussed  in  the  various  sessions  of  the  dialogue,  with   the   intent   of   capturing   the   key   messages   and   ideas   put   forward   during   the   discussions.     The  messages  presented  here  should  not  be  considered  an  exhaustive  account  of  all   interventions,  nor  do  they  indicate  that  consensus  was  reached  on  any  specific  point.      

Contents    The  contents  of  the  report  are  as  follows:    

• Introduction  o Link  to  Dialogue  Presentations  o Additional  Resources  

• Dialogue  Proceedings  • Annexes  

o Annex  I:  Participant  List  o Annex  II:  Agenda  o Annex  III:  Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation  o Annex  IV:  Dialogue  Evaluation  Results  

   Link  to  Dialogue  Presentations    Dialogue  presentations  can  be  found  at  the  following  link:    http://www.lowemissiondevelopment.org/events/regional-­‐events/eventdetail/75/-­‐/second-­‐asia-­‐pacific-­‐eastern-­‐europe-­‐regional-­‐technical-­‐dialogue-­‐on-­‐indcs-­‐in-­‐bangkok-­‐thailand        Additional  Resources    WRI’s  Mitigation  Accounting  Standards:  http://www.ghgprotocol.org/mitigation-­‐accounting    WRI’s  Open  Book  Project  http://www.wri.org/our-­‐work/project/open-­‐book  

   

  4  

Dialogue  Proceedings  

Opening  Session    The   workshop   was   opened   by   Prasert   Sirinapaporn,  Office   of   Natural   Resources   and   Environmental   Policy  and   Planning,   Thailand;   Mr.   Luc   Stevens,   Resident  Representative,   UNDP   Thailand;   and   Mr.   Donald  Cooper,   Coordinator   of   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat’s  Mitigation,  Data  and  Analysis  Programme.    Mr.  Sirinapaporn  welcomed  participants  to  Bangkok  and  highlighted   a   number   of   measures   that   Thailand   is  taking  on  climate  change.    He  recalled  the  outcomes  of  the  Warsaw  COP,   stressed  Thailand’s   determination   to  work   with   the   global   community   on   the   challenge   of  climate   change,   and   underscored   the   usefulness   of   this   dialogue   for   exchanging   views.    Mr.   Stevens  spoke  to  the  threat  of  climate  change  in  reducing  development  achievements  to  date  but  asserted  that  there  have  been  clear  signs  of  progress  in  recent  years.    He  mentioned  UNDP’s  support  to  governments  on   INDC-­‐related   inputs   (e.g.,   national   communications,   nationally   appropriate   mitigation   actions  (NAMAs),   low-­‐emissions   development   strategies   (LEDS),   etc.)   and   underscored   the   importance   of  countries   in   the   region   continuing   to   play   an   active   role   in   INDCs.     Mr.   Cooper   announced   that   the  UNFCCC   Secretariat   is   “open   for   business”   to   receive   INDCs   and   offered   the   Secretariat’s   support   for  countries  in  the  INDC  preparation  process.    He  asserted  that  climate  change  is  a  development  issue  and  reminded   participants   to   engage   actively   in   dialogue   discussions   instead   of   rehearsing   negotiating  positions.        

Session  1:  Scene-­‐Setting  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  set  the  scene  for  the  dialogue  by  providing  updates  from  the  Ad-­‐hoc  Working  Group  on  the  Durban  Platform  (ADP)  process  and  past  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  on  INDCs.      

Presentations    UNFCCC  Secretariat  Mr.   Claudio   Forner,   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   presented   an   overview   of   recent   progress   in   the   ADP  negotiations   in   Lima   and   Geneva.     He   recalled   the  Warsaw   COP’s   invitation   to   Parties   to   initiate   or  intensify  preparations  for  their  INDCs,  to  be  submitted  well   in  advance  of  COP  21  with  no  prejudice  to  legal  character.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Forner  described  the  negotiating  text  as  the  raw  material  for  the  Paris  climate  agreement  –  the   “skeleton”   that   will   eventually   support   the   “meat”   of   countries’   contributions   (actions  Parties  will  undertake  to  contribute  to  the  ultimate  objective  of  the  Convention).      

  5  

• He   highlighted   two   important   outcomes   from   COP   20   in   Lima:   1)   the   Lima   “Call   for   Climate  Action,”  which  includes  language  on  INDCs,  and  2)  draft  elements  of  the  negotiating  text,  which  were  included  in  the  annex  of  the  Lima  Call  for  Climate  Action.  

• He  mentioned   that   the   concept   of   “no   backsliding”   (decreasing   contributions   over   time)   was  adopted   in   Lima,   as   was   an   invitation   to   Parties   to   include   adaptation   undertakings   or  components  in  their  INDCs  if  they  wish.  

• The   Lima   decision   clarified   upfront   information   to   be   included  when   submitting   INDCs   to   the  UNFCCC   Secretariat   to   facilitate   clarity,   transparency,   and   understanding   (see   session   on  Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  below).  

• INDCs   include  the  word  “intended”  because  their   legal  status  and  final   form  –  as  well  as  what  the   final   agreement   will   look   like   –   are   not   yet   known.     Because   INDCs   are   “nationally  determined,”   it   is   important   to  not  wait   for  guidance   from   the  process   (which   is   advancing   in  parallel  with  countries’  INDC  preparations).      

• The   Lima   decision   also   helped   clarify   the   INDC   process   in   2015:   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat   will  publicize   communicated   INDCs   through   an   INDC   online   portal   and   will   prepare   a   synthesis  report  by  1  November  on  the  “aggregate  effect”  of  all  contributions  received  by  1  October.  

• The  Geneva  negotiations   in   February  made  progress  on   the  elements  of   the  draft  negotiating  text,  which  has  now  been  circulated  to  all  Parties.    The  draft  text  gathers  provisions  for  the  Paris  agreement;   is   organized   around   mitigation,   adaptation,   means   of   implementation,  transparency,  and  process-­‐related  aspects;  and  outlines  options   (mostly  on  political   issues   like  differentiation,  legal  character,  etc.).    The  final  text  is  to  be  adopted  at  COP  21  in  Paris.    

UNDP  Mr.   Yamil   Bonduki,   UNDP,   presented   the   objectives   of   the   Thailand   dialogue   (listed   above   in  Introduction),  as  well  as  takeaways  from  the  past   five  Regional  Technical  Dialogues   in  Latin  America  &  the   Caribbean,   Asia-­‐Pacific   &   Eastern   Europe,   and   Africa.     Over   500   participants   have   participated   in  these   dialogues,   including   participants   from   over   110   developing   countries,   9   developed   countries,  multilateral  institutions,  and  other  organizations.    Key  takeaways  from  past  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  on  INDCs:  

• Political  process:  o INDCs   should   reflect   a  diversity  of  national   circumstances,   capacities,   and   capabilities;  

national  priorities  will  determine  contribution  types  and  scope.  o It   is   important   to   secure  a  political  mandate  with   clear  goals  and   timelines,  as  well   as  

defined  roles  and  responsibilities.  o Institutional   arrangements   can   be   defined   using   existing   or   new   structures   (the   lead  

institution,  policy/sectoral  experts,  and  technical  teams  should  be  identified).  o INDCs  should  be  linked  to  development  plans  and  be  fair,  equitable,  and  transparent.  

• Stakeholder  process:  o The  stakeholder  engagement  process  is  critical  to  build  trust,  feed  the  technical  process,  

and  create  mutual  accountability.  o Key  ministries   like   planning   and   finance;   civil   society   and   academic   stakeholders;   and  

the  private  sector  should  be   included  (it   is  not  always  clear  how  to  engage  the  private  sector).  

• Technical  process:  o Countries   can   build   on   existing   information,   efforts,   and   regulations   (e.g.,   national  

communications,   greenhouse   gas   inventories,   biennial   update   reports   (BURs),   Clean  

  6  

Development   Mechanism   (CDM)   projects,   NAMAs,   national   adaptation   programs   of  action  (NAPAs),  development  plans,  LEDS,  and  national  climate  change  laws).      

o It  may  be  helpful  to  map  out  available  information  early  in  the  INDC  process  and  assess  adopted  and  planned  climate-­‐related  initiatives  (for  scaling  up  later).  

o Countries  asserted  that  INDCs  should  include  mitigation,  adaptation,  and  finance.  o More   analysis   is   needed   on   the   feasibility   of   proposed   contributions,   including   co-­‐

benefits.    One  challenge  will  be  striking  a  balance  between  sound  technical  information  and  realistic  goals,  given  the  political  processes  that  exist  in  countries.  

o Countries  should  make  use  of  possible  scenarios   to  determine   the  suite  of  options   for  INDCs   and   prioritize   policies   and   actions  with   the   highest   implementation   and   impact  potential.    

o The  package  of  policies  and  actions  to  be  put  forward  should  be  revisited  as  needed  in  order  to  assess  assumptions  and  pathways  and  ensure  buy-­‐in.  

o Countries  will  need  to  determine  what  could  be  funded  domestically  and  what  could  be  undertaken  with  international  support.  

 Mr.  Bonduki  also  mentioned  an  INDC  guide  that  is  being  developed  by  UNDP  and  WRI,  in  collaboration  with  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  in  response  to  countries’  requests  during  the  Regional  Technical  Dialogues.    This  guide  has  gone  through  a  comment/review  period,  is  now  being  revised,  and  will  be  distributed  to  all   countries   by   the   end   of  March.     The   guide   provides   examples   of   good   practices   and   outlines   key  issues  to  be  considered,  but  it  is  not  meant  to  be  prescriptive  or  prejudge  the  outcomes  of  the  UNFCCC  negotiations.     An   adaptation   chapter   will   also   be   circulated   for   comments   by   the   end   of  March   and  integrated  into  the  INDC  guide  by  the  end  of  April.    Mr.   Bonduki   also   informed   participants   of   a   Global   Support   Programme   (GSP)   funded   by   the   Global  Environment   Facility   (GEF)   and   launched   in   January   2015   to   assist   countries   with   their   national  communications,  BURs,  and   INDCs.    Support   is  available   for  countries   immediately   through  their  STAR  allocations   and   the   GSP   will   run   until   2019   for   national   communications   and   BURs.     (Contacts:  yamil.bonduki@undp.org  and  george.manful@unep.org)      Discussion    In  discussion,  Mr.  Forner   indicated  that   INDCs  are  specifically   linked  to  the  goal  of  the  Convention  but  are  just  a  first  step.    The  aggregate  effect  of  INDCs  received  by  Paris  will  clarify  what  additional  efforts  need   to   be   undertaken   after   Paris.     He   encouraged  Parties   to   put   forward   INDCs   in   time   for   the   synthesis  report   (by   1   October)   and   to   provide   as   much  information   as   possible,   with   the   understanding   that  further  clarification  on  individual  INDCs  may  come  after  Paris.     The   Secretariat   will   not   assess   in   its   synthesis  report  whether  individual  INDCs  are  fair/ambitious,  but  rather   whether   the   aggregate   effect   is   sufficient   to  meet   the   two-­‐degree   goal.     Mr.   Cooper,   UNFCCC  Secretariat,  added  that  the  synthesis  report  will  not  be  the  only  analysis  of  submitted  INDCs.        

  7  

Responding  to  a  question  on  adaptation,  Mr.  Forner  explained  that  he  had  not  heard  concrete  proposals  from  Parties  on  how  to  make  adaptation  components  of  INDCs  quantifiable  and  relate  them  to  the  two-­‐degree  mitigation  goal.    

Session  2:  Recent  Country  Progress  on  INDC  Preparation    

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  provide  a  space  for  countries  to  share  their  national  experiences  and  recent  progress  in  preparing  their  INDCs  since  the  last  Asia-­‐Pacific  &  Eastern  Europe  dialogue.  

Presentations    Philippines  Ms.   Joy   Goco,   Philippines,   presented   several   national   policies   in   the   Philippines   that   will   guide   the  development   of   the   country’s   INDC,   such   as   the   National   Climate   Change   Action   Plan,   and   updated  participants  on  recent  INDC  progress  in  her  country.        Key  messages:  

• The   INDC  process   is  being   coordinated  by   the  Climate  Change  Commission   (CCC),  which   leads  policy-­‐making  on  climate   change   in   the  Philippines.     Institutional   arrangements   include  a   core  technical  working  group  on  mitigation  complemented  by  sectoral  technical  working  groups.  

• The   Philippines   is   in   the   process   of   developing   a   comprehensive   national   climate   change  database,  which  will   include  information  on  GHG  inventories,  mitigation  actions,  and  means  of  implementation  (MOI).    This  will  be  integrated  with  a  monitoring  and  evaluation  system.  

• Ms.   Goco   explained   that   the   CCC   is   carrying   out   capacity   building   on   analytical   tools   and   is  briefing  agencies  to  increase  buy-­‐in.    The  CCC  has  done  a  sectoral  assessment  and  is  planning  to  build  on  past  national  communications  in  developing  the  country’s  INDC.  

