Measuring, reporting and verifying
mitigation actions by developing countries
Topics for discussion
Paula Castro
Center for Comparative and International Studies
University of Zurich
2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships
26 August 2010
Overview of presentation






Introduction
MRV in the existing regime
MRV in the negotiations
Some ideas and proposals from research
Lessons from the CDM experience
Questions for discussion
2
MRV - general definitions

Measurement



Reporting



Through direct physical measurement or estimation (e.g. using
emission factors and activity data)
Can also use qualitative metrics (e.g. laws passed)
Provision of information
Effective reporting: based on reliable data, in a transparent and
standardised way
Verification


Independent assessment of the reliability and accuracy of
reported information
Does not necessarily involve a (legal / political) judgement, but
may be used for compliance purposes
3
MRV - possible functions

Accountability
Making sure that:



Mitigation actions are
enabled by support
Support results in
effective mitigation
Unilateral mitigation
actions are recognised
internationally

Facilitating
implementation:




Coordination and
planning within and
between countries
Information sharing
Assessing effectiveness
of the agreement
Linking actions with
support
4
MRV in the existing regime

National GHG inventories

AI parties:


Annual, following IPCC guidelines and good practice
guidance, standardised format
Subject to expert review process




--> Robust verification process - transparency and comparability
--> Accuracy depends on quality of data + estimations
--> Concern: insufficient number of experts
NAI parties:




Submitted as part of national communications
Frequency depends on funding; funding on a project basis
Use of IPCC guidelines optional, no specific reporting format
prescribed (but one recommended)
Not subject to review, but receive technical advice from CGE
5
MRV in the existing regime

National communications: policies and measures

AI parties:






Standardised set of information on each policy and measure
Projection of future emissions scenarios with and without
policies
No standard methodologies for quantifying impact of PAMs
Reporting varies from country to country
In-depth review by team of experts: summarise and clarify
information, no judgement of adequacy of efforts
NAI parties:


General report on programs containing mitigation measures
No standardisation, verification or review
6
Are these tools appropriate for MRV
of developing country NAMAs?
2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships
26 August 2010
MRV in the existing regime

National inventories:

AI parties:



NAI parties:




Comparable, transparent, verifiable emission targets and trends
Review process highly resource intensive
Reporting requirements insufficient to ensure comparability
Additional funding necessary for ensuring continuity
Not sufficient for verification of mitigation actions or emission trends
National communications: policies and measures

AI parties:




Not comparable (lack of specific commitments and metrics)
No clear guidance for review
Verification of effectiveness not possible
NAI parties:

Not comparable, measurable or verifiable
8
MRV in the negotiations

BAP 1(b)(i) and 1(b)(ii):


Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally
appropriate mitigation commitments or actions,
including quantified emission limitation and
reduction objectives, by all developed country
parties … [and]
Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by
developing country parties in the context of
sustainable development, supported and enabled
by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a
measurable, reportable and verifiable manner.
9
MRV in the negotiations

LCA text (developing country parties):

Annex / schedule attached to the agreement


Mitigation mechanism


--> Recording of planned actions
--> Provision of technical, financial and CB support
Registry



--> Reporting NAMAs and assessing their potential outcome
--> Matching NAMAs with TFCB support
--> Technical analysis of methodologies used to estimate
costs / emission reductions / suitability



Part of mitigation mechanism?
Part of financial mechanism?
Part of mitigation window of financial mechanism?
10
MRV in the negotiations

LCA text (developing country parties):

Reporting




Verification



National verification for not supported NAMAs
International verification (and review) for supported NAMAs
International consultation and analysis





Of registered / recorded NAMAs, following an agreed format
National communications every 6 / 4 years / according to
disbursement of funds
Biennial reports of GHG inventories, NAMA implementation,
emission reductions, methodologies, TFCB, domestic MRV
On the NAMA report
On NatComms and inventories
Aim: improve quality of reporting, share experiences, improve
transparency, assess correct use of guidelines and methodologies
Independent panel of experts
Low Emission Development Plans
11
Ideas and proposals from research
2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships
26 August 2010
Possible MRV frameworks

Some guiding principles:



