Transparency of Mitigation: Possible outline of modalities, procedures and guidelines, Neha Pahuja CCXG GF September 2016 Breakout 5

Transparency of Mitigation:
Possible outline of modalities, procedures and guidelines
Neha Pahuja
The Energy and Resources Institute, India
Contact: neha.pahuja@teri.res.in
Breakout Group 5, CCXG Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change
14 September 2016

Purpose and linkages (Art 13.5
and 13.6)
 To provide clear
understanding of climate
action
 Tracking of progress on
NDCs under Art.4 and
adaptation under Art 7
 Inform global stocktake
under Art14
 Support provided and
received in the context of
climate actions
Modalities and guidelines
 Facilitative, non-intrusive,
non-punitive, respectful of
national sovereignty and
avoid placing undue burden
on Parties (Art. 13.3)
 Build on existing experience
from NATCOMS, BRs, BURS,
IARs, ICAs (Art. 13.4)
 To be developed through
first COP/MOP of PA
Flexibility (Art 13.2 )
 Shall provide flexibility in the
implementation of the
provisions…. In light of their
capacities
 Modalities to reflect such
flexibility
 Review process to give
attention to respective
national capabilities and
circumstances
 Review process to provide
assistance in identifying
capacity building needs
Article 13.1 : “In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation,
an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into
account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established.”
Enhanced Transparency Framework in Paris
Agreement (PA)
COP Serving as MoP to the PA at its first session to adopt modalities, procedures and guidelines
Breakout Group 5, CCXG Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change, 14 September 2016

Avenues for Flexibility
Reporting
 Scope and level of details in reporting
 Frequency of reporting
Review
 Format of review (in-country, centralised, desk)
 Scope and level of detail of review
 Frequency of review

Same as existing:
GHG Inventory, BR and
NATCOM for
developed countries
BUR and NATCOM for
developing countries
Options for Flexibility Under PA
Same as exiting:
ERTs, IAR, MA, In-
country Review for
developed countries
ICA,FSV for developing
countries
1
Option 1: Carry forward of existing elements
 Why it is the best option?
‒ Being practiced currently, considers differences
in capacities and capabilities of Parties
‒ Collective and individual past experience exists
 Why it is not the best option?
‒ What is enhanced in this option
‒ How does it link with NDCs and its progress

Same as existing:
NATCOM for
developed countries
BUR and NATCOM for
developing countries
Same as exiting:
ERTs, IAR, MA, In-
country Review for
developed countries
countries
2
Option 2: Carry forward, step up and gradually
converge
‒ Considers differences in capacities and
capabilities of Parties
‒ Allows for gradual building of capacities and
convergence of all Parties
‒ Collective and individual past experience exists
‒ Ensures flexibility on when to step-up and how
much
‒ How does it link with NDCs and its progress
‒ Uncertainty in estimates

Same as existing plus
NDC:
NATCOM for developed
countries; BUR and
NATCOM for developing
countries
Plus progress metrics on
NDCs
Same as exiting:
ERTs, IAR, MA, In-
country Review for
developed countries
countries
3
Option 3: Bottom-up determination of flexibility
(plus NDC)
‒ Links with the NDCs and its progress
capabilities of Parties and allows for Parties to
assess their own capacities
‒ There is past experience with can be used
‒ Uncertainty in estimates
‒ There is limited importance of capacity-
building and enhancing capacities

Same as existing plus
NDC:
NATCOM for developed
countries; BUR and
NATCOM for developing
countries
Plus progress metrics
on NDCs
Same as exiting:
ERTs, IAR, MA, In-
country Review for
developed countries;
countries; gradually
converging
4
Option 4: Bottom-up determination of flexibility
(plus NDC) and converging review
‒ Reduced uncertainty in estimates

Flexibility in reporting
form and frequency on
pre-determined criteria.
Eg. Different for LDCs
and SIDCs Vs others.
Converging review for
all
5
Option 5: Pre-determined flexibility and
convergence
‒ Reduced uncertainty in estimates
‒ What pre-determination criteria to use?