• Ms.  Goco  underscored  the  importance  of  engaging  stakeholders  and  the  challenge  of  preparing  an   adaptation   component.     Other   challenges   include   quantifying   emissions   reductions   and  integrating  sustainable  development  indicators  in  mitigation  activities.    

Singapore  Ms.   Evelyn   Khoo,   Singapore,   provided   an   update   on   recent   INDC   progress   in   Singapore,   which   she  described   as   a   small   country   with   a   high   dependence   on   fossil   fuels   and   limited   renewable   energy  potential.    Key  messages:  

• Ms.  Khoo  explained   that  her   country’s  approach   to  preparing   its   INDC   is  guided  by   innovative  solutions  and  pragmatic,  economically  sound  measures.    INDC  preparations  are  also  informed  by  green  growth  technologies,  technical  road  maps,  and  Singapore’s  national  communications  and  first  BUR.  

• Singapore   has   employed   a   “whole-­‐of-­‐government   approach”   to   its   INDC   preparation   and   has  engaged   stakeholders   from   business,   academia,   and   civil   society,   as   well   as   external   experts.    The  country  has  arranged  an  inter-­‐ministerial  committee  on  climate  change  and  working  groups  on  mitigation  and  adaptation.      

  8  

• Ms.  Khoo  mentioned  the  challenge  of  addressing  unknowns  in  the  long  term,  such  as  technology  development,   consumer  demand,  and  market   variability.    Going   forward,   Singapore’s  national  process   will   continue   to   emphasize   political   commitment   and   coordination,   as   well   as  integrated,  long-­‐term  planning.  

 European  Commission  Mr.  Martin  Kaspar,  European  Commission,  presented  on  INDC  progress  in  the  European  Union  (EU)  and  the  current  state  of  play  on  climate  and  energy.    He  stressed  the  EU’s  goals  of  improving  energy  security,  further  decoupling  emissions  from  economic  growth,  and  achieving  significant  economic  co-­‐benefits.    Key  messages:  

• The   EU   has   been   carrying   out   a   national   stakeholder   process   since   2008   to   develop   a   2020  climate  package  and  a  2050  roadmap.    A  decision  in  October  2014  by  European  heads  of  state  increased   the  ambition  of   this  package   for  2030,   resulting   in  a  GHG  target  of   -­‐40%   from  1990  levels  by  2030  (focusing  on  energy-­‐intensive  sectors).    This  GHG  target  is  accompanied  by  a  15%  interconnection   target,   a   target   to   increase  energy  efficiency  by   at   least   27%,   and  a   target   to  achieve  at  least  27%  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  (in  the  same  time  period).  

• A  reformed  Emissions  Trading  Scheme  (ETS)  will  be  the  main  instrument   of   the   European   carbon   market   after   2020,   but  the   -­‐40%   target   will   be   split   between   the   ETS   and   non-­‐ETS  components.     The   ETS   annually   reduces   the   allowance   of  pollution   rights   by   2.2%.     If   a   new   market   mechanism   is  established  post-­‐2020,   resulting  reductions  would  go  beyond  the  EU’s  set  targets.      

• Mr.   Kaspar   mentioned   the   need   for   high-­‐level   political  support  and  the  need  to  reflect  on  national  circumstances   in  preparing   INDCs.    The  EU   is  providing   technical  assistance   to  partner   countries   to   support   INDC   preparation   and   has  developed   a   “modernization   fund”   to   modernize   energy  systems  in  lower  income  member  states.      

• Mr.   Kaspar   asserted   that   INDCs   should   focus   on   mitigation  and   explained   that   the   EU’s   contribution   will   not   include  adaptation  or  finance.  

 Discussion    During  discussion,  Ms.  Goco  and  Ms.  Khoo  both  reiterated  their  countries’  intent  to  engage  the  private  sector  in  INDC  preparations,  responding  to  a  question  from  a  participant.    Mr.  Kaspar  clarified  that  the  EU’s   -­‐40%   target  will   be   domestic   among  member   states,   and   that   international  market  mechanisms  could   take   the   EU   below   this   target.     One   participant   underscored   the   role   of   INDCs   in   triggering   a  broader   discussion   of   development   issues   and   quantification   of   co-­‐benefits.     Mr.   Forner,   UNFCCC  Secretariat,   reacted   to   this   comment   by   saying   that   the   Secretariat   is   requesting   Parties   to   be   as  transparent  as  possible  with  their  INDCs  but  has  heard  very  little  about  quantification  of  co-­‐benefits.            

  9  

Session  3:  National  Processes  to  Inform  INDCs  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   provide   background   information   on   national   processes   that   can  inform  the  preparation  of  countries’   INDCs,  as  well  as  case  studies  of  national  processes   in  participant  countries.     The   session   focused   in   particular   on   institutional   arrangements,   securing   ministerial  mandates,   stakeholder   engagement,   and   challenges   that   countries   are   facing   in   establishing   national  processes  to  inform  INDCs.  

Presentations    UNDP    Mr.   Michael   Comstock,   UNDP,   presented   on   national   processes   to   inform   the   preparation   of   INDCs,  including  process-­‐related  recommendations  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  countries’  INDCs.        Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Comstock  opened  his  presentation  by  highlighting  the  benefits  of   INDCs,   including  making  progress   toward   the   two-­‐degree   goal,   demonstrating   political   commitment,   achieving   non-­‐climate   benefits,   better   integrating   policies,   engaging   stakeholders,   and   strengthening  institutional  processes.  

• He  suggested  several  broad  stages  of  INDC  preparation  and  design:    1) Initiation  –  Securing  a  political  mandate,  engaging  stakeholders,  defining  priorities,  etc.    2) Data   gathering   –   Including   emissions   inventories,   mitigation   potential   of   actions,  

addressing  data  gaps,  etc.  3) Analysis  of  options  –  Formulating  and  analyzing  options  based  on  mitigation  potential,  

costs,  and  other  considerations.  4) Design  of  INDCs  –  Choosing  INDC  type  and  selecting  among  mitigation  options.    5) Communication   of   the   INDC   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat   –   Compiling   upfront  

information  to  transparently  explain  the  INDC.  • Elements   that   can   enhance   INDC   effectiveness   include   national   leadership;   stakeholder  

engagement  (e.g.,  academia,  civil  society,  and  private  sector);  coordination  between  ministries  (including   planning   and   finance   ministries);   clearly   defined   roles   and   responsibilities   (e.g.,  identifying   policy   options   and   collecting   data   on   mitigation   activities,   mitigation   potential,  national  emissions,  and  baseline  scenarios);  and  resources  (e.g.,  human  resources,   institutions,  financial  resources,  and  information  and  technology).    

 Bangladesh    Mr.  Karim  Nurul,  Bangladesh,  spoke  to  his  country’s  national  process  for  preparing  its  INDC,  which  builds  on  a  National  Development  Plan  and  Poverty  Reduction  Strategy.      Key  messages:  

• Mr.   Nurul   explained   that   a   steering   committee   composed   of   ministry   representatives   and  headed   by   the   Permanent   Secretary   of   the   Ministry   of   Environment   and   Forest   is   providing  overall   guidance   on   Bangladesh’s   national   INDC   process.     A   technical   committee   is   providing  technical  inputs  into  the  formulation  of  the  INDC.      

• Bangladesh’s   approach   to   INDC   preparation   includes   the   development   of   GHG   inventories,  analysis  of  mitigation  potential,  GHG  projections,  and  an  assessment  of  support  needs.      

  10  

• The  mitigation  component  of  the  country’s  INDC  will  focus  on  the  energy  sector  and  will  include  an  aspirational,  national,   long-­‐term  emissions  goal   that   takes   into  account  poverty  eradication  and   economic   development.     It   will   emphasize   policies   and   projects   with   significant   GHG  emissions  reduction  potential.    

• Bangladesh’s  INDC  will   include  an  adaptation  component  and  will  specify  international  support  needs   (i.e.,   finance,   technology,  and  capacity  building).    Challenges   include   lack  of   robust  data  for  developing  a  baseline,  difficulties   in  engaging   stakeholders,   and   the  need   to   share   lessons  learned  between  countries.  

• Mr.  Nurul  presented  Bangladesh’s  INDC  work  plan,  which  began  with  an  inception  workshop  in  January  2015.    The  plan  also   includes,  among  other  components,  analysis  of  GHG  projections,  engagement  of   stakeholders,  development  of  mitigation  options,   finalization  of   the   INDC,  and  submission  to  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  (by  September  2015).    

Afghanistan  Mr.   Sediqi   Naqibullah,   Afghanistan,   provided   participants   with   an   overview   of   the   agencies   that   are  coordinating  on  climate  change  in  his  country  and  of  the  country’s  progress  toward  its  INDC.    Key  messages:  

• Afghanistan’s   INDC   will   build   on   current   mitigation   and   adaptation   activities   in   the   country,  including   forestry/sustainable   biomass   energy   efforts,   efficient   irrigation   technology  deployment,  climate-­‐resilient  farming  methods,  and  NAMAs,  among  others.  

• Mr.   Naqibullah   also   explained   that   Afghanistan’s   Climate   Change   Strategy   &   Action   Plan   will  contribute  to  its  INDC.      

• Challenges  the  country  is  facing  include  bringing  environmental  issues  to  the  national  agenda,  as  well  as   low  levels  of  social  awareness,   limited  technical  capacity,   lack  of  proper  environmental  technologies,  and  lack  of  funding.  

 Discussion    During  discussion,  Mr.  Nurul  clarified  that  Bangladesh  intends  for  its  INDC  to  be  a  living  document  that  can  be   revised   in   the   future.     Participants  discussed  differences   in  how  national   INDC  processes  were  initiated,  ranging  from  presidential  mandates  to  emerging  from  the  technical  level.    Several  participants  also   saw   value   in   starting   the   INDC   process   from   the   side   of   developing   planning   and   considering  mitigation  as  a  co-­‐benefit.        Participants  discussed  the  possibility  of  including  land  use  and  forestry  in  INDCs,  as  well  as  the  need  to  “overcome  the  historical  barrier”  between  mitigation  and  adaptation.    Mr.  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  characterized   these   discussions   differently,   saying   that   thinking   on   mitigation   has   simply   developed  faster.     With   the   emergence   of   the   largely   bottom-­‐up   INDC   process,   there   is   now   more   focus   on  adaptation.     He   added   that   countries   are   waiting   for   clarity   from   the   international   process,   but   that  INDCs  must  progress   in  parallel  with  the  negotiations.    He  suggested  Parties  come  forward  with  INDCs  based  on  their  own  understandings  and  provide  as  much  information  as  possible  on  assumptions  used.        Mr.   Cooper,   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   posed   the   question   of   conditioning   contributions   on   receipt   of  international  support.    One  participant  expressed  concern  that  the  Lima  decision  was  unclear  about  the  divide   between  what   should   be   funded   domestically   and  what  may   receive   international   support.     A  

  11  

developed-­‐country  participant  suggested  that  countries  provide  as  much  clarity  as  possible  on  what  can  be  done  nationally  and  what  additional  efforts  can  be  undertaken  continent  upon  support.        

Session  4:  Design  Options  for  INDCs  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  provide  participants  with  an  overview  of  design  options  for  INDCs,  as  well  as   low-­‐carbon  transformative  shifts   that  can  serve  as  a  basis   for  national   INDC  design.    Countries  also   shared   their   experiences   in   choosing   sectors   and   contribution   types,   in   building   from   existing  mitigation  efforts  to  a  national  contribution,  and  in  addressing  challenges  that  are  arising  in  the  design  and  development  of  INDCs.  

Presentations    UN  Economic  and  Social  Commission  for  Asia  and  the  Pacific  Mr.   Raekwon   Chung,   UNESCAP,   presented   on   low-­‐carbon   transformative   shifts   and   green   growth  (decoupling  emissions  and  economic  growth)  as  a  basis  for  designing  INDCs.      Key  messages:  

• Mr.   Chung   asserted   that   the   formulation   of  INDCs   is   an   opportunity   to   take   bold   steps  toward   low-­‐carbon   transformation   in   line   with  national  development  imperatives.    Low-­‐carbon  transformation   requires   a   challenging   of  conventional   policymaking   mindsets   and  fundamental   shifts   to   new   economic  development  paradigms.      

• He   suggested   that   INDCs   are   “changing   the  rules   of   the   game.”     Characteristics   of  transformative   INDC   design   may   include  credible   baselines,   ambitious   targets,  achievement  of  co-­‐benefits,  and  transparency.    Green  growth  efforts  are  becoming  increasingly  prevalent  in  Asia  and  the  Pacific.  

• Mr.   Chung   recommended   changing   the   discourse   on   GHG  mitigation   from   burden   sharing   to  opportunity   sharing.    He  highlighted   the  example  of  a  waste  NAMA  that  produces  $100   in  co-­‐benefits  for  every  ton  of  waste  reduced.  