Urgency - MRV requirements should not become a
major obstacle for mitigation actions
Flexibility - Towards different types of actions and
national circumstances - allowing innovativeness in
policy design
Continuous improvement - both of the MRV capacity
and of the mitigation action (through learning from
others)
13
Biennially
Periodically
Registry of NAMAs
seeking support
National
Communication Update
National
Communication
-Description of NAMA
-Estimated costs
-Financial resources,
technology and CB
needed / received /
provided
-GHG inventory
-Implementation of
NAMAs
-Outcomes of NAMAs
(incl. domestic MRV)
-Support received
National verification
-Domestic NAMAs
-COP agreed guidelines
-National circumstances
-GHG inventory
-Vulnerability assessment
-Adaptation measures
-Mitigation actions
-Enabling activities
-Support received
International
verification / ICA
-Supported NAMAs
-Inventories and methodologies
-National verification procedures
14
VERIFICATION
TBD / Continuously
R E P O R T I N G
Possible MRV framework
for NAI parties
Lessons from the CDM experience




Complex project cycle: national approval - validation
- registration - verification - issuance
Quality checks to ensure environmental integrity
(additionality) and sustainable development benefits
Long delays until a project actually gets CERs
Want to avoid such bottlenecks in MRV of NAMAs
looking for support


If requirements are too high, countries most in need of
support won’t be able to access it
Developed countries will want to ensure that supported
actions deliver
15
Questions for discussion
2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships
26 August 2010
Why to MRV?

Monitoring progress towards UNFCCC ultimate goal







Collectively
By individual parties
Enable recognition of developing country actions
Matching of action with support
Trust building
Ownership, facilitation of national planning
Learning from the others (capacity building)
17
Types of NAMA
According to types of actions:
• Regulation
• Efficiency standards
• Technology mandate
• Renewable energy targets
• Subsidy
• Feed-in-tariff
• Investment support
• R&D support
• Emission tax
• Information instruments
• Labels
Immediate and direct
emissions impact
Extremely
different
measurability!
Lagged and indirect
emissions impact
18
What to MRV?

Baseline indicators


Process indicators


Historical emissions of sector/subsector covered by NAMA
(before start of support)
Date of policy introduction
Performance indicators
Enforcement of regulation
 Volume of tariff paid
 Volume of tax collected
 Marginal abatement cost
 Size of new capacity installed; area of forest planted


Emissions indicators
Emissions level in sector/subsector covered by NAMA for
each year
 Emissions reductions achieved
 Difficult to establish cause and effect!

19
What to MRV?

Quantitative indicators




Technical (capacity, units installed, etc.)
Financial (funds granted, investment triggered)
Process (number of workshops, studies, etc.)
Qualitative indicators



Content (policy is defined, adopted and enforced)
Process (stakeholder process in place, national
strategy agreed)
Institutions (new responsible institution created)
20
Why and what







Aim determines what / how to MRV. E.g.:
Monitoring progress --> Trends in emission levels, emission
reductions
Enable recognition --> Description of actions, costs,
implementation, goals, achievements (not necessarily GHGrelated), (barriers)
Matching with support --> Estimated cost, estimated
emission reductions / other expected results
Trust building --> Effectiveness of TFCB support and
mitigation actions; verification reports
National planning --> Description of actions,
implementation, timeframes, goals, relation with other
planning processes
Learning --> Cost-effectiveness, barriers and solutions,
institutions, implementation and enforcement
21
How to MRV?

Measuring




Standardised indicators
Guidelines
Again, according to aims
According to types of actions?

NAMAs could be:




Intensity-based reductions
PAMs
Sectoral-level intensity / absolute reductions /
performance goals
Linked to the carbon market
22
How to MRV?

Reporting





Frequency
Content
Where
Linkage between registry of “planned actions”
(e.g. seeking support) and report of
“implemented actions” and their outcomes
According to types of actions?
23
How to MRV?

Verifying

Who?








National verification - through gov. agencies, NGOs,
independent experts, auditors (e.g. fisheries agreements)
Other states (e.g. WTO Trade Policy Review)
International organisation / secretariat (e.g. IAEA, CITES)
Independent experts (UNFCCC, KP)
Accredited private third parties (CDM, MARPOL)
NGOs (generally informally; in CITES formally)
What?
Sources of information?





On-site inspections (CITES, Ramsar, IAEA)
On-site monitoring (fishing, MARPOL)
Remote monitoring (LRTAP)
Information from international institutions
NGOs
24
Thank you!
2010 ecbi Oxford Fellowships
26 August 2010