INDC Preparation Lessons
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•1,251 vues
Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute presents in a webinar hosted by UNDP on experiences and lessons learned from INDC preparation worldwide.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
Similaire à INDC Preparation Lessons
Similaire à INDC Preparation Lessons (20)
Plus de NewClimate Institute
Plus de NewClimate Institute (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
INDC Preparation Lessons
- 1. Overcoming the challenges of INDC preparation: experiences and lessons learned 28 August 2015 NewClimate Institute Thomas Day Niklas Höhne Markus Hagemann Frauke Röser Marie Kurdziel Sara Becerra Sofia Gonzalez www.newclimate.org
- 2. www.newclimate.org 2 This presentation report was prepared by NewClimate Institute on behalf of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Development Project (UNDP), under the project Experiences and lessons learned in the preparation of INDCs. The contents express the views of the authors and participating country representatives, and do not necessarily represent the views of the UNFCCC or UNDP. The country-level data and information contained in this document are based upon publically available information, and information provided by country representatives for the purpose of this research activity. Usage rights: Unlimited re-use of this presentation report for all purposes is allowed only in its current format, without changes made to content or design. Usage of information in this document is allowed when cited.
- 3. www.newclimate.org 3 Abbreviations BUR Biennial Update Report CDM Clean Development Mechanism GHG Greenhouse gas INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution LEDS Low Emissions Development Strategy NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action NAP National Adaptation Plans TNA Technology Needs Assessment UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- 4. www.newclimate.org 4 Contents Introduction 5 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 9 1.1 What types of mitigation commitments are countries using in their INDCs? 11 1.2 What is the typical format of mitigation commitments in INDC documents? 14 1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs? 16 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 20 2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope? 21 2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? 23 2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits inform the design of an INDC? 27 2.4 How can the split between unconditional and conditional contributions be determined? 29 2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition? 31 Challenge: Securing broad participation and support 34 3.1 How have countries obtained and benefited from high-level support 35 3.2 How have countries ensured cross-ministerial coordination? 36 3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation? 37 Opportunities 39
- 5. www.newclimate.org 5 Introduction Context Methodology: 1) Collection of information through online surveys and detailed interviews 2) Analysis of information to distil lessons learned and relevant knowledge for international processes 3) Multiple knowledge sharing activities Objective of this presentation Enable knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer learning and identification of good practices for INDC preparation through analysis of approaches and progress worldwide. Statistics: • Data collected from 125 countries; updated monthly from February to July 2015 • 44 detailed interviews with high-level country representatives • Coverage includes countries from all regions and levels of economic development The global challenge: Achievement of an ambitious global climate agreement at COP21 The national challenge: Development of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
- 6. www.newclimate.org 6 Introduction Planned submissions 22 submissions received – approx. 60% of emissions End of August: 66% of emissions expected End of September: 76% of emissions expected End of October: Up to at least 80 submissions - 83% of emissions expected Source: http://files.newclimate.org/indc-preparation-progress/
- 7. www.newclimate.org 7 Introduction Challenges in the preparation of INDCs Countries report 5 major challenges: “Too short timeframes for undertaking processes” (88%) “Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs” (71%) “Limited expertise for assessing mitigation options” (71%) “Securing high-level political support” (61%) “Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries” (59%)
- 8. www.newclimate.org 8 Introduction Opportunities in the preparation of INDCs Countries report opportunities: “Improved international communication” “Enhanced engagement of stakeholders in climate change planning” “Acceleration of national climate change policy process” “Improved national processes” “Improved domestic communication between government, CSO and public”
- 9. www.newclimate.org 9 Introduction What can be learned from experiences in other countries? Experiences and lessons learned 1. What to include in INDCs (Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs) 2. How to mitigate limited capacity (Limited expertise for assessing mitigation options) (Too short timeframes for undertaking processes) 3. How to secure broad participation and support (Securing high-level political support) (Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries) 4. What benefits can be gained from the INDC process?
- 10. www.newclimate.org 10 1. What to include in INDCs Barrier Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs (based on responses from 44 countries) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% • What types of mitigation commitments are countries using in their INDCs? • What is the typical format of mitigation commitments in INDC documents? • How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs? Topics covered
- 11. www.newclimate.org 11 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1 What can we learn from existing INDC submissions? Overview of existing submissions Coverage: Countries cover a range of regions and income levels. INDC types: Most are based on economy-wide GHG targets; less than half of all Parties are eventually expected to include these. Mitigation and adaptation: All focus primarily on mitigation; of 22 INDC submissions, 13 have included adaptation; EU and US have submitted separate documents on adaptation; over 50% of countries are expected to include an adaptation component. Conditional INDCs: Mexico’s and Morocco’s INDCs are existing examples that include both an unconditional and a conditional contribution. For Ethiopia, the distinction between supported and unsupported elements will come at a later stage.
- 12. www.newclimate.org 12 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.1 Type of mitigation contributions Party INDC Type (mitigation) Target Ref. Point Andorra Sectoral GHG target - BAU 37% GHG reduction by 2030 BAU Canada Economy-wide GHG target – BY 30% GHG reduction by 2030 2005 China Decarbonisation indicator Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 60-65% by 2030 2005 Ethiopia Economy wide GHG target – BAU 64% GHG reduction by 2030 BAU EU Economy-wide GHG target - BY 40% GHG reduction by 2030 1990 Gabon Economy wide GHG target - BAU 50% GHG reduction by 2025 BAU Iceland Economy-wide GHG target - BY 40% GHG reduction by 2030 1990 Japan Economy-wide GHG target - BY 26% GHG reduction by 2030 2013 Kenya Economy-wide GHG target - BAU 30% GHG reduction by 2030 BAU Liechtenstein Economy-wide GHG target - BY 40% GHG reduction by 2030 1990 Summary of INDCs submitted by June 11 2015 + = Unconditional contribution ++ = Conditional contribution BY = target is relative to a Base Year BAU = target is relative to a Business As Usual trajectory Table 1 (Page 1/2): Overview of existing submissions Existing mitigation contributions
- 13. www.newclimate.org 13 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.1 Type of mitigation contributions Party INDC Type (mitigation) Target Ref. Point Marshall Islands Economy-wide GHG target - BY 32% GHG reduction by 2025 2010 Mexico Economy-wide GHG target - BAU 25%+ / 40%++ GHG & SLCP reduction by 2030 BAU Monaco Economy-wide GHG target - BY 50% GHG reduction by 2030 1990 Morocco Economy wide GHG target - BAU 13%+ / 32%++ GHG reduction by 2030 BAU New Zealand Economy-wide GHG target - BY 30% GHG reduction by 2030 2005 Norway Economy-wide GHG target - BY 40% GHG reduction by 2030 1990 Republic of Korea Economy-wide GHG target - BAU 37% GHG reduction by 2030 BAU Russia Economy-wide GHG target - BY Limit GHGs to 70-75% by 2030 1990 Serbia Economy-wide GHG target - BY 9.8% GHG reduction by 2030 1990 Singapore Decarbonisation indicator Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 36% by 2030 2005 Summary of INDCs submitted by June 11 2015 + = Unconditional contribution ++ = Conditional contribution BY = target is relative to a Base Year BAU = target is relative to a Business As Usual trajectory Table 1 (Page 2/2): Overview of existing submissions Existing mitigation contributions
- 14. www.newclimate.org 14 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.1 Type of mitigation contributions Existing mitigation contributions Economy-wide GHG target – BY Economy wide GHG target – BAU Sectoral GHG target - BAU Decarbonisation indicator Policies and measures Type of mitigation contribution OECD Europe (non-OECD) Asia and Pacific (non- OECD) Africa (non-OECD) Latin America and Caribbean (non- OECD) Regional coverage Most existing submissions are from industrialised countries Most existing submissions include economy wide GHG targets, although are expected to use this approach Figure 1: Type of contribution in existing INDCs Figure 2: Regional coverage of existing INDCs
- 15. Format and content of submissions as to mitigation: www.newclimate.org 15 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.2 Format of mitigation contributions Elements: Most existing submissions include a number of the same elements • Key information on the INDC (summary, ref. point, scope and coverage, methodological details) is included in all submissions. • Other elements are found in most submissions. Typical level of detail: Short, concise information. Ca. 5 pages in total. Typical format: Highlighted summaries followed by details in tabular format (e.g. EU, Norway, Switzerland, Mexico, Russia). www.newclimate.org 15