• Green  growth  strategies  can  result  in  energy  cost  savings,  employment  generation,  innovation,  and  economic  growth,  among  other  benefits.     Sources  of   transformative  emissions   reductions  that   advance   sustainable   development   policy   objectives   include   green   measures   related   to  transport,  urban  planning,  energy  infrastructure,  and  others.  

 World  Resources  Institute  Mr.   Pankaj   Bhatia,   WRI,   provided   participants   with   an   overview   of   different   ways   to   express  contributions,  as  well  as  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each.    He  also  presented  a  “required-­‐by-­‐science”  scenario  to  limit  global  warming  to  two  degrees  Celsius.    

  12  

Key  messages:  • Mr.   Bhatia   asserted   that   emissions   reductions   put   forward   in   INDCs   should   be  

realistic/achievable,   ambitious,   and  aligned  with   the   two-­‐degree  goal.     INDCs   should  prioritize  sectors  based  on  national  inventories  and  may  include  long-­‐term  aspirational  targets  in  addition  to  a  2025  or  2030  target  year.  

• Two  broad  categories  of  contributions  may  be  considered:  actions  and  outcomes.    Actions  can  be   understood   as   intents   to   implement   specific   means   of   achieving   GHG   reductions   (e.g.,  policies  or  mitigation  actions),  while  outcomes  are  an  intent  to  achieve  a  specific  result.    While  outcomes  offer   flexibility   in   achieving   reductions,   are  easier   to   track,   and  enable   aggregation,  they  do  not  necessarily  clarify   the  means  of  achieving  outcomes.    Actions,  on   the  other  hand,  provide  more   clarity   but   are   harder   to   track   and   aggregate.    Mr.   Bhatia   stressed   that   ideally  INDCs  should  communicate  both  what  a  country  intends  to  do  and  what  the  results  will  be.  

• To  put  forward  outcomes  as  contributions,  countries  will  need  to  choose  the  type  of  outcome,  sectors/gases   to   be   included,   the   way   it   will   be   expressed,   and   how   GHG   impacts   will   be  quantified.    Targets  can  be  expressed  as  a  base  year  emissions  goal,  a  baseline  intensity  goal,  a  fixed-­‐level  goal,  or  a  baseline  scenario  goal.      

• In  considering  a  “required-­‐by-­‐science”  scenario,  Mr.  Bhatia  explained  that  the  world  has  already  used  up  52%  of   its  carbon  budget,  and  that   the  remainder  would  be  exhausted   in   the  coming  decades.    The  difficulty  lay  in  translating  this  budget  to  the  national  level.    He  cautioned  that  the  “required-­‐by-­‐science”  conversation  quickly  moves  from  science  to  equity.  

• Mr.   Bhatia   recommended   the   consideration   of   multi-­‐year   contributions,   the   need   for   global  emissions  to  peak  by  2020,  and  long-­‐term  phase  out  of  emissions.  

 Pakistan  Mr.   Sajjad   Ahmad,   Pakistan,   presented   his   country’s   plan   for   preparing   its   INDC.     He   began   his  presentation   by   underscoring   Pakistan’s   extreme   vulnerability   to   climate   change   and   fractional  contribution  to  global  emissions.        Key  messages:  

• Pakistan  sees  INDCs  as  an  opportunity  to  contribute  to  saving  the  world,  to  play  an  active  role  under   the   Convention,   to   build   national   capacity,   to   change   development   pathways,   and   to  protect  the  country  from  climate  risks.      

• Pakistan’s   INDC   will   include   an   adaptation   component,   given   the   country’s   vulnerability   to  climate  change  (which  is  already  impacting  lives,  agriculture,  natural  resources,  etc.).  

• Mr.  Ahmad  mentioned  policy  progress  at  the  national  level  that  will  contribute  to  the  INDC.    He  also  outlined  several  national  climate  actions  (e.g.,  solar  parks,  wind  projects,  resilience  efforts).      

• Pakistan  is  seeking  technical  INDC  assistance,  is  developing  an  INDC  road  map,  and  is  prioritizing  mitigation   and   adaptation   sectors.     A   draft   INDC   is   expected   to   be   available   in   July,   following  consultations,  and  a  final  version  will  be  submitted  in  September  2015.      

• Mr.   Ahmad   spoke   to   Pakistan’s  methodology   for   analyzing   adaptation   and  mitigation   options  and  mentioned  several  INDC-­‐related  challenges,  including  the  need  to  “run  after”  INDC  support.      

 Armenia  Ms.  Diana  Harutyunyan,  Armenia,  presented  on  developments  in  her  country  related  to  the  preparation  of  its  INDC.    She  began  with  a  background  on  national  policies  and  technical  work  that  will  provide  input  into  Armenia’s  contribution.        

  13  

Key  messages:  • Armenia  has  begun  multi-­‐stakeholder  consultations  to  set  goals  and  agree  on  an  INDC  roadmap  

(e.g.,  planning  process,   scope,   target  sectors),  and  has   reached   inter-­‐ministerial  agreement  on  an  implementation  process  for  INDCs.    The  country  is  presenting  the  NAMA  concept  as  a  way  to  translate  LEDS  into  actions,  and  has  approached  bilateral  funders  for  INDC  technical  assistance.      

• Supporting   factors   for   Armenia’s   INDC   include   national   prioritization   of   energy   security  (reducing  reliance  on  imported  fuels),  privatization  of  the  energy  sector,  and  a  legal  framework  that  supports  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy.    Armenia’s   INDC  will  also  build  on  BUR  preparation  and  work  on  NAMAs  and  its  NAP.  

• Among   challenges,   she   mentioned   lack   of   clarity   on   synergies   between   adaptation   and  mitigation;  legal  constraints  in  the  enforcement  of  GHG-­‐reduction  compliance;  and  uncertainty  in  development  planning.        

Discussion    During   discussion,   Mr.   Bhatia   suggested   that   INDCs   are   an   opportunity   for   countries   to   create  investment  proposals  indicating  the  costs  of  undertaking  efforts  and  finance  needed.    He  concluded  that  there   is   flexibility   for   countries   to   determine   the   structure   of   their   INDCs   and   that   sustainable  development  goals  could  be  important  in  framing  INDCs.    Regarding  adaptation,  countries  are  looking  at  options  for  compiling  what  they  are  doing  at  the  national  level,  explained  Mr.  Goldberg  of  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat.    Mr.  Chung  suggested  that  INDCs  are  a  long-­‐term  exercise,  given  the  2025/2030  timeframe.    He  asserted  that  climate  change  planning  cannot  be  separated  from  development  planning  and  that  INDCs  are  just  as   much   political   as   they   are   technical.     Another   participant   added   that   projections   are   always  challenging,  as  everyone  has  a  different  perception  of  what  the  future  will  hold.        Ms.  Harutyunyan  clarified  that  Armenia’s  INDC  will  pull  together  NAMAs  and  its  NAP  and  will  correspond  to   the   country’s   five-­‐year   action   plan.     Mr.   Ahmad   asserted   that   there   should   be   parity   between  mitigation   and   adaptation   components   of   INDCs.     Participants   also   discussed   the   importance   of  communicating  both  GHG  and  non-­‐GHG  outcomes  in  the  context  of  INDCs.        

Session  5:  Data  and  Analysis  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   discuss   the   data   and   analysis   that   may   be   required   for   the  preparation   of   INDCs.     After   an   introductory   presentation   that   emphasized   making   the   best   use   of  existing  information,  countries  presented  their  national  experiences  related  to  data  and  analysis.  

Presentations    World  Resources  Institute  Mr.  Pankaj  Bhatia,  WRI,  opened  this  session  by  providing  an  overview  of  types  of  information,  data,  and  analysis  that  can  be  useful  for  preparing  an  INDC.    He  stressed  that  data  and  analysis  (in  particular  GHG  inventories)   will   serve   as   the   foundation   of   INDCs   and   can   help   ensure   that   INDCs   are  achievable/realistic,  aligned  with  national  priorities,  and  aligned  with  the  two-­‐degree  goal.        

  14  

 Key  messages:  

• Countries  often  have  a  considerable  amount  of  data  and  analysis  already  available  and  should  begin  with  this  information  before  initiating  new,  sometimes-­‐unnecessary  efforts.    Where  data  gaps  exist,  countries  may  be  able  to  use  proxy  data.  

• Types  of  information  that  might  be  necessary  to  have  when  designing  INDCs  include:  pre-­‐2020  emissions-­‐reduction   actions,   national   objectives/priorities,   current   GHG   emissions   profiles   (to  identify  the  highest-­‐emitting  sectors),  current  mitigation  activities  (e.g.,  CDM  projects,  NAMAs),  projections  of  future  business  as  usual  (BAU)  emissions  (sources  exist  for  countries  that  do  not  have  this  information),  an  assessment  of  mitigation  potential,  the  scale  of  reductions  needed  to  meet   the   two-­‐degree   goal,   and   support   needs   to   achieve   further   mitigation.     Mr.   Bhatia  mentioned  potential  sources  of  data  for  each  of  these  and  why  each  is  important.      

• There  are   two  basic  approaches   for   formulating   INDCs:   top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up.    While   top-­‐down   approaches   may   better   take   into   account   global   science   and   consider   the   need   to  aggregate   emissions   reductions,   bottom-­‐up   approaches   may   better   consider   what   is  economically   feasible   in   countries   (useful   resources   for   bottom-­‐up   approaches   may   include  McKinsey,  MARKAL,  MAPS,   the  Long-­‐range  Energy  Alternatives  Planning  (LEAP)  tool,  etc.).    For  the  most  robust  results,  countries  would  ideally  combine  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  approaches.    

• Mr.   Bhatia   explained   that   quantifying   the   GHG   impacts   of   INDCs   is   necessary   to   enable  understanding  and  clarity  of  national  reductions  and  progress  toward  the  two-­‐degree  goal.    Data  needs   for   quantifying   GHG   impacts   will   vary   by   contribution   type.     WRI’s   Mitigation   Goal  Standard  and  Policy  &  Action  Standard  (see  link  to  standards  in  Additional  Resources  on  page  3)  can  help  with  this  process,  for  both  outcome-­‐  and  action-­‐oriented  INDCs.    

 Vietnam  Mr.   Tran   Thuc,   Vietnam,   presented   on   key   processes   for   INDC   preparation   in   Vietnam,   including   a  political  process,  a  technical  process,  and  stakeholder  consultations.        Key  messages:  

• Vietnam’s   political   process   has   established   institutional   arrangements   for   climate   change,  including  an  INDC  drafting  group.    The  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Natural  Resources  is  taking  the  lead  on  the  INDC  and  is  charged  with  assessing  climate  change  mitigation  options.    Mr.  Thuc  mentioned  several  policies  that  will  serve  as  inputs  to  the  country’s  INDC  preparations.  

• On  the  technical  side,  Vietnam’s  process  includes  analyzing  existing  information;  identifying  and  prioritizing  mitigation  and  adaptation  actions;  and  developing  the  INDC.    Mr.  Thuc  presented  a  proposed   structure   for   Vietnam’s   INDC,   including   general   information;   objectives;   mitigation  and  adaptation  contents;  an  MRV  system;  and  advantages  and  disadvantages.  

• Vietnam’s   INDC   will   include   mitigation   targets   (with   separation   between   domestic   and  supported  actions)  that  may  be  revised  after  2020  based  on  new  data  and  international  support.    Adaptation  components  will  include,  among  others,  methodologies  and  assumptions;  an  impact  and   risk   assessment;   identified   vulnerable   sectors/groups;   investments;   adaptation   measures  for  vulnerable  sectors;  common  adaptation  indicators;  and  information  for  tracking.  

• Vietnam  has  carried  out  on  INDC  kick-­‐off  workshop,  stakeholder  consultations,  and  meetings  of  the   core   INDC   team.     INDC  progress   to   date   includes   a   concept   note;   a  work   plan;   a   table   of  contents   for   the   INDC;   and   analysis   on   mitigation,   adaptation,   and   MOI.     A   final   draft   of  Vietnam’s  INDC  is  expected  to  be  completed  by  May  2015.  

  15  

• Among   challenges,  Mr.   Thuc  mentioned  MRV   for   INDCs,   lack   of   guidance,   involvement   of   the  private  sector,  and  the  need  to  make  INDCs  ambitious  but  feasible.    

Australia  Ms.   Katherine   Storey   and   Ms.   Kate   Hancock,   Australia,   presented   on   data   and   analysis   that   are  informing  Australia’s  mitigation  policies  and  targets,  as  well  as  MRV  considerations  and  lessons  learned  from  Australia’s  experiences.    Key  messages:  

• Australia   has   developed   an   extensive   national  GHG  inventory  system  that  draws  on  a  range  of  sources   and   is   constantly   being   improved   to  understand  national  circumstances.    The  system  is   used   for   analysis   and   policy   development;  MRV;  and  reporting.      

• Projections   help   Australia   understand   trends,  emissions   reduction   potential,   and   progress  toward  targets.    These  projections  are  based  on  the   GHG   inventory,   emissions   factors,   and  parameters   such   as   population,   GDP,   and  energy   prices.     Ms.   Storey   and   Ms.   Hancock  explained   Australia’s   approach   to   projecting   emissions   in   various   sectors,  which   is   tailored   to  available  data  and  other  key  factors.      