Summary of Possible Options
1
Carry forward
Same as
existing
Same as
existing
2
Carry forward,
Step-up and
convergence
Same &
converging
Same &
converging
3
Bottom up
determination
of flexibility
Same +
NDC
progress
metrics
Same as
existing
4
Bottom up
determination
of flexibility
and converging
Same +
NDC
progress
metrics
Same &
converging
5
Predetermined
flexibility,
convergence in
reporting
Different
groups
Converging

Key Messages
 Different capacities and national circumstances
 Lack of domestic infrastructure and technical capacity to MRV
 Capacity building on MRV is the key to enhanced transparency
 Flexibility needed and to be in-built to bridge the capacity gap
 Various ways in which flexibility can be in-built
 Can be introduced into scope, form, frequency and level of
detail of reporting and scope, frequency and form of review

Thanks
neha.pahuja@teri.res.in

Existing MRV Under UNFCCC
Differentiated Reporting and Review
 Annual Inventory
 NATCOM every 4 years
 Biennial Reports (BRs) every 2 years
 International Assessment and Reviews (IARs)
 Expert Review Team (ERT)
 Multilateral Assessment (MA)
 National Communications (NATCOM)
 Biennial Update Report (BURs)
 International Consultation and Analysis (ICA)
 Facilitative Sharing of Views (FSVs)
 Technical Team of Experts (TTE)
 Reporting:
− Form: Differences in format; IPCC 2006 mandatory for AI; More similarities in content than diff
− Frequency: 2 year for BUR and BRs. 4 year for NATCOM and 1 year for inventory for AI
 Review:
− Form: In-Country, Desk, Centralised by ERT from roster of experts for developed country and
centralised for BURs.
− Frequency: Ranging from Nil to 2 and 4 years
− Objective: Improved transparency for NAI; Improved transparency and Comparability for AI
Developed Countries Developing Countries
Differentiation

 Differences in reporting and review requirements for AI and
NAI
 Differences on the basis of capacity and national
circumstances
 Capacity building required and key to enhanced transparency
 Flexibility to be in-built to bridge the capacity gap
 Can be introduced into scope, form, frequency and level of
detail of reporting and scope, frequency and form of review
Existing MRV Under UNFCCC: Key Highlights

What to report in the context of NDCs?
Information:
 Base year (Reference)
 Target year
 Target, including
coverage and scope
 Data, methodologies
used
 Means of
implementation
 Support (finance, technology,
capacity building)
5 Year
Cycle
Submit
NDCs
Report
Global
Stocktake
Progressive
Revision of
NDC
Apples Vs Oranges

How to review in the context of NDCs?
 Facilitative mutual
consideration of
progress on
individual NDCs
 Inputs to global
stocktake on
aggregate progress
5 Year
Cycle
Submit
NDCs
Report
Global
Stocktake
Progressive
Revision of
NDC

11:30 – 13:00 Breakout Group 5: Transparency of mitigation – providing flexibility in the enhanced transparency
framework (Room CC 12)
Focus The enhanced transparency framework under Article 13 is to have built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’
different capacities and builds upon collective experience. This session will discuss the nature of this built-in flexibility,
building on experience with reporting and review under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
Background
documents
“Enhancing the transparency of climate change mitigation under the Paris Agreement: lessons from existing
arrangements” by Gregory Briner and Sara Moarif
Co-facilitators • Gilberto Arias, Energeia Network
• Harry Vreuls, Netherlands
Speakers • Neha Pahuja, TERI [5-10 minutes]
• Henrik Hallgrim Erikson, Norway [5-10 minutes]
• Gao Xiang, Energy Research Institute, China [5-10 minutes]
• Kazumasa Nagamori, Ministry of the Environment, Japan [5-10 minutes]
Discussion questions 1. How can we provide flexibility in terms of scope, frequency and level of detail of reporting, while accommodating
diverse country conditions and improving comparability among NDCs?
2. How can we provide flexibility in terms of the scope of technical review (e.g. desk reviews or in-country reviews) and
multilateral consideration?
13:00 – 14:30 Lunch
Organised in partnership with
The Energy ResearchInstitute (TERI)

Transparency of Mitigation: Possible outline of modalities, procedures and guidelines, Neha Pahuja CCXG GF September 2016 Breakout 5

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Transparency of Mitigation: Possible outline of modalities, procedures and guidelines, Neha Pahuja CCXG GF September 2016 Breakout 5

Similar to Transparency of Mitigation: Possible outline of modalities, procedures and guidelines, Neha Pahuja CCXG GF September 2016 Breakout 5 (20)

More from OECD Environment

More from OECD Environment (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Transparency of Mitigation: Possible outline of modalities, procedures and guidelines, Neha Pahuja CCXG GF September 2016 Breakout 5