Tag: MRV

CAN Intervention: SBI Opening Plenary SB40s, 4 June, 2014

Thank you Co Chairs.

I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

CAN welcomes the progress made on guidelines for IAR and ICA. The adoption of guidelines for national communications and biennial reports as well as revision of reporting guidelines on annual inventories for Annex 1 parties is progress. However, there are some provisions in the agreed guidelines that suggest the need for revision.

A robust verification process facilitates increased transparency for commitments and actions countries are taking to respond to climate change and allows Parties to build capacity, strengthen trust, foster cooperation, and provide more effective support.

CAN would like to highlight that MRV regime created within the UNFCCC should not be limited to mitigation alone but should also address means of implementation especially finance. A common reporting format to facilitate the assessment of actions and finance disbursed and received would help to create a transparent MRV regime for means of implementation.

Given enhanced reporting requirements some developing countries will need the requisite technical capacity building to meet these reporting requirements. The need for permanent institutional capacity and human resources to carry out various tasks in relation to national communications as well as Biennial Update reports within developing countries will also require enhanced financial support.

Thank you. 

Topics: 
Organization: 

MRV in Warsaw

Photo: IISD

Vositha Wijenayake

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA)

Article 12 of the UNFCCC recognises measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) as a key element or rather a pillar for ensuring transparency, building trust among parties. Furthermore it adds to ensuring accountability among the Parties. The Convention calls upon Parties for regular reporting on efforts taken by countries to address climate change.

The requirements pertaining to countries are developed based on the common but differentiated principle (CBDR). This in turn explains that the Annex1 countries i.e. developed countries are endowed with a higher level of obligation on their reporting than the developing countries. In more specific terms this involves the developed countries having to undergo a review process by experts to ensure completeness, consistency and accuracy of reported information. The review also encompassed a review by Parties, of efforts made by developed countries to meet their obligations under the Convention.

The Bali road map extended the gambit of the MRV by strengthening the reporting requirements of both the developed and developing countries as well as instituting a formal process of review, international analysis and review (IAR) for developed countries and international consultation and analysis (ICA) for developing countries.

This in turn required the developed countries to report annual GHG inventory every year; prepare a biennial report – highlighting the progress made in meeting its obligations under the Convention, both, on mitigation pledges and support; and national communication every four years; and, for the developing countries to prepare a biennial update report, including GHG inventory, on planning and implementing NAMAs, and to prepare a national communication every four years.  All efforts of developing countries for reporting are supported by the Convention.

Guidelines for measurement is the key of an MRV system. This is the first step in ensuring consistency, relevance and completeness of information. One such measure can be seen in the form of all countries being required to prepare their GHG inventories in accordance with the IPCC GHG inventory methodology. The common accounting methodology also makes it possible to compare the information across sectors, both within and across countries.

An outstanding issue at present is the common tabular format (CTF) to compare the pledges, progress made in pledges, as well as reporting on the support provided. The challenge faced concerns defining climate finance, how to report different forms of public support (grants, loans, etc), and defining new and additional support. The last element relates to separating, in broad terms, the finance provided for development issues in developing countries through bilateral aid from finance provided for climate related activities.

Here in Warsaw there are a few things that we need to achieve, among which lies the creation of a process that allows all countries to understand what is pledged by others, and to be able to develop new offers for the post-2020 period.  Warsaw needs also to be able to highlight what needs to be included in Party offers, equity and scientific benchmarks, in addition to how these offers need to be reviewed.  

Furthermore there is also need for the procedures and the outcomes for both the preparation and assessment processes to be equitable. Thus this process needs the inclusion of credible elements that possess the capacity to assess whether countries are doing their “fair “share, in line with science and a set of equity indicators.

 

References made to discussions of CAN MRV working group, and to “MRV in Warsaw” by Mr. Sudhir Sharma for ClimAsia, Warsaw  edition. 

Topics: 
Related Member Organization: 

A Tale of Two Transparencies

There is much on the Warsaw agenda for enhancing the current MRV system from Cancun as well as enabling the ex ante equity and adequacy review of post-2020 targets.
But the lack of progress regarding the review guidelines for developed country biennial reports and developing country International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) reports is disheartening. In both cases, the importance of a strong technical assessment is crucial, though the purposes are different.

For developed countries, expert review should be able to assess progress on fulfilling commitments as well as identifying potential problems.