• Emissions   data   and   analysis   are   a   starting   point   for   determining  mitigation   opportunities,   but  stakeholders  provide  another  important  source  of  information.    To  fully  understand  abatement  potential,  the  scope  of  the  opportunity,  the  technical  potential,  and  the  realistic  adoption  rate  must  be  considered.      

• Legislation   in   Australia   provides   a   comprehensive   framework   for  MRV   of   domestic   emissions  data.    Data  are  published  in  quarterly  and  annual  reports.  

• Among   lessons   learned,   Ms.   Storey   and   Ms.   Hancock   mentioned   that   data   and   analysis   are  never  perfect   (countries  should  aim   for  continual   improvement);   that   sound  data  and  analysis  are   needed   to   inform   policymakers’   decisions   and  monitor   implementation;   that   stakeholder  input  can  improve  data;  and  that  transparency  builds  confidence.      

Discussion    During  discussion,  Mr.  Bonduki,  UNDP,  reminded  participants  that  it  is  possible  to  find  solutions  for  data  gaps  and   formulate  a  credible   INDC.    Mr.  Bhatia   suggested   that  outcome  goals  are  easier   to  calculate  and   recommended   countries   consider   base-­‐year,   base-­‐year   intensity,   or   fixed-­‐level   goals.     One  participant  offered  that  dynamic  baseline  scenario  goals  present  real  challenges  for  countries,  as  well  as  for   the   international   community   in   terms   of   having   confidence   in   what   is   being   committed   (given  changing  projections).    Mr.  Bhatia  conceded  that  aggregation  of  contributions  will  be  challenging,  and  that  the  world  has  high  expectations  for  countries  to  make  INDCs  both  ambitious  and  comparable.    He  said  that  INDCs  should  be  converted  into  a  quantifiable  outcome  if  at  all  possible.      Mr.  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  reminded  participants  that  there  will  not  be  more  guidance  on  INDCs  from  the  COP  this  year,  and  that  there  will  be  little  time  for  analysis  of  the  level  of  ambition  of  individual  

  16  

countries’  contributions.    He  suggested  that  ambition  comes  down  to  a  value  judgment  and  countries’  assessment  of  fairness  (based  on  emissions  per  capita,  marginal  cost,  historical  responsibility,  etc.).        

Session  6:  Data  and  Analysis  (continued)    Japan  Mr.  Junichi  Fujino,  Japan,  reported  on  Japan’s  INDC  progress  and  its  related  work  with  Asian  countries.    He  began  by  explaining   that,  after  achieving   its  Kyoto  target,   Japan’s  emissions  have   increased  due  to  growing   fossil   fuel   use   after   the   2011   Fukishima   nuclear   disaster   (which   halted   nuclear   power  nationwide).    Japan’s  renewable  energy  capacity  has  also  increased  considerably  in  recent  years.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Fujino  discussed  Japanese  climate  policy  in  the  context  of  the  Asia-­‐Pacific  Integrated  Model,  a  simulation  model  that  includes  technology  and  economic  considerations.    Japan  developed  an  interim   report   on   a   GHG  mitigation   roadmap   in   2010   and   also   prepared  marginal   abatement  cost  (MAC)  curves  for  2030  mitigation  options.  

• Mr.  Fujino  mentioned  10  actions  for  Asia  that  have  been  proposed  by  universities  and  institutes  to   halve   global   GHG   emissions   in   2050   (from   1990   levels).     These   include   urban   transport,  building,  energy,  and  agriculture  actions,  among  others.  

• He   offered   personal   views   on   Japan’s   strengths   (e.g.,   Kyoto   Protocol,   rich   experience),  weaknesses   (e.g.,   front-­‐runner’s   anxiety),   opportunities   (e.g.,   leadership,   know-­‐how),   and  threats  (e.g.,  lock-­‐ins)  in  the  context  of  its  INDC.  

• Japan  is  supporting  capacity  building  for  the  preparation  of  other  Asian  countries’  national  GHG  inventories.     Mr.   Fujino   suggested   that   cooperation,   design,   and   imagination   will   result   in   a  sustainable,  low-­‐carbon  Asia.  

 Iran  Mr.   Mohsen   Nasseri,   Iran,   presented   on   data   and   analysis   that   will   inform   the   preparation   of   his  country’s  INDC.    He  began  by  explaining  that  Iran  is  among  the  top  10  emitting  countries,  and  that  most  of  its  emissions  come  from  the  energy  sector  (which  continue  to  increase  with  development).        Key  messages:  

• Iran’s  INDC  will  likely  combine  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  approaches  (as  adopted  in  Iran’s  third  national  communication),  but  this  will  depend  on  data  availability.    Mr.  Nasseri  asserted  that  a  combination  of  approaches  will  capture  technology  evolution  and  macro  aspects.    Iran  has  held  four  meetings  of   its   INDC  advisory   committee  and  will   be   completing  data   sheets   for   sectoral  interventions.      

• He   mentioned   the   contribution   of   Iran’s   national   communications   to   its   INDC   preparations,  including  GHG  mitigation  options  outlined  in  the  initial  national  communication  and  mitigation  scenarios   that  were  defined  as  part  of   its   second  national  communication.    The   INDC  will  also  build  on  Iran’s  low-­‐carbon  policies  and  a  package  of  energy-­‐savings  measures.  

• The   preparation   of   Iran’s   INDC   will   take   a   stepwise   approach   using   data   sheets   and   policy  recommendations   from   Iran’s  national   communications.    Policy  options  will  be   synthesized  by  the  National  Climate  Change  Office,  approved  by  the  National  Climate  Change  Committee,  and  ultimately  approved  by  relevant  ministers.  

  17  

• Mr.  Nasseri  mentioned  the  challenge  of  economic  sanctions,  which  will  constrain  Iran’s  ambition  on  its  INDC.      

 Bhutan  Mr.  Sonam  Dagay,  Bhutan,  framed  his  presentation  with  his  country’s  pledge  to  remain  carbon  neutral  (i.e.,  GHG  emissions  will   remain  below  sequestration  capacity)  and  explained  Bhutan’s  “gross  national  happiness”  policy,  which  emphasizes  environmental  conservation.        Key  messages:  

• Bhutan’s   GHG   inventories   from   its   initial   and   second   national   communications   are   used   to  support   decision-­‐making.     Given   its   carbon   neutrality   pledge,   Bhutan   is   currently   ascertaining  the  sequestration  capacity  of  its  forests.      

• The  country  has  a  national  strategy  and  action  plan  for  low-­‐carbon  development  and  is  currently  developing  NAMAs   (in  municipal   solid  waste,   energy,   and   transport)   and   a   LEDS  with   support  from  UNDP.    Bhutan  plans  to  use  this  previous  work,  as  well  as  its  carbon  neutrality  pledge,  as  the  basis  of  its  INDC.      

• Mr.  Dagay  expressed  that  Bhutan  has   limited  funding  and  has  requested   international  support  for  INDC  preparation.     In  particular,  the  country  has  expressed  a  need  for  capacity  building  for  enhancing  mitigation  actions,  building  on  recommendations  from  the  LEDS.  

• Bhutan   is   undertaking   a   consultative   process   and   plans   to   include   both   mitigation   and  adaptation  in  its  INDC.      

 United  States  Mr.  Reed  Schuler,  U.S.,  presented  on  his  country’s  progress  in  developing  its  INDC,  as  well  as  data  and  analysis   that   have   informed   decisions.     The  U.S.’   INDC  will   build   on   its   Copenhagen   pledge   to   reduce  emissions  in  the  range  of  -­‐17%  from  2005  levels  in  2020.    Strong  policies  in  various  sectors  have  put  the  U.S.  on  track  to  meet  that  target  and,  combined  with  new  policies,  are  expected  to  decrease  emissions  to  26-­‐28%  below  2005  levels  by  2025  (as  recently  announced  by  President  Obama).        Key  messages:  

• The  U.S.  has  employed  a  comprehensive   INDC  approach  to  take  advantage  of  opportunities  to  drive  emissions  reductions  in  all  sectors  and  gases  through  new  and  existing  policies.    The  U.S.  is  doubling  its  pace  of  decarbonization,  and  its  2025  target  is  consistent  with  reductions  of  >80%  by  2050.  

• The  country  has  undertaken   substantial   efforts   to   reduce  uncertainties   in   land   sector   tracking  and  now  expects  to  be  on  an  “optimistic”  pathway  in  terms  of  carbon  sink  potential.    Enhanced  policies   to   bolster   sinks   through   reforestation   and   conservation   will   further   contribute   to  reaching  the  U.S.’  2025  goal.    

• Changes   in   the   energy   sector   have   been   a   significant   factor   in   driving   down   emissions.     Mr.  Schuler  mentioned   several   clean   energy   efforts   and   energy   efficiency   policies   that   the  U.S.   is  undertaking   (e.g.,   use   of   renewable   energy;   building   codes;   private   sector   innovation;   fuel  economy  and  appliance  standards),  as  well  as  efforts  to  reduce  short-­‐lived  climate  pollutants.    

• Mr.   Schuler   explained   that   using   a   target   year   of   2025  will   allow   for  more   certainty   versus   a  longer   timeframe,   and   nearer-­‐term   target   years   enhance   accountability   for  policymakers.    Although  the  U.S.  continues  to  prepare  updated  baselines,  this  will  not  affect  its  target.    

   

  18  

Discussion    In  discussion,  Mr.  Fujino,  responding  to  a  question  about  nuclear  power,  explained  that  nuclear  depends  on  consensus  in  a  given  local  area  and  that  the  role  of  nuclear  going  forward  is  unclear.    He  added  that  Japan  has   robust  economic  and  emissions  data,  making  modeling   rather   straightforward.    Mr.  Nasseri  explained  that  MRV  is  the  basis  for  policies  in  Iran  and  that  the  country  is  completing  its  national  MRV  system  in  2020.    Mr.  Schuler  explained  that  the  U.S.  began  its  INDC  preparations  by  looking  at  baseline  emissions  growth  in   each   sector,   which   was   difficult   for   sectors   such   as   land   use.     He   described   the   U.S.   process   as   a  rigorous   interagency   process   to   identify   and   assess   potential   emission   reductions   that   are   both  achievable  and  cost-­‐effective.    

Session  7:  Adaptation  

Objective    The  objective  of   this   session  was   to  present   case   studies   of   countries’   adaptation   experiences   and   to  discuss  whether/how  countries   intend   to   include  adaptation   in   their   INDCs   in  a  meaningful  way.     The  session  began  with  an  introductory  presentation  by  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat.      

Presentations    UNFCCC  Secretariat  Mr.  Matti  Goldberg,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  provided  an  introduction  on  the  status  of  adaptation  discussions  in  the  UNFCCC  negotiations,  including  related  outcomes  from  the  Lima  COP.    He  began  by  saying  that  the  lack  of  top-­‐down  guidance  from  the  COP  on  adaptation  INDCs  “puts  countries  in  the  driver’s  seat.”    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Goldberg  discussed  the  evolution  of  adaptation  discussions  over  time,  from  vulnerability,  to  NAPAs,  to  a  scaled-­‐up  focus  on  adaptation  at  the  Bali  and  Cancún  COPs  in  particular.    He  explained  that  the  Paris  agreement  will  specify  long-­‐term  adaptation  objectives  and  will  provide  more  detail  on  implementation  through  national  actions,  contributions,  or  commitments.      

• Mr.  Goldberg  presented  several  adaptation  work  streams  (e.g.,  Nairobi  work  programme,  NAPs,  NAPAs,  a  mechanism  for  loss  and  damage,  and  the  Adaptation  Committee)  that  will  provide  inputs  into  adaptation  components  of  INDCs.      

• He  reminded  participants  of  the  Lima  Call  for  Climate  Action,  which  decided  to  strengthen  adaptation  in  the  2015  agreement  and  invited  countries  to  carry  out  a  consultative  process  on  how  adaptation  could  be  included  in  their  INDCs,  if  they  wish  to  do  so.      

• Mr.  Goldberg  offered  ideas  for  conceptualizing  INDCs  (e.g.,  presenting  NAPs  or  a  compilation  of  on-­‐going  efforts),  possible  sources  of  information  (e.g.,  NAPs,  NAPAs,  TNAs,  BURs,  etc.),  possible  preparation  processes  (e.g.,  data  collection  and  analysis),  and  ideas  for  communicating  INDCs  (e.g.,  categories  of  NAP  guidelines).    

     

  19  

Thailand  Mr.  Prasert  Sirinapaporn,  Thailand,  presented  on  his  country’s  INDC  preparations,  focusing  in  particular  on   the   inclusion   of   an   adaptation   component.     INDC   preparations   in   Thailand   have   been   funded   by  Germany,  Australia,  the  GEF,  and  Thailand’s  national  budget,  enabling  stakeholder  consultations  and  a  political  process.        Key  messages:  

• Thailand  has  emphasized  the  interrelationship  between  adaptation  and  mitigation,  as  both  can  help  reduce  climate  change  risks.      