- 16. www.newclimate.org 16 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.2 Format of mitigation contributions Format component commonly included in existing submissions Examples Concise 1 sentence summary of the target Liechtenstein, EU, US, Switzerland Reference point Andorra, Mexico and Gabon for BAU Scope and coverage EU, Norway, US, Russia Methodological approaches including LULUCF EU Further technical details of the INDC EU Long-term goals, stated but not major focus Norway, US, Mexico Legislative planning process Russia, Norway Fairness, ambition and convention objective See section 1.4 Additional conditional contribution Mexico, Morocco (see section 2.5) Finance requirements Gabon Adaptation component Mexico, Morocco, Ethiopia and Gabon Gender considerations Mexico Table 2: Major elements included in existing INDCs and useful examples for their formatting. See Notes for details
- 17. www.newclimate.org 17 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs? (based on responses from 159 countries) Countries were asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree that adaptation plans would form a major component of their INDC:
- 18. Format and content of submissions as to adaptation: www.newclimate.org 18 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs? • Some countries consider the adaptation component to be on equal footing with the mitigation component; however, most countries focus on mitigation and secondly on adaptation in their INDCs. • Countries follow very different approaches with regard to format and contents of the adaptation component of their INDCs. Format: addressed in single chapter (and sub-chapters); integrated into tabular format; included in annex; included in NatCom; separate document on adaptation Elements: long- and short-term goals (qualitative or quantitative); long- and short- term actions; strategies; policies/ programmes; action plans; monitoring and evaluation systems; investment estimates; international support www.newclimate.org 18
- 19. www.newclimate.org 19 Challenge: What to include in INDCs 1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs? Party Format Elements Focus China Chapter in INDC text Adaptation strategy; intern. support M & A Ethiopia Chapter/ sub-chapters in INDC table Long-term goal (qual); short- and long-term actions; M&E M & A Gabon Chapter in INDC text Adaptation strategy M Kenya Chapter in INDC text Long-term goal (qual); NAP; sector-specific goals & actions A Marshall Islands Ref in INDC table (short)/ annex (long) Adaptation framework; adaptation plan; intern. support M Mexico Ref in INDC table (short)/ annex (long) Sector-specific goals & actions, intern. support M & A Monaco Chapter in INDC text Adaptation strategy; adaptation action plan M Morocco Chapter/ sub-chapters in INDC text Long-term goals (quan); sector-specific goals & actions; investment estimation; M&E; intern. support M & A Serbia Ref in INDC table Sector vulnerability; investment estimation M Singapore Ref in INDC table (short)/ annex (long) Sector-specific goals & actions M South Korea Chapter in INDC text Adaptation plan; sector-specific actions (short) M EU Separate document Adaptation strategy; sector-specific actions; lessons learnt M New Zealand Reference to 6th National Communication Adaptation policies; sector-specific actions M Norway Reference to 6th National Communication Adaptation framework; sector-specific actions M United States Separate document U.S. domestic and international adaptation priorities M
- 20. www.newclimate.org 20 See also… Challenge: What to include in INDCs Where is further information and guidance available? www.newclimate.org 20 Höhne, Ellermann & Fekete (2014) Process guidance for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). http://newclimate.org/2014/12/06/process-guidance-on-indcs-prepared-by- newclimate-staff-4/ WRI (2015) Designing and Preparing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). http://www.wri.org/publication/designing-and-preparing-indcs PMR (2015) Checklist on Establishing Post-2020 Emission Pathways. https://www.thepmr.org/content/checklist-establishing-post-2020-emission-pathways CDKN & Ricardo-AEA (2015) A guide to INDCs. http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CDKN-Ricardo- AEA-Guide-to-INDCs_FINAL_WEB1.pdf Website resources from the International Partnership for Mitigation and MRV. http://www.mitigationpartnership.net/intended-nationally-determined-contributions-indcs
- 21. www.newclimate.org 21 2. Mitigating limited capacity Barriers Limited technical expertise for assessing mitigation options Too short timeframes for undertaking processes (based on responses from 44 countries) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% • How are countries determining their sectoral scope? • How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? • How can an assessment of co-benefits inform the design of an INDC? • How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined? • What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition? Topics covered 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
- 22. www.newclimate.org 22 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope? Not all Parties have the resources and/or capacities to determine appropriate economy-wide contributions in this first INDC round. www.newclimate.org 22 How are countries determining their sectoral scope? Sector prioritisation practices Figure 5: Criteria that countries have used to prioritise sectors for their INDCs Potential impact Synergies/continuity Emissions reduction potential Common mitigation and adaptation goals Other national climate change processes National priorities Accrual of wider economic and social co-benefits
- 23. www.newclimate.org 23 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope? www.newclimate.org 23 Examples of practices for scope selection and sector prioritisation Potential impact Emission reduction potential Assessment through use of existing data and processes (see section 2.2) • Chile & Peru: Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) Co-benefits assessment Making a case for sectoral action (see section 2.3) • Dominican Republic: Quantified jobs, economic impact and other benefits • Colombia: extensive co-benefit analysis under the Colombian Low Carbon Development Strategy (ECDBC), which is a key input for the INDCs. Synergies/continuity Common mitigation and adaptation goals • Thailand: Major synergies between adaptation and mitigation • Philippines: Vulnerability of mitigation options assessed National priorities Using the INDC to accelerate the implementation of other national priorities • Senegal: Electrification & reduced consumption of dirty fuels • Uganda: Focus on forestry and energy to align with national development priorities • Solomon Islands: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Figure 6: Examples of practices for scope selection and sector prioritisation. See Notes for details
- 24. www.newclimate.org 24 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? www.newclimate.org 24 Potential links of INDCs with other national climate change processes Figure 7: Examples of practices for links of INDCs with other national climate change processes. See Notes for details Most countries use existing documents as data sources for their INDC development: • National Communications (e.g. Morocco) • National Inventories Some countries build upon ongoing national climate change processes to compile and communicate their INDC: • Low Emissions Development Strategies - LEDS (e.g. Colombia) • Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions - NAMAs (e.g. Thailand) • Clean Development Mechanism - CDM (e.g. Vietnam) National Inventories National Communications LEDS NAMA CDM Other
- 25. www.newclimate.org 25 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? www.newclimate.org 25 Use of existing data and processes: Dominican Republic Figure 8: Links of the Dominican Republic’s INDC with other national climate change processes. See Notes for details • Inter-ministerial coordination: National Council for Climate Change and Clean Development Mechanism (CNCCMDL) • Legal framework: National Development Strategy (NDS) 2030 • Framework for action: Climate Compatible Development Plan (CCDP) Dominican Republic TNC/BUR INDC LEDS (CCDP) Energy Transport CDM – PoA – NAMA Forestry Quick wins CNCCMDL
- 26. www.newclimate.org 26 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? www.newclimate.org 26 Use of existing data and processes: Peru NAMAs MAPS PlanCC Forest projects and Forest Investment Program (PIF) BUR Plans and programs INDC • 58 mitigation actions across 6 sectors • 31% reduction of emissions for 2030 against BAU scenario • 82.2 mtCO2eq reduction by 2030 5 June. Start consultation process 17 July. End consultation process and revision of draft INDC 31 August. Country presents INDC to the UNFCCC Figure 9: Use of existing data and processes in Peru. See Notes for details
- 27. www.newclimate.org 27 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? www.newclimate.org 27 Review and revision of existing targets “Indonesia’s INDC is a by-product of the Indonesia Mitigation Policy review process” - BAPPENAS, 20152015 2030 Beyond Embedding the INDC into a Review and Revision process of existing policy targets is more efficient and more effective than beginning new processes. • Ensure integration of INDC in national policy • Reduce burden of undertaking new analysis from start • Established roles and responsibilities • Experience and evidence to reduce uncertainty • Understand the implications of policy implementation Continued review and revision of institutionalised climate change policy / INDC Figure 10: Review and revision of existing targets in Indonesia. See Notes for details