At the same time, for many developing countries, the new biennial update reports and the process to analyse them were significant improvements on previous reporting efforts, especially since it was the first time they agreed to be subject to some sort of scrutiny.

However no one expects these reports will be perfect from the beginning. It would be very beneficial for the technical expert teams to recommend further improvement in these reports – after all, they are called ‘experts’.

Looking forward to the post-2020 tabling and assessment of commitments, Warsaw needs to set up a clear process to generate the most ambitious and fair offers by the time we reach our final destination in Paris. This needs to be underpinned by guidance that will: (a) help countries to prepare and submit their offers; (b) assess how equitable these offers are and how close those offers get to emissions levels needed to stay below 1.5/2°C; and (c) explore how a basket of equity indicators could facilitate the evaluation of the offers.

The procedures and outcomes for both the preparation and assessment processes must be equitable. This means including credible elements to assess whether countries are doing their fair share, in line with science and a set of equity indicators.

In the next 10 days, Parties face the challenge of agreeing on a template for recording their proposed commitments, including enough information – on gases, sectors, GWPs, base year, etc. – to enable comparability of efforts and assess whether they add up to a 1.5/2°C goal, whilst still acknowledging different national circumstances and capability. This must be agreed in Warsaw in order to generate offers in 2014.

For developed countries, this should be a relatively straightforward task as their commitments must be in the form of economy-wide, absolute, 5-year, emission reduction targets.

The window for adopting the guidelines for the assessment of offers is also narrow. We urge Parties to consider building upon existing institutions and procedures, whilst paving the way for designing a more systematic, robust assessment over time.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of Copenhagen with late and vague ‘commitments’ – the history is fresh enough that we should not have to repeat it.

 

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Vositha Wijenayake intervenes in the CMP opening plenary in Warsaw at the UN climate talks

My name is Vositha Wijenayake and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

The latest Emissions Gap Report from UNEP, like the others before it, shows that current mitigation pledges fall short of what is needed resulting in a large mitigation gap between what science requires and what countries have pledged. Not closing this gap now and urgently, will mean more costly action later and probably closing the door on the ability to limit warming to 1.5 C. 

This is a clear signal for all parties to increase their 2020 emission reductions efforts as soon as possible. For developed countries, this means targets must absolutely be increased no later than the 2014 Bonn Ministerial. Increasing ambition now will instill confidence in other countries and build trust that will allow governments to come to the Ban Ki Moon Summit with ambitious mitigation commitments.  CAN therefore urges Annex 1 parties to increase 2020 commitments so that their collective effort moves towards more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The lack of political will and irresponsibly low 2020 targets put forward by most countries is unacceptable and insufficient to avoid the devastating impacts of climate change on the poor and vulnerable people across the world.

Parties must also not weaken the positive steps taken in Doha to remove Hot Air from the Kyoto System through questionable interpretations of Article 3.7. Increased emission reduction targets by parties and strong rules will avoid putting the world on an irreversible pathway to climate catastrophe.

Topics: 
Related Member Organization: 

CAN Intervention in the COP 19 CMP 9 Opening Plenary, 11 November, 2013

My name is Vositha Wijenayake and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

The latest Emissions Gap Report from UNEP, like the others before it, shows that current mitigation pledges fall short of what is needed resulting in a large mitigation gap between what science requires and what countries have pledged. Not closing this gap now and urgently, will mean more costly action later and probably closing the door on the ability to limit warming to 1.5 C. 

This is a clear signal for all parties to increase their 2020 emission reductions efforts as soon as possible. For developed countries, this means targets must absolutely be increased no later than the 2014 Bonn Ministerial. Increasing ambition now will instill confidence in other countries and build trust that will allow governments to come to the Ban Ki Moon Summit with ambitious mitigation commitments.  CAN therefore urges Annex 1 parties to increase 2020 commitments so that their collective effort moves towards more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The lack of political will and irresponsibly low 2020 targets put forward by most countries is unacceptable and insufficient to avoid the devastating impacts of climate change on the poor and vulnerable people across the world.

Parties must also not weaken the positive steps taken in Doha to remove Hot Air from the Kyoto System through questionable interpretations of Article 3.7. Increased emission reduction targets by parties and strong rules will avoid putting the world on an irreversible pathway to climate catastrophe.

Topics: 
Related Member Organization: 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: MRV