• Thailand   recently   held   an   initial   consultation  on   the   adaptation   component   of   its   INDC  and   is  now  in  a  scoping  phase.    The  country  will  likely  focus  on  ecosystems  and  food  security  and  has  identified  adaptation  measures  in  six  priority  sectors  (e.g.,  tourism,  agriculture,  health,  etc.).    

• Mr.   Sirinapaporn   described   Thailand’s   INDC   approval   process   and   said   the   adaptation  component  will  build  on  several  national  processes  (e.g.,  climate  change  master  plan,  NAP,  TNA,  public  expenditure  review,  etc.).      

• Next   steps   include   further  analysis  of  existing  plans   in  priority   sectors;   identification  of   short-­‐,  medium-­‐,   and   long-­‐term   actions;   identification   of   gaps   and   needs;   and   formulation   of   the  adaptation  component.      

• Mr.   Sirinapaporn   mentioned   several   challenges,   including   lack   of   data   availability;   lack   of  guidance;   and   differences   in   nature   between   adaptation   and   mitigation   components.     He  suggested  the  organization  of  workshops  focused  on  adaptation  components  of  INDCs.      

 Pakistan  Mr.  Sajjad  Ahmad,  Pakistan,  added  to  his  previous  presentation  to  explain   in  more  detail  his  country’s  preparations   of   an   adaptation   component   for   its   INDC.     He   said   there   are   different   translations   of  adaptation  technically  and  politically  and  underscored  the  need  to  make  countries  resilient.    Mr.  Ahmad  reiterated  Pakistan’s   vulnerability   to   climate   change   and   explained   the  need   for   costly   reconstruction  after  damages.    He  described  an  implementation  framework  Pakistan  is  using,  as  well  as  a  point  system  for  quantifying  adaptation  outcomes.      

Discussion    In   discussion   following   the   presentations,   participants   discussed   the   timing   of   possible   adaptation  elements,   considering   the  post-­‐2020   INDC   timeframe.     They   also  brought  up   the  need   for   adaptation  indicators  (e.g.,  percentage  of  populations  that  are  vulnerable,  amounts  invested),  consideration  of  co-­‐benefits,  and  a  possible  link  with  loss  and  damage.        Mr.   Forner,   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   asked   participants   for   ideas   on   the   possible   form   of   adaptation  components  of  INDCs.    One  developing-­‐country  participant  suggested  that  the  adaptation  component  of  his  country’s  INDC  will  be  qualitative  and  will  draw  on  the  country’s  TNA  report,  NAPA  framework,  and  national   communications.     Participants   stressed   that   putting   numbers   to   adaptation   is   more   difficult  than  for  mitigation;  they  expressed  interest  in  Pakistan’s  quantification  of  adaptation.        One   participant   mentioned   several   examples   of   mitigation   co-­‐benefits   resulting   from   adaptation  activities  (e.g.,  reduction  in  methane  from  improved  livestock  management,  increased  carbon  sinks  from  afforestation   efforts   to   address   desertification,   etc.).     Another   offered   that   most   countries   are   just  launching   the  NAP  process   and  are  doing   stocktaking  of   activities   that   could  be   relevant   for  NAPs.    A  

  20  

developing-­‐country   participant   summarized   that   the   world   must   mitigate   both   the   cause   of   climate  change  and  the  impact  of  climate  change.        

Session  8:  Breakout  Group  Discussion  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   provide   countries   with   an  opportunity   to  discuss  challenges  and  opportunities   for   INDC-­‐related  collaboration   (e.g.,   prioritizing   actions,   securing   high-­‐level   political  endorsement,  addressing  priority  sectors,  dealing  with  data  gaps,  etc.)  in   the   Asia-­‐Pacific   &   Eastern   Europe   region.     Participants   were   also  asked   to   identify   specific   types   of   support   that   could   help   facilitate  this  collaboration.    

Reports  Back  from  Groups    Group  1    Group  1  reported  that  INDC-­‐related  challenges  include  the  short  timeframe  for  INDC  preparation;  lack  of  guidelines;   uncertainty   on   adaptation   components;   lack   of   capacity   and   coordination;   poor   data;   the  need   for   long-­‐term   planning;   and   difficulties   in   securing   high-­‐level   buy-­‐in.     Among   opportunities   for  collaboration,   the   group   mentioned   the   sharing   of   experiences,   lessons   learned,   and   best   practices;  discussions   of   common   vulnerabilities;   and   collaboration   after   INDC   submission.     Possible   support   to  facilitate  collaboration  could  include  external  help  in  securing  high-­‐level  buy-­‐in,  as  well  as  support  from  regional  organizations  to  “mobilize  efforts.”    Group  2  Group  2  outlined  similar  challenges,  adding  the  need  to  deal  with  changes  in  government  and  difficulties  in   quantifying   adaptation   and   mitigation   outcomes.     They   also   mentioned   the   need   to   address  uncertainties   in   projections,   which   are   influenced   by   external   factors   like   fuel   prices.     The   group  suggested   that   it   would   be   helpful   to   improve   regional   coordination   of   mitigation   policies   and   to  collaborate  on  trans-­‐boundary  adaptation  measures.    Group  2  underscored  the  usefulness  of  workshops  like   this   one   to   understand   the   level   of   ambition   and   countries’   processes   for   preparing   INDCs.     The  group  suggested  additional  workshops  later  in  the  year,  and  possibly  asking  countries  to  do  “homework”  before  the  workshops.    They  also  mentioned  sharing  of  experiences  on  projections  and  data/analysis.    Group  3    Group  3  added  to  the  list  of  challenges  conflicts  between  political  priorities,   lack  of  MRV  capacity,  and  the   need   to   communicate   that  mitigation   does   not   necessarily   represent   a   burden.     They   reiterated  previous   groups’   concerns   about   adaptation   and   quantification   of   results.     Group   3   suggested   the  formation   of   an   “INDC   Club   2015,”   which   would   serve   as   a   regional   platform   for   collaboration   and  solution   sharing.    One   element   of   this   could   include   technical/financial   support   among  members   and  possibly  a  regional  INDC  format.        Group  4  Group  4  mentioned  lack  of  clarity,  data  gaps,  and  gaining  public  support  among  the  biggest  INDC-­‐related  challenges  being  faced.    In  terms  of  collaboration,  the  group  mentioned  that  it  would  be  useful  to  focus  

  21  

efforts  on  countries  that  have  similar  INDC-­‐related  questions  and  challenges.    Possible  collaboration  in  the   region   could   include   tools   for   analysis   and   the   formation   of   expert   networks   for   technical  collaboration.        Discussion    In   discussion   following   the   groups’   reports,   one   participant   highlighted   the   usefulness   of   sharing  solutions   instead   of   information.     Participants   discussed   the   possibility   of   regional   collaboration   to  address   specific   challenges   and   the   possibility   of   receiving   support   from   early   INDC   submitters.     One  participant  underscored  the  need  to  address  transparency/MRV  and  the  possibility  of  including  actions  that  are  conditional  upon  support.    Participants  also  discussed  the  need  to  identify  dedicated  INDC  focal  points  in  countries  in  the  context  of  establishing  regional  collaboration  platforms.      

Session  9:  Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  (Upfront  Information)  

Objective    The  objective  of   this   session  was   to  discuss  possible  upfront   information  –  elaborating  on  guidance   in  the   Lima   COP   decision   –   that   will   need   to   be   communicated   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat   in   order   to  facilitate  understanding  of  countries’  (mitigation)  INDCs.      

Presentations    World  Resources  Institute  Mr.  Pankaj  Bhatia,  WRI,  elaborated  on  the  Lima  COP  decision  in  presenting  possible  upfront  information  to   be   provided  when   communicating   (mitigation)   INDCs   to   the  UNFCCC.     He   explained   that   the   Lima  decision  helped  clarify  what  a  transparent  INDC  might  look  like.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Bhatia  recalled  the  Warsaw  COP  decision  and  explained  that  upfront   information  will  help  facilitate  clarity,  transparency,  and  understanding  of  individual  contributions,  and  will  enable  an  assessment   of   whether   countries’   INDCs   are   collectively   sufficient   to   meet   the   global   two-­‐degree   goal.     Upfront   information   can   also   be   useful   for   comparing   across   diverse   INDCs,  facilitating  domestic  implementation,  and  identifying  common  MRV  or  accounting  rules.  

• Categories  of  information,  as  agreed  in  Lima,  include  the  following  (with  suggested  elaboration  from  WRI  following  each  point):  

1) Quantifiable  information  on  reference  point  –  Base  year  emissions,  base  year  emissions  intensity,  or  projected  baseline  scenario  emissions  (as  relevant).  

2) Timeframes/periods   for   implementation  –  Target  year  or  period  and  long-­‐term  target  (if  applicable).  

3) Scope/coverage  –  Sectors,  GHGs,  and  percentage  of  national  emissions  covered.  4) Planning  processes  –  Existing  or  planned  domestic  policies,  actions,  or  targets  that  will  

support  implementation  of  the  mitigation  contribution.  5) Assumptions/methods   –   If   applicable:   assumed   inventory  methodologies;   information  

about   the   use   of   international   market   mechanisms   (e.g.,   quantity   of   transferable  emissions   units,   types/years   of   units);   information   on   accounting   for   the   land   sector  (e.g.,   treatment  of   the  sector,  coverage  of   land-­‐use  activities,  accounting  approach   for  

  22  

the   sector);   for   GHG-­‐reduction   targets   relative   to   a   projected   baseline   scenario,  information   on   whether   static/dynamic,   cut-­‐off   year   for   included   policies,   projection  method,   emissions   drivers/assumptions,   etc.;   for   GHG-­‐reduction   targets   relative   to  emissions  intensity,  information  on  projected  emissions  intensity  in  target  year/period,  data  sources;  and   for  policies/actions  put   forward  as   INDCs,   information  on  estimated  effect   of   emissions   (ex-­‐ante),   methodologies   used,   uncertainty   of   estimated   effects,  potential  interactions  with  other  policies/measures,  etc.  

6) How   Party   considers   its   INDC   is   fair   and   ambitious   and   contributes   to   objective   of  Convention   –   Comparison   of   INDC   to   multiple   indicators   of   fairness   (e.g.,   emissions  responsibility,  economic  capacity,  relative  costs,  etc.);  comparison  of  INDC  to  multiples  indicators  related  to  ambition  (e.g.,  projected  BAU  emissions,  total  mitigation  potential,  etc.);  and  comparison  of  the  INDC  to  indicators  such  as  anticipated  national  emissions  if  the  contribution   is  achieved,  quantified  GHG   impact  of   the   INDC,   long-­‐term  mitigation  goals,  and  other  factors.  

7) Other  –  Detailed  description  of  contribution,  additional  mitigation  actions  that  could  be  achieved  with  other  support,  etc.  

• Mr.  Bhatia  presented  an  example  of  an  INDC  submission  and  invited  participants  to  participate  in   WRI’s   Open   Book   project,   which   seeks   to   promote   transparency   (see   link   to   project   in  Additional  Resources  on  page  3).  

 NewClimate  Institute  Ms.   Frauke   Roeser,   NewClimate   Institute,   presented   on   considerations   for   assessing   the   ambition   of  INDCs  (taking  into  account  different  contribution  types,  countries’  level  of  economic  development,  etc.)  and  on  justifying  ambition  of  INDCs  in  the  context  of  upfront  information  to  be  included  in  INDCs.    Key  messages:  

• Ms.  Roeser  explained  that  one  step  of  developing  INDCs  is  evaluating  ambition,  which  will  be  a  self-­‐assessment  based  on  each  country’s  vision  of  the  world  (e.g.,  emissions  per  capita,  marginal  cost,  historical  responsibility,  etc.),  as  Mr.  Forner  suggested  in  Data  &  Analysis.      

• She  presented  a  table  of  types  of  INDCs  and  what  each  type  would  mean  in  terms  of  ambition  for  countries  with  high,  medium,  and  low  capabilities.    She  suggested  that  a  very  ambitious  INDC  could  include  a  combination  of  long-­‐term  and  short-­‐term  goals,  as  well  as  underlying  policies.  

• Options   for   assessing   ambition   include   a   comparison   to   BAU   (implies   uncertainties   because   it  relies  on  interpretations  of  the  future),  to  global  effort  sharing  (equity),  to  mitigation  potential,  to   decarbonization   indicators,   or   to   good   practice   policy   packages.     Ms.   Roeser   presented  examples  of  each  of  these  options  and  indicated  that  some  options  are  more  suitable  for  certain  contribution  types  (although  ideally,  INDCs  would  consider  all  these  factors).      