- 28. www.newclimate.org 28 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits help to inform the design of an INDC? www.newclimate.org 28 Co-benefit assessment Cost savings from fossil fuel imports, improved energy security, health from reduced air pollution, job creation, traffic decongestion, economic development etc. • Make a case for prioritizing sector and measures to include in the INDC. • Increase the willingness of decision makers and stakeholder to increase ambition. Figure 11: Infographic on co-benefit assessment in the US, the EU and China . See Notes for details
- 29. www.newclimate.org 29 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits help to inform the design of an INDC? www.newclimate.org 29 Sector/measure Job creation in 2013 Economic impacts (mUSD/a) GHG emission reduction (MtCO2e/a) Other non-GHG benefits Energy Substitute all fuel-oil plants with gas Reduce inefficient auto generation from 25% to 5% Increase share of renewable energy to 38% Energy efficiency: reduce energy demand 13% 34,300 - - 1,300 33,000 1,000 130 20 300 550 8.6 1 0.5 4.3 2.8 Cleaner air Transport Establish efficiency standards Shift to CNG Increase consumption of biofuels Scale-up public transport 25,000 - 4,000 21,000 - 1,700 500 600 400 200 5.3 1.3 1.1 2.4 0.5 Cleaner air, black carbon reduction, less traffic congestion Table 3: Assessment of co-benefits of proposed actions in Dominican Republic. Source: Alvarez (2015) The Dominican Republic quantified the non-GHG related benefits for specific measures in all sectors, in order to inform the design of the INDC. (see energy and transport, for example, in earlier slide)
- 30. Determining contributions - using existing and planned policies and strategies www.newclimate.org 30 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.4 How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined? www.newclimate.org 30 Emissionlevelin2025/2030 Unconditional INDC Conditional INDC Figure 3: Determining contributions using policies and strategies. See Notes for details 10 measures in place from forthcoming 3rd NC 3 measures from UNDP FOCAM excercise CDM pipeline 54 measures the country could potentially implement as identified in 3rd NC Dialogue on forestry Ecuador Morocco
- 31. Determining contributions top down www.newclimate.org 31 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.4 How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined? www.newclimate.org 31 “Fair” contribu tion Mitigation potential Emissionsin2025/2030 Unconditional INDC Conditional INDC “Fair” contribution Mitigation potential Question to ask : “What level of emissions should I achieve to make a fair and equitable contribution?” How: Effort sharing approaches Question to ask: “What level of emission reductions could I achieve given the mitigation potential in my county ?” How: National mitigation potential analysis (e.g. MACC) Identifying what you should do and what you could do can help you in determining your contributions. Figure 4: Determining contributions top down. See Notes for details
- 32. Ways to compare mitigation efforts www.newclimate.org 32 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition? www.newclimate.org 32 • Effort sharing What is the “fair” share? How much should emissions be reduced? • Potential How much could emissions be reduced (irrespective of who pays)? • Comparison to benchmarks for decarbonisation indicators How are other countries developing? • Good practice policy packages What are other countries doing?
- 33. Ambition and equity in INDCs so far www.newclimate.org 33 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition? www.newclimate.org 33 Country States to be in line with IPCC trajectories In line with own long term target Ambitious because a deviation from trend Mentions per capita emissions Mentions small contribution to world total Mentiones reduction in emissions per GDP Mentioni ng peak year EU X X X X X Liechtenstein X X X Andorra X X Switzerland X Norway X USA X X Canada X Russia X Mexico X X X Morocco X X X X Ethiopia X
- 34. Examples: MAPS countries www.newclimate.org 34 Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition? www.newclimate.org 34 • Integrated in the INDC preparation methodology: Determine “required by science scenarios” for comparison with mitigation potential • Received limited attention in the beginning • But is used in the final stages of the INDC preparation as a validation step, that may nudge the INDC a bit further “Required by science scenario” Source: MAPS Chile: http://mapschile.cl/files/resumen_MAPSChile_Fase2_102014.pdf
- 35. www.newclimate.org 35 3. Securing broad support Barriers Securing high-level political support Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries (based on responses from 44 countries) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% • How have countries obtained and benefited from high-level support? • How have countries ensured inter-ministerial coordination? • What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation? Topics covered 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
- 36. www.newclimate.org 36 Challenge: Securing broad participation and support 3.1 How have countries obtained and benefited from high level support? www.newclimate.org 36 Mandate and level of sign-off for INDCs Which level of governance, is responsible for the final sign-off of the INDC submission? - Asked March 2015 In most countries, the mandate to begin preparations for an INDC came from the Ministry in which the UNFCCC focal point is based. Only a quarter of countries expected to require sing-off from parliament or the head of state, at the start of the INDC process. Political processes for INDC preparation may have been underestimated by a lot of countries. Figure 12: Required level of sign-off forecast by countries
- 37. www.newclimate.org 37 Challenge: Securing broad participation and support 3.1 How have countries ensured cross-ministerial coordination? www.newclimate.org 37 “The establishment of an inter-ministerial steering committee dedicated to the INDC process, ensured maximum participation and understanding across all relevant governmental bodies” - Georgia Many countries have difficulties to engage all governmental bodies. Some countries overcame this barrier through: • New, formally established inter- ministerial processes or committees, dedicated to the INDC, with a leading (steering) role • Use of existing inter-ministerial processes • Distribution of key responsibilities between ministries • Intensive training seminars for deputy- ministers
- 38. www.newclimate.org 38 Challenge: Securing broad participation and support 3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation? www.newclimate.org 38 Why stakeholder involvement? • Secure broad level buy-in and public support for policies (e.g. Armenia) • Provision of specific information, data, and new ideas as well as new skill sets • Mobilisation of key actors for later implementation process Who to involve? • Broad range of stakeholders from government, civil society, academia and private sector (e.g. Chile, Senegal) • Potentially focus on specific key stakeholder groups depending on focus of the INDC (e.g. private sector in Singapore) • Inclusion of local and regional government (e.g. Uganda, Kenya) How to manage the process? • Careful planning of timing and degree of involvement is essential • Transparency on process and use of stakeholder inputs • Consultation methods may differ: bilateral, multilateral or online
- 39. www.newclimate.org 39 Challenge: Securing broad participation and support 3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation? www.newclimate.org 39 ARMENIASINGAPORE WHY? - Specific inputs and expertise WHY? - Public awareness and buy-in HOW? - Public opinion survey on INDC themes through media outlet - Organised 10 thematic roundtables with senior government officials - Discussions were broadcasted to general public WHO? - Focus on general public WHO? - Focus on private sector HOW? - Use of an online platform open for comment for 10 weeks - Dialogue sessions co-organised with key stakeholder groups, mainly business associations Two country examples on how to engage stakeholders successfully.
- 40. www.newclimate.org 40 4. Opportunities 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% • Developing the national climate change agenda • Improving collection and coordination of information Topics covered “Improved international communication” “Enhanced engagement of stakeholders in climate change planning” “Acceleration of national climate change policy process” “Improved national processes” “Improved domestic communication between government, CSO and public”
- 41. www.newclimate.org 41 Opportunities 4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda www.newclimate.org 41 Consolidation of existing climate change processes In some countries without previous formal climate targets, the variety of national, subnational and donor driven climate activities may be fragmented. For some, the INDC has provided an impetus to consolidate fragmented activities: • Senegal has consolidated NAP, TNA, LEDS, NAMAs, CDM, national policies and national strategy documents • In the Dominican Republic the INDC strongly builds upon multiple national climate change processes such as CNCCMD, NAMAs and the CDM (see section 2.2) Result: Resource efficiency gains, improved strategic planning, identification of synergies between efforts See section 2.2 for further details on process consolidation
- 42. www.newclimate.org 42 Opportunities 4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda www.newclimate.org 42 Acceleration of existing climate change processes 75% of countries report that the INDC process has helped to accelerate existing processes. Completion of existing processes required as input LEDS process in Georgia given renewed priority since its comprehensive analysis on mitigation options and scenarios will be the main input to the INDC design. Increased attention and awareness for climate change activities Armenia developed a “relationship and a common understanding” with the public, helping to accelerate the implementation of grassroots mitigation and adaptation measures. Priority stimulus to overcome barriers common to INDC and other processes The INDC in Thailand has made the sectoral plans more visible for relevant government agencies and thus has developed a a more supportive political environment, also for other indirectly related processes .