• She  concluded  that  an  assessment  of  ambition  allows  for  comparison  of  countries’  offers  in  the  international  process  and  also  supports  countries’  domestic  INDC  processes.    She  recommended  that   countries   be   as   transparent   as   possible   and   said   that   the   complexity   of   analysis   for   the  options  above  can  be  adjusted  according  to  the  availability  of  data  or  capacity  of  a  country.  

 Cambodia  Mr.   Kamal   Uy,   Cambodia,   presented   on   his   country’s   progress   in   preparing   its   INDC.     He   framed   his  presentation   by   stressing   that   Cambodia   is   an   LDC   that   takes   climate   change   seriously   within   its  development  agenda.      

  23  

Key  messages:  • Mr.   Uy  mentioned   several   existing   policies   and   strategies   that   will   serve   as   a   foundation   for  

Cambodia’s  INDC,  including  a  2013-­‐2023  climate  change  strategic  plan.    As  part  of  the  strategic  plan,  Cambodia  has  engaged   line  ministries  and  other   stakeholders   in  a  participatory  process.    This  plan  was  published  following  thorough  consultation,  political  review,  and  validation.  

• The  INDC  preparation  process  in  Cambodia  is  now  in  an  initial  phase  of  determining  institutional  arrangements.     The   country   has,   however,   developed   a   tentative   work   plan   for   INDC  preparation,  has  approached  UNEP  to  assist  with   INDC  preparations,  and   intends  to  submit   its  INDC  in  September.    The  INDC  will  include  mitigation,  adaptation,  and  MOI  needs.  

• Among  challenges,  Mr.  Uy  mentioned  the  short  timeframe  for  INDC  preparation  and  the  lack  of  data,  institutional  capacity,  stakeholder  engagement,  and  INDC  guidance.      

 Indonesia  Mr.  Medrilzam,   Indonesia,   reported  on   Indonesia’s   INDC  approach  and  challenges,   in  particular   in   the  context  of  preparing  upfront  information.    He  underscored  that  climate  policy  should  be  integrated  into  national  development  programs,  as  indicated  in  Article  3.4  of  the  UNFCCC.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Medrilzam  highlighted   Indonesia’s   2009  pledge   to   reduce  emissions  by  26%   from  BAU  by  2020  (up  to  41%  with   international  support).    He  explained  that   Indonesia’s   INDC  will  build  on  the  country’s  mitigation  policy  (RAN-­‐GRK).      

• Mr.   Medrilzam   underscored   that   the   INDC   will   be   based   on   rigorous   scientific   policy  assessments  using  the  latest  available  data  and  will  emphasize  non-­‐climate  benefits  and  policy  integration.    For  the  time  being,  Indonesia  does  not  intend  to  include  adaptation  in  its  INDC  due  to  the  additional  burden  this  would  entail  and  the  lack  of  clarity  on  adaptation.  

• He  explained   the  conceptualization  of   the  RAN-­‐GRK   review  and   Indonesia’s   INDC,  as  well   as  a  tentative  roadmap  for   INDC  preparation.     Indonesia’s   INDC  approach  will   include  developing  a  baseline,   determining   the   emissions   impact   of   the   2010-­‐2014   RAN-­‐GRK,   reviewing   proposed  policy  interventions,  reviewing  the  2020  target,  and  defining  a  new  INDC  target  (to  be  submitted  by  September).    

• Going   forward,   Indonesia   will   use   development   planning   as   an   entry   point   for   talking   with  ministries   and   decision-­‐makers,   will   streamline   climate   change   databases,   and   will   conduct  capacity  building  for  line  ministries  (focused  in  particular  on  modeling).      

 Discussion    During   discussion,   participants   requested   similar   guidance   on   upfront   information   for   adaptation  components   of   INDCs.     Mr.   Bhatia   reiterated   that   an   adaptation   chapter   of   the   INDC   guidance   is  currently  being  developed.    Mr.  Goldberg,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,   suggested   that   several   components  of  paragraph   14   of   the   Lima  decision   could   be   relevant   to   adaptation   as  well.    He   added   that   a   pool   of  options   exists   for   expressing   adaptation   components   and   that   countries   should   choose   options   that  work  best  for  their  national  circumstances.    In  responding  to  a  question,  Ms.  Roeser  responded  that  the  first  step  in  assessing  ambition  should  be  to  seek  clarity  on  the  type  of   INDC  to  be  submitted.    She  conceded  that  countries’  “visions  of  the  world”  will   be   inherently   subjective   and   will   present   difficulties   in   reaching   consensus.     Mr.   Medrilzam  elaborated  on  his  presentation  by  explaining   that   Indonesia  has  a   long-­‐term  development  plan   (2005-­‐

  24  

2025)   and   clarified   that   the   INDC   submission   itself   will   not   have   legal   status   (although   national  mitigation  policies  will).        

Session  10:  Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  provide  participants  with  an  opportunity  to  draw  on  dialogue  sessions  and  to  think  through  the  preparation  of  an  INDC  by  serving  as  “advisors”  to  a  hypothetical  country.    Participants  were  provided   with   background   information   about   the  country   of   “Candor,”   including   its   emissions   profile,  development   priorities,   and   existing   mitigation  measures.     In   small   groups,   they   came   up   with  recommendations   on   the   type   of   INDC   Candor   should  put   forward   and   sectors   that   should   be   prioritized.    Participants  also  discussed  additional  data  and  analysis  that   would   be   helpful   for   designing   the   details   of  Candor’s   INDC   and   information   that   would   be   needed  to   address   ambition,   fairness,   and   alignment   of   the   INDC   with   Candor’s   development   goals   and   the  ultimate  objective  of  the  Convention.    (The  INDC  Exercise  can  be  found  in  Annex  III  of  this  report.)  

Reports  Back  from  Groups    Group  1  Group  1’s  sectoral  recommendations  for  the  country  of  Candor  focused  on  energy  and  agriculture  due  to  the  sectors’  potential  to  achieve  mitigation  and  adaptation  benefits  and  advance  development  goals  (e.g.,   food   security,   poverty   reduction).     The   group   recommended   a   combination   of   mitigation   and  adaptation  (despite  the  lack  of  information  on  adaptation  and  vulnerability)  and  a  baseline  approach  to  maximize  flexibility.    Group  1  debated  whether  to  include  sectoral  goals  in  Candor’s  INDC.    With  regards  to  data  and  analysis,  they  reported  that  it  would  be  useful  to  analyze  capacity  and  assess  technology  and  costs  of  mitigation  options.    The  group  suggested  policies   in   renewable  energy,  energy  efficiency,  and  REDD+,  and  recommended  a  general  framework  to  pull  together  all  of  Candor’s  goals.    The  group  was  confident   that   Candor’s   INDC   would   be   aligned   with   the   Convention,   overly   ambitious,   and   fair   (if  international  support  for  capacity  building  were  received).        Group  2  Similar  to  the  first  group,  Group  2  recommended  that  Candor  focus  on  energy  and  agriculture,  as  other  sectors  may  not  be  suitable  for  the  country’s  INDC.    The  group  focused  a  great  deal  on  the  data  provided  and  performed  a  sophisticated  analysis  of  mitigation  scenarios.    They  categorized  Candor  as  an  LDC  with  potential  for  reductions  in  the  energy  sector.    Group  3  Group   3   reported   that   they   recommended   Candor   focus   on   all   sectors   in   its   INDC,   explaining   that  climate   change   is   a   long-­‐term   process   that   should   accommodate   all   sectors.     The   group   also  recommended  multiple   types  of  contributions,   including  policy  strategies,   to  maximize  climate  change  

  25  

action.     They   also   suggested   the   inclusion  of   both  mitigation   and  adaptation   components   in  Candor’s  INDC.        Group  4  Group  4  based  its  sectoral  recommendations  to  Candor  on  what  was  most  achievable  and  beneficial  to  the   country,   which   resulted   in   a   prioritization   of   the   energy   and   agriculture   sectors.     In   discussing  contribution  types,  the  group  suggested  Candor  consider  sectoral  targets  or  a  national  target  to  reduce  emissions  from  BAU  (perhaps  conditional  upon  receipt  of  international  support).    The  group  mentioned  the  need  for  more  data  on  mitigation  potential  and  stressed  that  Candor  is  “punching  above  its  weight”  with  rather  ambitious  goals  for  its  level  of  development.        Discussion    In  discussion,  Mr.  Comstock,  UNDP,  asked  participants  about  the  usefulness  of  this  exercise  in  informing  their  national  INDC  preparations.    Participants  felt  that  it  was  useful  for  mitigation  components  of  INDCs  but  did  not  include  adaptation  questions.    Mr.  Bonduki,  UNDP,  reiterated  that  the  exercise  was  intended  to   simulate   initial   stages   of   INDC  discussions.    One  participant   lauded   the   flexibility   countries   have   in  choosing  actions  according  to  national  circumstances.    Another  expressed  that  it  was  interesting  to  get  a  sense  of  various  solutions  given  limited  data.    

Session  11:  Panel  Discussion:  Brainstorming  the  Way  Forward  on  INDCs  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  brainstorm  key  issues  for  the  2016-­‐2020  period,  potential  capacity-­‐building  needs  of   developing   countries   in   this   period,   and  possible   areas  where   international   support  from  developed   countries   could   help   fulfill   these   needs.    Mr.   Bonduki,  UNDP,   underscored   that   INDC  work  does  not  end  with  INDC  submission  to  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat.    Instead,  it  is  the  beginning  of  work  to  come  after  the  Paris  COP.      

Panel  Discussion    Nepal  Mr.  Ram  Prasad  Lamsal,  Nepal,  explained  that  Nepal  plans  to  submit  a  qualitative   INDC.    He   indicated  that,  as  an  LDC  with  considerable  development  needs,  Nepal  will   require   INDC  support   from  both   the  national  government  and  international  sources  when  moving  into  the  INDC  implementation  phase.    He  mentioned   that   technical  assistance   for  data  analysis  –  as  well  as  assistance   in  developing   institutions  and  harmonizing  content,  process,  science,  and  politics  –  will  be  needed.        Cyprus  Ms.   Christina   Pitta,   Cyprus,   spoke   to   her   country’s   priorities   and   needed   capacity   building   assistance.    She  explained  that,  as  a  member  of  the  EU,  Cyprus  will  be  part  of  the  EU  target.    She  asserted  that  INDCs  should   be   primarily   about   mitigation   and   explained   Cyprus’   assumptions   and   methodological  approaches.            

  26  

Georgia  Mr.  Kakhaber  Mdivani,  Georgia,   explained   that  his   country   is   finalizing   its   LEDS  and  has  prioritized  an  economic   action   plan.     Priorities   after   the   Paris   COP   will   include   finalizing   Georgia’s   third   national  communication,   developing   an   INDC   roadmap,   enhancing   its   data-­‐gathering   system,   assessing   INDC  benefits,  and  developing  a  national  MRV  system.    Georgia  plans  to  do  a  vulnerability  assessment  and  will  create   a   coordinating   platform   to   address   future   climate   change   action.     The   country   is   currently  requesting  capacity  building  support  for  the  above  activities.    Nauru  Mr.  Reagan  Moses,  Nauru,  remarked  that  the  post-­‐2015  period  will  be  about  implementation  of  INDCs,  which  will  be  reflected  in  Nauru’s  national  action  plan  along  with  NAMAs  and  an  energy  roadmap.    He  explained  that  Nauru  plans  to  submit  a  qualitative  INDC  with  non-­‐GHG  outcomes  such  as  energy  targets.    Nauru  is  challenged  by  limited  capacity  (with  only  one  person  in  the  climate  change  unit)  and  considers  INDCs  an  additional  reporting  burden.    Mr.  Moses  suggested  that  Nauru  move  away  from  this  thinking  and  focus  on  opportunities  in  order  to  submit  its  INDC  before  Paris.    International  support  between  2016  and   2020   could   help   build   human   capacity   and   show   how   MOI   can   increase   ambition.     Specific  challenges   include   lack   of   renewable   energy   expertise   and   the   need   to   capture   Nauru’s   INDC   in   its  energy  roadmap.    Discussion    In  discussion  following  the  panelists’  interventions,  Mr.  Bonduki,  UNDP,  summarized  that  countries  see  a   need   to   include   stakeholders;   link   science   and   politics;   align   INDCs  with   investment/finance   needs;  strengthen   institutions;   and   receive   technical   assistance   for   data   generation/compilation   and   MRV  systems.    Mr.  Cooper,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  stressed  that  many  LDCs  are  facing  the  same  constraints  as  Nauru   in   dealing  with   staff   shortages   and   the   burdens   of   everyday  work.    Mr.  Mdivani   spoke   to   the  transformation   of   the   UNFCCC   that   is   happening,   in   which   developing   countries   are   moving   toward  commitments.     Participants   called   for   finance   pledges   from   developed   countries   and   Mr.   Bonduki  mentioned  a  number  of  other  relevant  financing  sources.        

Closing  Remarks    Ms.  Angkana  Chalermpong,  Thailand,  thanked  participants  for  coming  to  Thailand.    Mr.  Cooper,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,   expressed   appreciation   to   the   government   of   Thailand   and   encouraged   Parties   to   submit  INDCs   before   the  October   1   deadline   for   the   synthesis   report.     He   asserted   that   Paris   needs   to   be   a  monumental   point   in   history   and   that   INDCs   are   one   of   the   cornerstones.     Mr.   Bonduki,   UNDP,  expressed   his   thanks   to  meeting   participants,   the   host   government,   the  UNFCCC   Secretariat,   and   the  UNDP   Thailand   country   office.     He   reiterated   UNDP’s   readiness   to   support   countries  with   their   INDC  preparations  and  hoped  that  this  series  of  INDC  dialogues  had  contributed  to  countries’  understanding  of  INDCs.        

  27  

Annexes  

Annex  I:  Participant  List    

Name Country/ Organization Ministry/Institution E-mail

Agus GUNAWAN Indonesia Ministry of Environment and Forestry gunawanagus@gmail.com

Ahmed WAHEED Maldives Ministry of Environment and Energy

ahmed.waheed@environment.gov.mv

AKBOTA MENDIGARINA Kazakhstan JSC “ZHASYL DAMU” akbotam@alumni.american.edu Akihito Kono UNDP Thailand akihito.kono@undp.org Akiko Urakami Japan Ministry of the Environment akiko_urakami@env.go.jp

AKMAL YUSRA Brunei Darussalam

Angie Ng Singapore National Climate Change Secretariat Angie_ng@nccs.gov.sg

Angkana Chalermpong Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning

angkana.chalermpong@gmail.com

Antony GARAE LIU Vanuatu Department of Energy gantony@vanuatu.gov.vu; garaeantony@gmail.com;

Anuporn Wanwisade Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning ed_anuporn@hotmail.com

Asfaazam Kasbani Malaysia UNDP asfaazam.kasbani@undp.org Asya Muradyan Armenia Ministry of Nature Protection as.muradyan@mail.ru;

Bariz Mehdiyev Azerbaijan Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources barizali@gmail.com;

Bundit Limmeechokchai Thailand Thammasat University bundit@siit.tu.ac.th

Butchaiah Gadde UNDP Bangkok Regional Centre butchaiah.gadde@undp.org

Chalotorn Kansuntisukmongkol Thailand Thammasat University chalotorn@econ.tu.ac.th

Ching Tiong TAN Malaysia Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

tan.nre@1govuc.gov.my; tctiong@gmail.com

Chloe Moulins France French Embassy in Thailand Chloe.MOULINS@dgtresor.gouv.fr

Chontichaprin Nithitsuttibuta Thailand chontichaprin.n@gmail.com

Christina Pitta Cyprus

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment cpitta@environment.moa.gov.cy

Claudio Forner UNFCCC Secretariat cforner@unfccc.int

COLLIN BECK Solomon Islands Permanent Mission of Solomon Islands to the UN cbeck@solomons.com;

Conrado HERUELA UNEP ROAP Conrado.heruela@unep.org Diana HARUTYUNYAN Armenia Diana@nature.am;

Donald Cooper UNFCCC Secretariat dcooper@unfccc.int Dulani NANAYAKKARA Sri Lanka

Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy dulani.hnk@gmail.com

Eunhae Jung Republic of Korea Eunhae_jeong@hotmail.com;

  28  

trees@korea.kr Eva Trainee Belgium Belgian Embassy in Thailand Evadehaes@hotmail.com

Evelyn Khoo Singapore National Climate Change Secretariat Evelyn_khoo@nccs.gov.sg

FATIMAH LAMAT Brunei Darussalam Ministry of Development fatimah.lamat@mod.gov.bn

Frauke ROESER NewClimate Institute f.roeser@newclimate.org George Manful UNEP George.Manful@unep.org Hala RAZIAN UNESCAP razian@un.org Heiner von Luepke Germany GIZ GIZ Heiner.luepke@giz.de

HIEU NGUYEN KHAC Vietnam

Department of Meteorology Hydrology and Climate Change ngkhachieu@yahoo.com

Jenni Lundmark European Commission Jenni.Lundmark@ec.europa.eu Jerome MALAVELLE UNEP jerome.malavelle@unep.org Joao ALELUIA UNESCAP aleluia@un.org Joel Scriven UNDP Thailand joel.scriven@undp.org JOYCELINE GOCO Philippines Climate Change Comission joy.goco@yahoo.com Ju Youn Kang Republic of Korea jykang@kei.re.kr Julie TENG UNDP Thailand julie.teng@undp.org

Junichi FUJINO Japan National Institute for Environmental Studies fuji@nies.go.jp

Kakhaber Mdivani Georgia Ministry of Environment and Natural Resource Protection kakhamdivani@gmail.com;

Kamal UY Cambodia Ministry of Environment kamaluy@hotmail.com KANYASORN TANSUBHAPOL United Kingdom British Embassy in Thailand

Kanyasorn.tansubhapol@fco.gov.uk

Kareff Refisura UNESCAP refisura@un.org

Karim Nurul Bangladesh Ministry of Environment & Forests nurul_karim96@yahoo.com;

Kate Hancock Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade kate.hancock@dfat.gov.au

Katherine Storey Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Katherine.storey@dfat.gov.au

Khalid Aboumaali Qatar khalid.aboumaali@gmail.com

Khizer Omer

Climate & Development Knowledge Network komer@lead.org.pk

Kireua BUREIMOA Kiribati Ministry of Public Works and Utilities director@mpwu.gov.ki;

Kollawat Sakhakara Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning skollawat@gmail.com

Lachlan Cameron

Energy Reseach Center of the Netherlands cameron@ecn.nl

Luc Stevens UNDP Thailand Martin KASPAR European Commission Martin.Kaspar@ec.europa.eu Masakazu ICHIMURA UNESCAP ichimura@un.org Matti Goldberg UNFCCC Secretariat mgoldberg@unfccc.int Medrilzam Medrilzam Indonesia

National Development Planning Board (BAPPENAS)

medrilzam.medrilzam@gmail.com; medril@bappenas.go.id

Michael Comstock UNDP michael.comstock@undp.org Mohsen Nasseri Iran Department of Environment mm_nasseri@yahoo.com; Munojat Uzbekistan Centre of mg.ishankulova@yandex.com

  29  

Ishankulova Hydrometeorological Service at the Cabinet of Ministers

Muzaffar SHODMONOV Tajikistan

State Administration for Hydrometeorology

mshodmonov@gmail.com; cc_center@meteo.tj

Naqibullah Sediqi Afghanistan National Environment Protection Agency naqib_sediqi@yahoo.com;

Natthanich Asvapoosikul Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning natthan.asv@gmail.com

Nicolas NIHON Belgium Belgian Embassy in Thailand nicolas.nihon@diplobel.fed.be Nobue AMANUMA UNESCAP amanuma@un.org

Noora ALAAMER Bahrain Supreme Council for Environment nalamer@sce.gov.bh

NOORHADINI SAINI Brunei Darussalam Ministry of Development

noorhadini.saini@env.gov.bn; noorhadini.hjsaini@gmail.com

Oliver GRANDVOINET France French Development Agency grandvoineto@afd.fr

Pankaj Bhatia World Resources Institute Pankaj@wri.org

Pathitta Thumcharoen Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning p_thumcharoen@hotmail.com

Pattarachit Gozzoli Thailand Pierre-Louis RENARD Belgium Belgian Embassy in Thailand

Pierre-Louis.Renard@diplobel.fed.be

Prasert Sirinapaporn Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning prahpart@yahoo.com

Prudchadee Boonnak UNDP Thailand nongpuddee@yahoo.com Qiyan Terence TAN Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs Terence_Tan@mfa.gov.sg Raekwon Chung UNESCAP chung1@un.org RAM PRASAD LAMSAL Nepal

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

rplamsal1@yahoo.com; rplamsal@moste.gov.np

Ranping Song World Resources Institute rsong@wri.org

Reagan Moses Nauru Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Environment reagan.moses@gmail.com;

Reed Schuler United States Department of State SchulerRM@state.gov RENNIER GADABU Nauru

Permanent Mission of Nauru to the UN Nivea2069@gmail.com;

Saad AL-HITMI Qatar SAJJAD Ahmad Pakistan Ministry of Climate Change sajjadpirzada@hotmail.com Sandra Khananusit Asia LEDS Partnership Sandra.Khananusit@icfi.com Sandrine Staffolani France

Sarocha Roonsiri Thailand

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning pink_sarocha@hotmail.com

Sivach Kaewcharoen Thailand sivachk@gmail.com

Sonam DAGAY Bhutan National Environment Commission sonamdagay@nec.gov.bt

Sudhir Sharma UNEP DTU Partnership surd@dtu.dk

Sutthiya CHANTAWARANGUL European Commission

Delegation of the EU to Thailand

Sutthiya.Chantawarangul@eeas.europa.eu

Syamphone SENGCHANDALA Laos

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment syamphone.s@gmail.com

  30  

THAN AYE THAN AYE Myanmar

Environmental Conservation Department, Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry thanaye.env@gmail.com

Thomas Day NewClimate Institute t.day@newclimate.org

THUC TRAN Vietnam

Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate Change

thuc@netnam.vn; tranthuc.vkttv@gmail.com

Timothy Boyle UNDP Thailand timothy.boyle@undp.org Tutiya Buabuttra UNDP Thailand tutiya.buabuttra@undp.org Usman Tariq UNEP tariq@un.org        

  31  

Annex  II:  Agenda    

SECOND  REGIONAL  TECHNICAL  DIALOGUE  ON    INTENDED  NATIONALLY  DETERMINED  CONTRIBUTIONS  (INDCs)    

-­‐  ASIA-­‐PACIFIC  &  EASTERN  EUROPE  -­‐    

Bangkok,  Thailand  24-­‐26  February  2015  

(Optional  WRI  workshop  on  27  February  2015)    

Venue:  Landmark  Hotel  (7th  floor  ballroom)  138  Sukhumvit  Road    

http://www.landmarkbangkok.com/overview  Tel:  (+66)  2  254  0404  

 AGENDA  

 Participants:  Country  representatives  from  the  Asia-­‐Pacific  &  Eastern  Europe  region,  developed  countries,  multilateral  and  bilateral  agencies,  regional  organizations,  and  resource  experts.      Objectives:  

• Share  country  experiences  with  the  design  and  preparation  of  their  Intended  Nationally  Determined  Contributions  (INDCs)  

• Share  information  on  challenges  being  faced  and  identify  lessons  learned  and  best  practices  to  address  these  challenges  

• Address  issues  related  to  the  underlying  technical  basis  required  to  prepare  robust,  realistic,  and  achievable  contributions  

• Identify  support  needed  to  reach  domestic  agreement  on  contributions  and  follow-­‐up  actions    • Provide  an  update  on  the  process  of  preparing  INDCs  and  share  newly  identified  challenges  

 TUESDAY,  24  FEBRUARY    

8.30-­‐9.00am   Registration  9.00-­‐10.00am   Opening  Remarks  

• Prasert  Sirinapaporn,  Office  of  Natural  Resources  and  Environmental  Policy  and  Planning  (ONEP),  Thailand  

• Luc  Stevens,  Resident  Representative,  UNDP  Thailand  • Donald  Cooper,  Coordinator  of  the  Mitigation,  Data  and  Analysis  

Programme,  UNFCCC  Secretariat    

Participant  Introductions    

10.00-­‐10.45am   Brief  Update  on  ADP  Process  • Claudio  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat    Objectives  of  Dialogue;  Takeaways  from  Previous  INDC  Dialogues  

  32  

• Yamil  Bonduki,  UNDP    Plenary  Discussion    

10.45-­‐11.15am   Coffee  break  11.15-­‐1.00pm   Recent  Country  Progress  on  INDC  Preparation    

 Country  Case  Studies    • Joy  Goco,  Philippines  • Evelyn  Khoo,  Singapore  • Martin  Kaspar,  European  Union    

-­‐ Country  updates  on  recent  progress  in  preparing  INDCs  -­‐ Challenges  being  faced  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

1.00-­‐2.00pm   Lunch    2.00-­‐3.30pm   National  Processes  to  Inform  INDCs  

• Michael  Comstock,  UNDP  -­‐ Brief  introduction  

 Country  Case  Studies  • Karim  Nurul,  Bangladesh  • Sediqi  Naqibullah,  Afghanistan    

-­‐ Country  updates  on  organizing  national  processes  to  prepare  INDCs  -­‐ Institutional  arrangements,  securing  a  ministerial  mandate,  

engaging  stakeholders,  etc.  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

3.30-­‐4.00pm   Coffee  break  4.00-­‐6.00pm   Design  Options  for  INDCs    

• Raekwon  Chung,  UN  Economic  and  Social  Commission  for  Asia  &  the  Pacific  (ESCAP)  -­‐ Low-­‐carbon  transformative  shifts  as  a  basis  for  national  INDC  design  

• Pankaj  Bhatia,  World  Resources  Institute  (WRI)  -­‐ Different  ways  to  express  contributions  (economy-­‐wide  emissions-­‐

reduction  targets,  deviation  from  business  as  usual,  packages  of  policies,  etc.)  