- 43. www.newclimate.org 43 Opportunities 4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda www.newclimate.org 43 Mainstreaming climate change in policy Some countries report tangible improvements in consideration of climate change issues in ministries usually unconcerned in climate policy making. • In Georgia the inter-ministerial led INDC process has assigned responsibilities across various ministries, many of whom are becoming engaged with climate change related responsibilities for the first time. • In Thailand the INDC process has highlighted the efforts on climate change that the different ministries had previously included in their sectoral plans.
- 44. www.newclimate.org 44 Opportunities 4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda www.newclimate.org 44 Implementation INDC Planning Progressing from planning to implementation Recent years: Planning with limited implementation Many countries have been especially active in their climate change planning activities in recent years. 2015: INDC submission INDC’s prepared with formal implementation timeframe Beyond 2015: Implementation INDC’s implementation timeframe provide an enhanced focus on the development and execution of implementation plans. • In Thailand, for example, the INDCs will provide more specific actions for implementation of the energy plan of the Ministry of Energy. For some countries, where implementation has thus far been limited, the INDC may catalyse a progression from planning to implementation:
- 45. www.newclimate.org 45 Opportunities 4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda www.newclimate.org 45 Enhanced engagement of stakeholders Broad coverage and important implications of INDCs necessitates the participation of wide stakeholder groups. ↓ INDC preparation provided the stimulus to broaden the stakeholder consultation base, with benefits. (Approx. 80% of countries report benefiting from improved stakeholder consultation) ↓ • Singapore - major participation from business, CSO and academia – uncovered ideas and skill sets not previously available to the government. • Georgia – consideration of embassies as a major stakeholder for the first time – uncovered opportunities for support and improved international dialogue. See section 3.3 for further details on stakeholder consultation
- 46. www.newclimate.org 46 Opportunities 4.2 Improving collection and co-ordination of information www.newclimate.org 46 Information and data management Access to data and information from various sectors and ministries is often a great challenge, causing delays and uncertainty. The INDC process catalyzed the development of improved information management systems in many countries: • Senegal: new climate change data office • Costa Rica: expanded national registry • Ghana: online climate change data hub • Philippines: Climate Change Database (NICCDIES) Figure 13: Ghana’s Climate Change Data Hub - http://197.253.69.38/
- 47. www.newclimate.org 47 Opportunities 4.2 Improving collection and co-ordination of information www.newclimate.org 47 Enhanced south-south cooperation A large number of international fora for INDC preparation support have provided ample south-south cooperation and learning opportunities This is the most commonly reported benefit of the INDC process amongst all surveyed countries. • Chile - major increase in the number of consultations and dialogues with developing country governments • Morocco - developing a climate competence center for south-south cooperation
- 48. www.newclimate.org 48 References www.newclimate.org 48 Diagne (2015) Experiences in Prioritizing Sectors for INDCs: SENEGAL. Available via: http://lowemissiondevelopment.org/lecbp/docs/El_Hadji_Mbaye_Diagne_Senegal_- _Prioritization_of_Sectors.pdf LEDS Global Partnership (2015) LEDS/INDC/NAMA Connection Points, April 2015. Available via: http://www.africacarbonforum.com/2015/english/presentations.htm (accessed: 12 June 2015). NewClimate institute (2015) Status of INDC preparation worldwide. Available via: http://files.newclimate.org/indc-preparation-progress/ (accessed: 05 August 2015). UNFCCC (2014) Lima call for climate action, Decision -/CP.20, December 2014. Available via: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_ action.pdf (accessed: 15 July 2015). Van Asselt, H., Saelen, H. and Pauw, P. (2015) Assessment and Review under a 2015 Climate Change Agreement, Nordic Council of Ministers 2015. Available via: http://norden.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:797336/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed: 15 July 2014). Van Tilburg, X., Cameron, L., Harms, N., Esser, L. and Afandor, A. (2015) Status Report on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Mid-year update 2015. ECN Policy Studies/ Ecofys, 2015. Available via: http://mitigationpartnership.net/sites/default/files/nama-status-report-june-2015.pdf (accessed: 12 June 2015).
- 49. www.newclimate.org 49 Annex I: Major types of INDC and options for expression
Notes de l'éditeur
- Context In the run-up to the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP21) in December 2015, all countries have been invited to present individual post-2020 contributions, which would ultimately be included in a new international climate agreement under the Convention.. Countries are currently in the process of preparing and submitting their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs); 22 INDC submissions have been made by 31 July 2015, and by the end of September submissions are expected to cover countries that account for over approximately three quarters of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since December 2013, when all countries were invited in Warsaw, through Decision 1/CP.19, to begin preparing their INDCs, the UNFCCC secretariat, in cooperation with UNDP, has coordinated a series of regional technical dialogues in order to enhance the understanding of INDCs and facilitate their preparation and communication. During these dialogues, participants noted the requirement to compile lessons learned and best practices relating to the preparation of INDCs. Responding to this request, NewClimate Institute, with support from UNFCCC and UNDP, collected and analysed information on INDC preparation progress and practices worldwide, in order to enable knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer learning and identification of best practice in support of an ambitious global agreement. This presentation summarises the results of the analysis and presents various approaches adopted by different countries for specific elements of the INDC preparation. The content of this presentation builds upon three methodological steps: Firstly, information on the status of INDC preparation (including information on the status of the process, type(s) of INDCs, levels of commitment and lessons learned) was collected through online surveys and direct interviews with country representatives, practitioners and funding organisations. Secondly, the information collected was analysed in order to distil lessons learned and relevant knowledge for the international process (e.g. key challenges and opportunities in the preparation of INDCs, support needs for preparation and implementation of INDCs, requirements for reporting and accounting etc.). In a third step, the analysed information set out in this presentation will be used in diverse knowledge sharing activities, such as an online knowledge-sharing platform and a series of expert webinars. As a central element of data collection, attempts were made to ascertain and continually update the basic details of countries’ INDC preparation progress through online surveys, telephone interviews with country contacts, personal interviews at international meetings and third-party information from funding organisations. Data was continually collected an updated on a monthly basis between February and July 2ß15, by which time data had been collected for 125 countries, spanning all regions. Complementary to the basic data collection, 44 detailed interviews were conducted (17 for Asia and Pacific, 16 for Africa, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 3 for OECD). These interviews queried in addition to basic information also key challenges and opportunities that countries faced in the preparation process of their INDCs as well as other details. Around 80% of the consulted countries had started their INDC process at the time of consultation.
- Key challenges in the preparation of INDCs The approach followed by NewClimate Institute focuses in particular on the key challenges and opportunities reported by the consulted countries. These key challenges and opportunities are filtered from the collected data and grouped into four broader categories in the form of guiding questions that provide a structure to the presentation. For each category, country experiences and best practices are exemplified; thus, lessons learned for each of the reported key challenges and opportunities are provided. The data collected by NewClimate Institute through the surveys and interviews revealed the following five key challenges that countries encounter in the preparation of their INDCs: Too short timeframes for undertaking institutional processes, technical analysis, etc. Lack of certainty and guidance on what should be included in INDCs Limited expertise for assessing technical options (mitigation potential, costs, co-benefits, etc.) Securing high-level political support Lack of understanding of the objective in ministries and sectors not traditionally concerned with climate change issues
- Furthermore, the consulted countries also reported some opportunities from undertaking the INDC process: Improved international communication Enhanced engagement of stakeholders in climate change planning Acceleration of national climate change policy process Improved national processes Improved domestic communication between government, CSO and public
- These five key challenges and opportunities are well suited for an arrangement into four guiding questions that structure the following presentation: What to include in an INDC? How to mitigate the burden of limited capacity? How to secure broader participation and support? What benefits can be gained from the INDC process?
- The first challenge facing countries is the question of what to include in the INDC. While all countries have different starting positions, none are starting from scratch. The degree of preparedness varies according to other existing national climate change processes, beginning with the availability of an official National Communication to the UNFCCC and/or a greenhouse gas inventory, increasing with the execution of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and Low Emissions Development Strategies, and leading to those countries that have already set absolute emission reduction targets. The data collected from the consulted countries confirms that almost all countries can build on existing national climate processes in the preparation of their INDCs. However, in spite of information and data from other national climate processes being available, the question of what to include in the INDC remains. Section 1 addresses this question by focusing on country case studies and analysis of existing INDC submissions in the context of three orientating questions: 1.1 What can we learn from existing INDC submissions? 1.2 How can the split between unconditional and conditional contributions be determined? 1.3 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?