-­‐ Considering  a  required-­‐by-­‐science  scenario    Country  Case  Studies  • Sajjad  Ahmad,  Pakistan  • Diana  Harutyunyan,  Armenia  

  33  

   WEDNESDAY,  25  FEBRUARY    9.00-­‐10.30am   Data  and  Analysis    

• Pankaj  Bhatia,  WRI  -­‐ Starting  with  existing  data  (using  GHG  inventories,  etc.)  -­‐ Quantifying  GHG  impacts  and  addressing  data  gaps  -­‐ Top-­‐down,  bottom-­‐up,  and  combined  approaches  

 Country  Case  Studies    • Tran  Thuc,  Vietnam  • Katherine  Storey  and  Kate  Hancock,  Australia    

-­‐ Using  GHG  inventories  and  other  existing  information  to  inform  INDC  preparations  (including  past  experiences  with  national  communications)  

-­‐ Reconciling  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  approaches  to  preparing  INDCs  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

10.30-­‐11.00am   Coffee  break  11.00-­‐12.45pm   Data  and  Analysis  (continued)  

 Country  Case  Studies  • Junichi  Fujino,  Japan  • Mohsen  Nasseri,  Iran  • Sonam  Dagay,  Bhutan    • Reed  Schuler,  United  States    

-­‐ Using  GHG  inventories  and  other  existing  information  to  inform  INDC  preparations  (including  past  experiences  with  national  communications)  

-­‐ Reconciling  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  approaches  to  preparing  INDCs  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

12.45-­‐1.45pm   Lunch    

 -­‐ Countries’  experiences  in  beginning  to  think  through  how  to  express  

INDCs    -­‐ Building  from  on-­‐going  mitigation  efforts  to  a  national  contribution    -­‐ Possible  inclusion  of  adaptation  components  in  countries’  INDCs  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  

 Plenary  Discussion    

  34  

1.45-­‐3.30pm   Putting  Forward  Adaptation  Action  • Matti  Goldberg,  UNFCCC  Secretariat  

-­‐ Overview  of  adaptation  issues  in  the  context  of  INDCs    Country  Case  Studies  • Prasert  Sirinapaporn,  Thailand  • Sajjad  Ahmad,  Pakistan    

-­‐ National  adaptation  actions  in  the  context  of  INDCs  -­‐ Whether/how  countries  intend  to  include  adaptation  in  their  INDCs  in  a  

meaningful  way    Plenary  Discussion    

3.30-­‐4.00pm   Coffee  break  4.00-­‐6.00pm   Breakout  Group  Discussion  

• Participants  will  break  into  smaller  groups  to  discuss  opportunities  for  and  challenges  of  coming  forward  with  INDCs  in  2015  

• Participants  will  identify  opportunities  for  regional  collaboration  to  address  INDC  challenges  and  possible  support  to  facilitate  collaboration  

 Reports  Back  from  Groups  

     THURSDAY,  26  FEBRUARY    9.00-­‐11.00am   Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  (Upfront  Information)  

• Pankaj  Bhatia,  WRI  -­‐ Importance  of  upfront  information  in  building  trust,  assessing  aggregate  

emissions  reductions,  etc.  -­‐ Upfront  information  to  be  included  in  INDCs  to  promote  understanding  

of  contributions  • Frauke  Roeser,  NewClimate  Institute  

-­‐ Considerations  for  assessing  ambition  of  INDCs  (taking  into  account  different  contribution  types,  countries’  level  of  economic  development,  etc.)  

-­‐ Justifying  ambition  of  INDCs  in  the  context  of  upfront  information    

Country  Case  Studies    • Kamal  Uy,  Cambodia  • Medrilzam,  Indonesia    

-­‐ Countries’  experiences  in  beginning  to  prepare  upfront  information  to  communicate  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC    

-­‐ Drawing  on  past  experiences  with  national  communications  -­‐ Information  that  could  be  particularly  challenging  for  countries  to  

  35  

provide    

Plenary  Discussion    

11.00-­‐11.30am   Coffee  break  11.30-­‐1.00pm   Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation  

• Participants  will  break  into  small  groups  and  have  a  hands-­‐on  opportunity  to  carry  out  a  practical  exercise  on  the  key  issues  to  be  considered  when  preparing  INDCs    

 1.00-­‐2.00pm   Lunch  2.00-­‐3.00pm   Reports  Back  from  Breakout  Group  Exercise;  Plenary  Discussion  

 3.00-­‐4.15pm   Panel  Discussion:  Brainstorming  the  Way  Forward  on  INDCs  

 Panelists    • Ram  Prasad  Lamsal,  Nepal  • Christina  Pitta,  Cyprus  • Kakhaber  Mdivani,  Georgia  • Reagan  Moses,  Nauru  

 -­‐ Panelists  to  brainstorm  potential  challenges  and  capacity-­‐building  needs  

of  developing  countries  between  2016  and  2020  and  possible  areas  where  international  support  could  help  fulfill  these  needs  

 4.15-­‐4.30pm   Closing  Remarks    

 4.30pm   Adjourn          

  36  

Annex  III:  Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation    You  are  an  advisor  to  a  fictitious  country  called  Candor.  Below  you  will  find  relevant  information  for  the  country  of  Candor.  Based  on  the  profile  provided  here,  please  discuss  with  your  group  the  questions  at  the  end  of  this  exercise.    Country  profile:  Candor  is  a  developing  country  with  a  GDP  of  USD  14.54  billion  in  2013,  representing  a  fraction  of  the  world’s  economy.  It  faces  numerous  developmental  challenges  related  to  poverty  and  inequality,  health,  education,  energy  access  and  economic  growth.  A  quarter  of  the  population  is  undernourished  and  has  poor  access  to  health  services.  The  majority  of  Candor’s  people  are  living  in  rural  areas  with  unreliable  energy  access.      Candor  does  not  contribute  a  significant  share  to  global  GHG  emissions,  accounting  for  less  than  1%  of  total  global  annual  emissions.  Its  per  capita  emissions  are  3.9  tons  CO2  per  inhabitant  compared  to  the  global  average  of  4.23  tons  CO2  per  person.      However,  its  GHG  emissions  are  increasing  at  a  rapid  rate  and  have  more  than  doubled  over  the  last  two  decades   (1990-­‐2010).   The   energy   sector   is   responsible   for   the   biggest   share   of   emissions,   with  agriculture  in  the  second  place  (Table  1).  Its  emissions  are  expected  to  continue  to  grow  over  the  next  two   decades.   Despite   the   projected   growth,   the   country   will   continue   to   have   a   below   average   per  capita   emissions   rate.   Table   1   also   provides   the   projected   emissions   in   2030   taking   into   account  currently  planned  mitigation  measures.      Table  1:  Emissions  profile  of  the  country  in  2010  and  2030    Source   GHG  emissions  (Gg  CO2eq)    

(2010)  Projected  GHG  emissions  (Gg  CO2eq)  (2030)  

Energy   41,235   74,223  Industrial  Processes   210   630  Agriculture   24,691   44,197  Land  use  change  and  forestry   -­‐3,500   -­‐4,025  Waste   650   1,170  Total   63,286   116,195    Under   the  new  government,   in  2011,  Candor  has  pledged   to   follow  an   inclusive  model  of  growth  and  sustainable  development.  Some  highlights  include:    

• Prioritize   access   to   affordable   and   sustainable   energy   for   basic   needs,   as  well   as   for   national  economic   development.   The   current   economic   model   is   heavily   reliant   on   fossil   fuel-­‐driven,  centralized  energy  infrastructure.    

• Reduce  poverty  levels  by  20%  by  2030  • Improve  food  security  and  drinking  water  access  

 Candor   has   also   committed   to   building   a   low   carbon   economy   and   has   adopted   a  mitigation   goal   of  limiting  its  2030  emissions  to  no  more  than  a  20%  increase  compared  to  a  2010  base  year.  The  business-­‐as-­‐usual  trajectory  shows  over  80%  growth  in  emissions  in  2030  compared  to  2010.  The  country  has  also  developed  a  mitigation  strategy,  with  sector-­‐specific  measures  to  meet  its  2030  goal:    

  37  

Energy  sector:  • By  2030,  increase  the  share  of  renewable  energy  (solar  and  wind)  to  10%  in  the  national  energy  

mix  • Establish   energy   efficiency   standards   for   residential   construction,   domestic   appliances   and  

vehicle  fleets  • Undertake  demand  side  efficiency  measures,  e.g.,  promotion  of  more  efficient  appliances  • Increase  investment  in  public  transport  

 Industrial  processes:  

• Estimate  the  mitigation  potential  in  key  industrial  sectors  (cement  and  fertilizers)    • Adopt  a  mitigation  goal  and  mitigation  strategy  for  each  sector    

 Agriculture  sector:    

• Promote  post-­‐harvest  management  to  avoid  the  burning  of  farm  waste  and  the  preservation  of  farm  soil  

• Adopt  measures  for  erosion,  sedimentation  and  runoff  control  • Encourage  more  appropriate  and  rational  use  of  fertilizers  

 Land  use  change  and  forestry  sector:  

• Improve  forest  management,  e.g.,  adopt  practices  to  reduce  unnatural  forest  fires,  decrease  soil  degradation  

• Reduce  deforestation  by  5%  by  2030      Waste  sector:    

• Implement  selective  collection  and  treatment  of  urban  solid  waste  • Promote  creation  of  landfills  

 The  country   is   also  keen   to  undertake   steps   that  will  help  provide   reliable   information   for  mitigation-­‐related  decision-­‐making.  To  this  end,  the  government  will  work  towards:  

• Strengthening   capacities   related   to   the   country’s   emissions   inventories   through   the  implementation  of  a  national  GHG  Inventory  Office    

• Integration   of   sector-­‐specific   efforts   to   prepare   emission   projections   for   the   coming   years,   to  establish  a  Government-­‐sanctioned  national  baseline  that  will  enable  ministries  to  conduct  their  emission  projection  exercises  in  a  complementary  fashion  and  from  a  common  foundation  

 Candor  will   need   significant   financial   and   technological   resources   to   realize   some   of   these   goals   and  exploit  the  mitigation  potential  in  each  sector.      Questions:  

1. Would   you   recommend   Candor   cover   all   sectors   or   focus   on   particular   sectors   in   its  contribution?  Which  ones?  Why?  (Recommended  time:  10  min)  

2. What  type  of  contribution  would  you  advise  Candor  put  forward  (e.g.,  a  set  of  policies/actions,  a  mitigation  goal  (base  year  intensity  goal,  base  year  emissions  goal,  baseline  scenario  goal,  fixed  level  goal),  or  a  combination  of  types  of  contributions)?  Why?  (Recommended  time:  20  min)  

3. What  further  data  and  analysis  would  be  helpful  for  designing  the  details  of  Candor’s  proposed  INDC   (e.g.,   goal   level   (if   applicable),   which   specific   actions/policies   (if   applicable),   timeframe,  etc.)?  (Recommended  time:  20  min)  

  38  

4. What   information   from   the   case   study   will   be   critical   for   determining   the   following?     What  additional  information  would  be  needed  for  each?  (Recommended  time:  40  min)  

o a)  Whether  Candor’s  proposed  contribution   is  aligned  with  the  country’s  development  goals  

o b)  Whether  the  contribution  is  equitable/fair  o c)  Whether  Candor’s  contribution  is  ambitious  o d)  Whether  the  contribution  is  aligned  with  the  ultimate  objective  of  the  Convention  

     

  39  

Annex  IV:  Dialogue  Evaluation  Results    A  total  of  40  participants  completed  evaluations  of  the  Thailand  dialogue.    Below  is  a  summary  of  their  responses.    

     

       

To  what  extent  have  your  expectafons  been  met?  

Fully  45.0%  (n  =  18)  Partally  

55.0%  (n  =  22)    

Not  at  all  0%  

(n  =  0)  

Very  useful  55.0%    (n  =  22)  

Useful  37.5%    (n  =  15)  

Somewhat  useful  7.5%    (n  =  3)  

Not  useful  at  all    0%  

(n  =  0)  

How  would  you  describe  the  overall  usefulness  of  the  workshop?  

  40  

   

 What  could  have  been  done  differently  to  improve  the    

usefulness  of  the  workshop?    

   

Very  useful  20.5%    (n  =  8)  

Useful  69.2%    (n  =  27)  

Somewhat  useful  5.1%    (n  =  2)  

Not  useful  at  all    5.1%  (n  =  2)  

How  useful  did  you  find  the  INDC  exercise  on  the  ficffous  country  of  Candor?  (39  responses)  

5  11   11   13  

0  

11  

22  

7  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

  41  

 For  government  representatives:  Speaking  from  your  personal  perspective,  when  do  you  expect  that  your  country  is  likely  to  submit  your  INDC  to  the  

UNFCCC?    

 

1   1  

16  

7  9  

0  2  4  6  8  10  12  14  16  18