- See next slide for explanatory text
- Overview of existing submissions By 31 July 2015, 22 INDC submissions were available on the UNFCCC’s INDC portal. Whilst the existing submissions are mostly from industrialised countries, there are already submissions from countries covering a range of regions and income levels, and hence the submissions provide a collection of examples which are relevant for countries from all backgrounds. A wave of new submissions is expected by the end of September, and a large proportion of these submissions are expected to come from developing countries (NewClimate Institute, 2015). A trend is expected to emerge in upcoming submissions, in which the type of INDC and the options for its expression are closely related to the level of the respective capabilities of each country, as shown in the table of Annex I. In this context, capability may refer to resources available for INDC preparation, data availability, availability of existing analysis on mitigation scenarios, and, to an extent, the resources available for the implementation of mitigation measures. The type of format for the INDC is not necessarily linked to the degree of mitigation ambition; Parties with limited resources for the implementation of mitigation measures may still present economy-wide targets if they have the required capability to do so. On the other hand, it should be considered that carefully planned and clearly communicated policies and measures may have a greater mitigation impact and may attract more international support than hastily constructed economy-wide targets which are unclear and/or less efficient in their implementation. Table 1, spanning two slides, gives an overview of the mitigation component for all submissions up to 31 July 2015.
- See previous slide for notes.
- Figure 1 shows that almost all of the current submissions are based on outcomes: the vast majority of them include economy-wide GHG emissions targets. Whilst for many countries these targets are measured against a specified base year (in most cases 1990), for some countries the targets are made relative to a specified business as usual (BAU) trajectory. However, as indicated by Figure 2, most of the submissions received are from industrialised countries, who are more likely to put forward economy-wide targets; NewClimate Institute survey analysis (2015) indicates that fewer than half of all countries are expected to base their INDCs on economy-wide GHG targets, whilst others will present a range of INDC types including non-GHG related outcomes such as sectoral targets, or specific policies and actions.
- No comments. See comments on slide.
- This slide presents examples of some of the most common formatting elements of the final INDC documents. The examples here refer not to the process of developing the INDC and constructing its technical options, but simply to the format of the INDCs’ expression on paper. Major elements included in INDCs Almost all existing INDC submissions follow a very similar format and include a number of the same components, following closely the suggested criteria laid out in the 2014 Lima Call for Action. Therefore, these submissions can provide suitable examples for the major elements that should be included in countries’ INDCs. Guidance documents from several organisations, as listed at the end of section 1, have also proposed key INDC elements. The following list gives an overview of the major elements included in existing submissions: Summary of the target Most INDC submissions begin with a concise one sentence summary of the Party’s INDC. These summaries are usually highlighted in bold or separated prominently from the more technical parts of the document. The summaries usually include the type of target, the level of the target and the reference point. Some examples of the clearest INDC summaries include those in the submissions of Liechtenstein, the EU, and the US. Reference point All existing INDC submissions include a clearly defined reference point against which the level of their target is defined. These reference points are expressed in the form of a specified base year, or a specified BAU trajectory. In the case of BAU reference points, the submissions of Andorra, Mexico and Gabon provide examples of how these reference points can be specifically expressed and substantiated. For Andorra and Gabon, non-prominent information is also presented on how the BAU target translates to a comparisons against a historical base year. The Gabon INDC chooses to present details of their BAU trajectory graphically, whilst the Mexican INDC concisely presents their BAU projections in tabular form. Currently, none of the submissions include information on the major assumptions taken in the construction of the BAU scenario. Countries using a BAU reference did not make clear whether their definition of the BAU scenario is static, or dynamic: in other words, will the reference scenario against which the INDC is measured be adjusted over time according to new assumptions, and under what circumstances will these adjustments be made. Scope and coverage of the INDC All submitted INDCs include information related to the scope and coverage of the INDC target. This includes information on the sectors and the greenhouse gases covered. Whilst all INDCs submitted state this information clearly, the INDCs of the EU, Norway, the US and Russia provide especially good examples for the clear presentation of the scope and coverage. A number of submissions, including from the US, Mexico, the EU and Andorra, also include prominently the coverage of the INDC’s scope in terms of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Andorra reports that it’s INDC, which includes just the Energy and Waste sectors, covers 98.5% of the country’s GHG emissions in 2011. Methodological approaches Almost all of the existing submissions include a section on the key assumptions and the methodology for determining emissions. In all cases, methodologies are not described in detail, but rather concise information is presented to indicate which internationally recognised methodologies were used. The INDC from the EU provides a particularly clear example of this if one disregards the fact that the LULUCF accounting rules are not presented clearly (see below). Furthermore, some submissions include a subsection to explain the treatment of land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) in the context of emissions accounting. Some submissions, including the EU and Norway, indicate that treatment of LULUCF will be defined at a later stage before 2020. The US submission, in contrast, provides further concise details about their intended methodology for LULUCF accounting. Further technical details of the INDC All existing submissions have included the following items to explain their INDCs in greater detail and transparency: target year (mostly 2030), timeframe for implementation of proposed actions, and the intended usage of flexibility mechanisms for contribution attainment. For example, the EU submissions reports on all of these elements clearly and concisely. Longer term goals Some INDC submissions also provide further details about their long term goals (beyond 2030), and how their INDCs fit into such strategies. Examples of submissions where long term goals are expressed include Norway, the US and Mexico. Long term goals are however not included as a major component of the INDC in any of the current submissions. The use of a longer term goal alongside the mid-term contribution helps to put the contribution in its context, in order to demonstrate long term decarbonisations trends or to indicate the adequacy of the contribution and the strategy in terms of the achievement of a 2°C or 1.5°C goal. Legislative process planning Almost all submissions include brief information related to the legislative processes that are planned for the implementation of the INDC. For example, the submission from Russia indicates the current relevant instruments in force, and states that further legislative processes will be planned and adopted before the commencement of the implementation period. In a slightly different approach, Norway gives a brief timeline of important planning processes for climate change in recent and upcoming years. Considerations on fairness, ambition and the convention objective Most INDC submissions have specific sections for Fairness and Ambition and Contribution to the Objective under Article 2 of the UNFCCC. In these sections, Parties have briefly explained the ambition of their INDCs in various ways. There are various ways to assess the ambition of INDCs, as discussed further in section 2.5. Some Parties, including Andorra, Mexico and Liechtenstein, discuss this based upon the narrative of responsibility and capability, highlighting their Parties’ share of international emissions and how their INDC relates to their capacities for climate change mitigation. Liechtenstein and Switzerland include details on per capita emissions indicators. Norway’s submission discusses how its target relates to the aggregate international reductions required to meet the convention’s objective. More sophisticated methods of assessing fairness and ambition have been presented by several documents (see the guidance documents at the end of section 1 and Section 2.5). Conditional contribution Mexico and Morocco are the only countries so far to explicitly provide both an unconditional and a conditional contribution. The unconditional contribution will be pursued unilaterally regardless of external circumstances, whilst the conditional contribution is proposed based upon a list of assumptions. In the case of Mexico, the pre-requisite conditions for the extended contribution remain broad considerations which a, but some Parties are expected to propose clear objective conditions for secondary targets based upon the provision of a specified amount of financial support, as in the case of the Morocco INDC, or based upon a specified level of ambition by other Parties. Section 2.4 includes further details on the determination of unilateral and supported components. Finance requirements Some countries may choose to present specific finance requirements in combination with conditional targets. The only INDC submissions to include information on finance requirements so far are Morocco and Gabon. Gabon’s submission includes summarised information on what international finance could be used for, and through what avenues it might be sought, but does not include information regarding precise finance requirements. In Morocco, specific financial costs for the proposed measures are outlined. Although the provision of finance information provides a good indication of the overall scale of costs, the precise identification of cost requirements is complicated by the methodological difficulties of calculation, and uncertainty in the potential size of the role for the private sector. Adaptation component Of the existing submissions, Ethiopia, Morocco, Gabon and Mexico have included information on adaptation. The submission from Mexico provides an especially useful example for countries wishing to include adaptation components: a brief summary of the main adaptation targets is given in the tabular presentation of the Party’s INDC, whilst an Annex presents the adaptation component in full, including a detailed list of actions for adaptation of social systems, ecosystem-based adaptation, adaptation of infrastructure, and development of capacities. Gender considerations Of the existing INDC submissions, Mexico’s in the only one to include a section specifically for considerations on gender equality. In this case, the section does not outline additional actions for gender equality, but rather includes a statement that human rights and gender equality is mainstreamed within the proposed policies and actions. Format of submissions Of the INDCs submitted by June 2015, the majority are short, concise documents. The presentation format for the information in most submissions consists of basic yet unambiguous details, without detailed background information. For several countries, the use of a tabular format aids the ease of access and transparency of the information. For countries looking to replicate this style, WRI’s INDC template provides an example which can be used for maximum transparency and clarity on all important reporting elements. The submissions of the EU, Norway, Switzerland, Mexico and Russia are particularly clearly structured. In most of these cases, approximately one page is reserved for an introduction and the highlighted summary of the INDC, whilst the details of the INDC are elaborated in a tabular format over 2-4 pages. In some cases, such as the submission of Switzerland, a short Annex is attached to describe the country profile and emissions inventory. For Mexico’s submission, a short Annex was used to detail the adaptation targets in the context of Mexico’s vulnerability to climate change. Generally speaking, most submissions averaged around 5-6 pages in length, whilst Gabon’s, Ethiopia’s and Morocco’s submissions used more than 10 pages. The only submission to deviate considerably in terms of format was that of Gabon, which presents the emissions profile and targets for each sector individually, after an initial summary of the economy wide target.
- Adaptation Component The Lima Call for Climate Action (decision 1/CP20) “invites all Parties to consider communicating their undertakings in adaptation planning or consider including an adaptation component in their intended nationally determined contributions” (UNFCCC, 2014). NewClimate Institute asked country representatives to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree that climate change adaptation plans would form a major component of their INDC. 55 percent of the respondents strongly agree or agree that climate change adaptation plans would form a major component of their INDC. 14 percent strongly disagree or disagree with the statement. By July 2015, 22 INDCs were available on the UNFCCC’s INDC portal, 13 of which mention adaptation (China, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea). Two Parties submitted to the UNFCCC undertakings in adaptation planning independently of their official INDC submissions (European Union, United States).
- Countries are following a number of different approaches regarding inclusion and format of the adaptation component in their INDC. From those countries that have included adaptation in their INDC, some consider the adaptation component to be on equal footing with the mitigation component (see, for example, China, Ethiopia, and Morocco). Most countries, however, focus on mitigation as a priority in their INDC and consider adaptation in second place. Kenya is the only country so far that explicitly prioritises adaptation over mitigation in its INDC document. In general, most of the countries that have included an adaptation component in their INDC are developing countries. Still, New Zealand and Norway also mention adaptation in their INDC and refer to their respective National Communications for more detail. EU and US have submitted separate documents to the UNFCCC to outline their undertakings in adaptation planning. In absence of universal guidelines, countries use different formats and include different elements in their adaptation components. Both formats and elements vary considerably with regard to the degree of detail that is attached to the issue of adaptation. With respect to format, the adaptation component of existing submissions has taken the following different formats: an integral part of the INDC and as such addressed in a single chapter (and sub-chapters) (e.g. China, Kenya, Morocco, South Korea); included into the tabular format that most countries use for the mitigation component of their INDC (e.g. Ethiopia, Serbia, Mexico); included in the annex of the INDC (e.g. Marshall Islands, Mexico, Singapore); treated in a separate document (EU, New Zealand, Norway, United States). Regarding contents, the adaptation component can include various elements, ranging from rather general, qualitative goals and actions (e.g. Monaco, Gabon, South Korea), to sector-specific strategies (e.g. Kenya, Singapore), up to very precise (quantitative) goals and respective actions, including monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (e.g. Ethiopia, Morocco) and investment estimations (e.g. Morocco, Serbia). To date, the only country that has included quantified sectoral adaptation goals is Morocco. For 2020, the country envisages: 1) to substitute 85 million m³/year of water withdrawal from overexploited aquifers by withdrawals from surface water, 2) to increase the current area under drip irrigation from 154,000 ha at present to 555,000 ha in 2020, and 3) to implement reforestation measures on 200,000 ha of land. For 2030, Morocco adds 11 quantified goals in the water and land sector, such as the desalination of 285 million m³/year of drinking water supply to several cities, the reuse of 325 million m³/year of treated wastewater, and the conversion of nearly one million hectares of grain crops to fruit plantations that are likely to protect agricultural areas from erosion. To achieve these goals, Morocco is integrating measures to strengthen the country’s resilience to climate change in the majority of national strategies, policies, action plans and programmes, including the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD), the National Water Strategy (NWS), the National Water Plan (NWP), and others.
- Since the form and contents of the adaptation component varies widely across the existing submissions, the submissions can provide useful examples for countries in all circumstances. The following list gives an overview of types of formats seen in submissions so far, and some elements that are frequently included in the adaptation components. Format Format option: Adaptation occupies a dedicated chapter in INDC text, table or annex Most countries that have included an adaptation component in their INDC, have addressed it in a single chapter dedicated to adaptation. Depending on the format of the rest of the INDC, the chapter is either inserted into the continuous text (e.g. China, Morocco) or into the tabular format (e.g. Ethiopia, Serbia). According to the degree of detail, the chapter can comprise only half a page (e.g. Gabon, Monaco, South Korea), or several pages, divided into sub-chapters (e.g. Ethiopia, Morocco). China states in its INDC that mitigation and adaptation are “put on equal footing”. Accordingly, adaptation is an integral part of the entire INDC text, and, in addition, addressed in a single chapter on China’s contribution to the 2015 agreement negotiation. The Marshall Islands, Mexico and Singapore make reference to adaptation in their INDC tables and address the issue at length in the annexes of their INDCs. Format option: Reference to separate document Notably, the four industrial countries that considered adaptation in the process of INDC preparation and submission did so in a separate document. The EU and the United States made use of the opportunity to submit undertakings in adaptation planning to the UNFCCC secretariat, seperately from their INDCs (separate adaptation planning can be communicated to secretariat@unfccc.int and also shared publically on the UNFCCC INDC portal pages). New Zealand and Norway, on the other hand, mention adaptation in their INDCs only with a reference to their respective National Communications where they treat the adaptation issue with great detail. Contents Some basic information on the elements that can be included in the adaptation component of an INDC is offered in the annex to the draft text of the ADP Meeting of July 2014, on“Intended nationally determined contributions of Parties in the context of the 2015 agreement”. Climate impacts/ vulnerability assessment Most countries introduce their adaptation component with projections of specific climate impacts for their countries, including expected damages and related costs (e.g. Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Serbia, Singapore). Part of this can be a detailed vulnerability assessment which allows to identify priority sectors for adaptation action. Mexico, for example, first outlines general climate impacts to the country, then identifies three areas that are particularly vulnerable to climate change and finally defines a set of concrete actions to reduce vulnerability in the respective sectors. National adaptation strategies, policies, plans Many countries refer to existing or planned national adaptation strategies, policies or plans. Countries are thereby at varying stages of the respective processes and provide different degrees of detail with regard to the concrete adaptation goals and actions contained in these strategies, policies or plans. China intends in its INDC to accelerate the implementation of its National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation, which was laid out by the Chinese Government in 2013 and proposes specific adaptation goals and measures, which are, however, not outlined at length in the INDC. The Marshall Islands and Monaco are still in the process of elaborating a National Adaptation Plan which will form part of a broader National Adaptation Strategy, once the necessary has been made available. South Korea developed a National Adaptation Plan in 2010 which is currently being implemented. In addition to that, the country mandates subnational and local governments to develop their own action plans for adaptation by 2015, tailored to the local context. Sector-specific goals and actions Most countries identify sector-specific adaptation goals and/ or actions, again in varying degrees of detail. Ethiopia and Singapore cite specific sectors, adaptation goals in these sectors and measures to be taken to achieve the adaptation goals. South Korea confines itself to outline five strategic actions that aim to strengthen the country’s adaptation capacity, across sectors. Monaco, instead, outlines the most vulnerable sectors for which actions still have to be defined. International support Many countries point out to the particular importance of international cooperation on adaptation, including cooperative actions and international and regional investments to be contributed by the international community. China places particular emphasis on the general responsibility of developed countries to provide support for developing countries to formulate and implement national adaptation strategies, and propose to establish a “subsidiary body on adaptation to climate change” at the international level. The Marshall Islands also stress the importance of international support, going into detail with regard to the sectors in which the country heavily relies on external assistance for capacity and financial resources. Long-term adaptation goal Some countries outline an overall, long-term adaptation goal. Ethiopia and Kenya explicitly mention a long-term adaptation goal, which is framed in qualitative terms. To date, Morocco is the only country that includes quantified adaptation goals for specific sectors that are to be achieved by 2020 and 2030, respectively. Investment estimations The ADP, in the above mentioned draft text annex, invites countries to quantify their adaptation investments. Morocco follows this invitation by outlining national and international long-term finance needs. Serbia also includes quantification of adaptation investments in its INDC; however, estimations are limited to the period of 2000-2015 and do not cover international finance needs. Monitoring and evaluation Morocco describes in its adaptation component a monitoring and evaluation system that allows for the monitoring of climate vulnerability and the results of adaptation actions. The mechanism has already been tested in two regions and is planned to be implemented in more regions in the medium-term. Ethiopia also included a section on monitoring and evaluation in its adaptation component, mandating the Ministry of Environment to regularly organise consultative dialogues to review the implementation of the national and sectoral adaptation plans.
- No text
- No text
- Selection of scope Two of the three greatest challenges reported by Parties in NewClimate Institute’s survey were the short timeframe available to compile a contribution, and the limited availability of technical expertise. This, combined with the limited availability of robust data and studies in many countries, means that not all Parties might have the resources and/ or capacities to determine nationally appropriate contributions and/ or provide full information (including financing requirements) with regard to these contributions. By July 31 2015, all existing INDC submissions included full economy-wide coverage (except for Andorra, whose sectoral scope accounts for 98.5% of national emissions). However, many countries are expected to make a selection of priority sectors within which to develop GHG related targets, or a package of intended actions. It is important to note here that there are no precise instructions on how to define the scope and sectors of the INDC. Countries can choose which sectors and greenhouse gases to cover, as long as they “progressively enhance the level of ambition … such that each … contribution … is of a type, scope, scale and coverage more/ no less ambitious than those previously undertaken” (UNFCCC, 2014). Interestingly, though, to date even countries from which one did not necessarily expect an economy-wide contribution due to limited resources and/ or capacities (e.g. Gabon or Morocco) did nevertheless decide to submit an economy-wide target. Moving forward, it remains to be seen whether these countries are the exception or whether they indicate a new trend, whereby even developing countries move towards economy-wide targets. Given the fact that incomplete sectoral coverage bears the risk to compromise the emissions reductions by excluding significant emissions sources, and might cause leakage, this trend is noteworthy. Yet, some Parties might prefer to set a target covering multiple key sectors, or separate targets for separate sectors, rather than one target for all sectors. A target that covers high-emitting sectors but excludes minor sectors is favourable if the national inventory is dominated by these high-emitting sectors and data limitations impede regular monitoring through the national inventory in smaller sectors (WRI, 2015). Figure 5 gives an outline of the major criteria that countries are using to define the sectoral scope of their INDCs. Generally, considerations are split between two major factors: The potential impact of the sector for emission reductions and co-benefits accrual The synergies that actions within the sector may hold for other important national priorities and ongoing processes. UNFCCC (2014) Lima call for climate action, Decision -/CP.20, December 2014. Available via: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_action.pdf (accessed: 15 July 2015).
- Figure 6 presents a short list of examples of practices that countries are using to define the scopes of their INDCs and prioritise sectors where necessary. The major factors and practices are highlighted in further detail below: Assessment of sector impact A major consideration for sector prioritisation is the potential for action in the sector to make a significant climate change mitigation impact. According to the mitigation impact criteria, sectors with the highest emissions, the greatest technical emission reduction potential, the lowest estimated emission reduction costs, and the highest feasibility of implementation, are of key importance for inclusion in INDCs. Most countries are mitigating the challenge of limited capacity by building upon existing and on-going studies, data and processes to perform an assessment of their mitigation potential. Examples for such practices from Chile, Peru and Senegal are given in section 2.2. Furthermore, assessments of the wider economic and social co-benefits of proposed actions are used as a means of making a case for action in some countries. This topic is explored further in section 2.3, with examples of practices from Dominican Republic, and Colombia. Synergies between mitigation and adaptation goals The effects of climate change are already increasing the vulnerability of all Parties to natural, social and economic disasters, and it is widely understood that Parties will need to adopt measures to adapt to witnessed and anticipated climatic changes. Many of the greatest vulnerabilities exist in systems and sectors where there is also a great potential for climate change mitigation measures. Often, policies designed to modernise practices within the sector will have positive impacts for both emission reductions and climate change adaptation (see literature on climate smart development). For example, in Thailand, three priority areas are likely to be identified for adaptation, which all have major synergies with mitigation efforts or capacity to mitigate: 1) conservation agriculture programmes, 2) improved monitoring of forestry stocks and land use, and 3) improved modelling capacities and the development of a national data centre for climate change. In some countries, adaptation considerations related to the specific vulnerabilities of the mitigation measures themselves have been a key factor in the selection of measures. For example, in the Philippines, the vulnerability of hydro-power electricity capacity to future local climate change impacts has reduced the reliance that the country is willing to place on hydro, and encouraged the Philippines to look to other technologies instead. Synergies with national priorities Usually, the priorities of national strategic development plans are mainstreamed into the decision making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This ensures that the direction of national strategies is harmonised between ministries, and also provides an additional context within which to build upon efforts to achieve long term goals. For example, Senegal has chosen to develop an INDC based upon renewable energy and industrial energy efficiency; the focus on renewable energy is largely in response to the country’s major priority development goals to increase rates of electrification and reduce the number of households cooking with dirty fuels (Diagne, 2015). Indeed, many developing countries are expected to place considerable focus on the energy sector for their INDCs, for similar reasons. Uganda is another example of a country, which is developing its INDC largely based upon other national development priorities. The Uganda Vision 2040 strategy (Republic of Uganda, n.d.) targets universal access to electricity by 2025 and a reversal in the trend of deforestation. Consequently, the INDC is likely to focus primarily on the energy and forestry sectors, thus consolidating the national development agenda whilst also addressing a major source of emission reduction potential. Another alternative approach was mooted by the Solomon Islands, which is also based primarily on national development targets. The Solomon Islands have indicated that they will develop an INDC that explicitly reflects the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are still under development.
- Synergies with other national climate change processes Other on-going climate change processes, such as the development of Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS), Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) proposals and other climate change programmes, may provide a good basis from which to compile and communicate an INDC efficiently, thus considerably reducing the capacity requirements to conduct analyses and develop programmes. In particular, earlier elaborated documents such as National Communications and National GHG Inventories can be used as important databases that offer much of the information needed in the first stage of INDC development. National Communications & National Inventories National Communications and National Inventories may provide an appropriate starting point for the compilation of an INDC since they include detailed data on national emissions and related aspects. The National Communication is for some countries a form of predecessor for the INDC, in that it represents the only official international communication to the UNFCCC of the country’s climate change action plan; it is useful as a starting point for existing mitigation actions that are currently being planned or implemented in a country and that an INDC can build upon. Both help to identify the sectors and gases that contribute most to national emissions as well as the expected growth in emissions by sector in the future. On this basis, countries can prioritize those sectors and gases that contribute most to the national inventory and select actions that target particularly high-emitting or fast growing sectors and gases. One country that drew particularly on information from the National Communication and National Inventory in its INDC preparation process is Morocco. Based on its National Communication, Morocco determined the conditional and unconditional contributions presented in its INDC. Central insights from the National Communication also served as groundwork for the selection of sectors and gases to be included in the INDC (i.e. coverage of all sectors, including LULUCF, and three gases CO2, CH4 and N20). NAMAs In principle, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and INDCs are componential concepts in the sense that NAMAs comprise concrete mitigation actions (typically policies and programmes) that lead up to 2020, whereas INDCs constitute clear commitments for the post-2020 period. However, in practice NAMAs appear to continue to play a role as implementing and/or financing mechanisms beyond 2020, and may constitute specific components to be included within an INDC. Keeping this in mind, NAMAs and INDCs share some characteristics on the basis of which links between the concepts can be identified. Both are nationally driven processes and framed within broader development priorities. Provided that the concept of NAMAs proceeds to play a role after 2020, they might serve as an implementation tool for INDCs helping to achieve the determined mitigation targets and to effectively channel support. Besides, NAMAs can provide information on mitigation potentials, options to achieve emission reductions and other aspects. Also the capacities and institutions (including MRV systems) that have been built and the knowledge that has been acquired in NAMA development can serve as valuable groundwork for the preparation and implementation of INDCs, and also as a potential mechanism to channel support. On the other hand, INDCs can help to build support for NAMAs by offering an overarching target and high-level commitment from the government. By connecting international mitigation ambitions to sectoral action at the national level, INDCs can enhance coordination and transparency of domestic activities and thus offer a framework for NAMA prioritization, allowing countries to look at opportunities across sectors and evaluate them. Finally, the ambitions expressed in INDCs can motivate countries to broaden their NAMA concept and to include not only supported but also domestic actions in order to get recognition for mitigation efforts (ECN, 2015). An interesting example in this regard is Thailand. Thailand's INDC is developed based on key lessons learned from Thailand’s NAMAs that are supposed to support the preparation of robust, realistic and achievable contributions to a post-2020 GHG reduction. As is the case with the NAMAs, also the INDC is developed on the basis of GHG reduction targets relative to BAU 2020 emissions and takes as a reference point the base year 2005. It is expected that the institutional framework set up in the NAMA development process provides a basic structure for the preparation and implementation of the INDC. For example, capacity building activities in key sectors are supposed to continue from NAMA programmes and subsequently expand to other relevant sectors. LEDS Low-emission development strategies (LEDS) provide an overarching economy-wide and long-term framework for action that catalyses sectoral and short-/medium-term action. As is the case with NAMAs, also LEDS and INDCs have connecting points. A LEDS can provide a starting point for INDC preparation as much as an INDC can serve as a foundation for future economy-wide LEDS development. An example in this regard is Colombia. The Colombian Low Carbon Development Strategy (Estrategia Colombiana de Desarrollo Bajo en Carbono – ECDBC for its acronym in Spanish) has been used as the basis for defining the INDC mitigation component. In 2012, the establishment of the ECDBC was accompanied by a number of workshops with sectoral experts as well as high level conferences in order to create scenarios and prepare sectoral action plans that later served as important building blocks in the preparation of the INDC. The INDC preparation process thus draws directly on the ECDBC analysis. At the same time some baseline recalculation and further economic impact analysis may occur that will then feed back into the ECDBC. It must be noted that effective LEDS in terms of overarching strategic frameworks that coordinate and guide action to date only exist in a few countries. Many countries may instead choose a more pragmatic approach to establishing the interface between INDCs and NAMAs in the form of sectoral strategies and action plans (Van Tilburg et al., 2015). Irrespective of whether NAMAs and INDCs are integrated buildings blocks of a cross-sectoral LEDS process or are implemented in absence of overarching institutions, coordination is critical and might be supported through international partnerships (LEDS GP, 2015). CDM If a country is hosting Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, these can also help to identify current efforts that an INDC might build upon, such as currently implemented, adopted or planned mitigation actions and commitments. Experiences from the CDM processes are particularly useful to derive assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for emissions and, as appropriate, removals. Vietnam, for example, uses data deriving from the CDM as an input for its INDC at various points. CDM projects that are currently in the pipeline provide important data in particular with regard to the costs of mitigation actions, and thus serve as a foundation to calculate, on the one hand, emission reduction targets that Vietnam intends to achieve on a unilateral basis (unconditional targets) and, on the other hand, targets that the country would resort to additional international funding for (conditional targets). Furthermore, both the baseline and the mitigation scenarios of Vietnam’s INDC are based on simplified CDM methodologies. In addition to National Communications and Inventories, LEDS, NAMAs and CDM activities, other national climate change processes may also interact with the INDC preparation process, such as the Technology Needs Assessment (TNA), which is an important building block for the INDC of Senegal, or initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors, which has for example provided an important starting point for data in various sectors in Georgia.
- The Dominican Republic In the Dominican Republic the INDC development strongly builds upon multiple national climate change processes that interact with each other. It is a clear example of a case in which the coordination of activities under a common strategy can result in great benefits. In 2008, Presidential Decree 601-08 established the National Council for Climate Change and the Clean Development Mechanism (CNCCMDL) with the objective to coordinate national public policies for climate change. The CNCCMDL serves as National Focal Point (NFP) under the UNFCCC for NAMAs, CDM projects, and, recently, the INDC. In 2012, Law No. 01-12 was passed, which covers the country's National Development Strategy (NDS) and establishes a binding commitment to achieve an absolute reduction in GHG emissions of 25% compared to 2010 levels by 2030. Against this broader legal framework, the Dominican Republic's Climate Compatible Development Plan (CCDP) was developed, which serves as the country's LEDS. Within the CCDP, sectoral action plans for those sectors with the largest abatement potential were identified, namely the energy, transport and forestry sector, and a number of so called ‘quick wins’, i.e. cement, solid waste, and tourism. For each sector, specific measures are proposed which will be implemented by drawing on expertise and institutional capabilities that have been built in in the country throughout the development and implementation of CDM projects and NAMA programmes. The CCDP with its sectoral action plans also provides the groundwork for the INDC, which is further informed by data from the preparations for the Dominican Republic’s Third National Communication (TNC) and first Biennial Update Report (BUR). Synergies between the different reporting mechanisms (TNC and BUR) can be used for the finalization of the country’s National Inventory, which can then further support the development of the INDC.
- Peru Peru presented a draft version of its INDC for public consultation on June 5th; the consultation will continue until July 17th when all comments received will be revised and, based on this, a final version of the INDC will be presented to the UNFCCC no later than August 31st. The proposed INDC has been developed based on information collected through many climate change related projects since 2003. In particular the INDC considered: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) previously developed in the agricultural, forestry, waste and transport sectors Data collected for the first Biennial Update Reports (BUR) presented to the UNFCCC in December 2014 Data collected by forest programs and the outcomes of the Forest Investment Program (PIF, for its initials in Spanish) Programs that are being planned or implemented for all sectors considered: Energy, transport, industrial processes, agriculture, forestry and waste Data generated during the phase I of the PlanCC project (Planning for Climate Change), which assessed long term mitigation scenarios for the country The PlanCC project had particular relevance in terms of generating information regarding the mitigation potential of the country and exploring low carbon development scenarios for the future. PlanCC, a project led by the Peruvian Government, is part of the MAPS Programme (Mitigation Action Plans & Scenarios), which is a collaboration amongst developing countries (South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru) to establish the evidence base for long-term transition to robust economies that are both carbon efficient and climate resilient. The MAPS Chile project, for example, was defined by the government as the main input to the INDC that they are currently developing. It played a particularly important role in assessing mitigation actions for the country as well as in developing mitigation scenarios based on those mitigation options. Based on PlanCC and other inputs, the country developed four mitigation scenarios for 2030, using a business as usual (BAU) scenario as reference. The proposed INDC refers to the 3rd scenario developed which includes 58 mitigation actions and projects which represent a 82,2 million TnCO2eq annual reduction by 2030. The previous can also be accounted as a 31% reduction of emissions for 2030 against the BAU scenario. As mentioned above, this proposal is framed in existing climate change national policies and programmes and over 50% of the 58 mitigation actions considered in this scenario are about to start or already being implemented in line with the country’s development goals and the National Strategy for Climate Change (ENCC).
- Countries with previous climate change mitigation targets or policies may find that a process for review of the existing target is a more efficient means of developing the INDC than the re-commencement of an entirely new and separate process: Indonesia’s INDC is a by-product of the Indonesia Mitigation Policy review process (BAPPENAS, 2015) Such cases also provide useful examples for countries developing targets for the first time, as an example of the institutional and procedural components that should be built into the INDC in order to ensure its review and revision in the future, in the most efficient manner possible. In the case of Indonesia, the existing process came from the 2011 Presidential Regulations for a National Action Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (RAN-GRK). RAN-GRK included many of the components expected from an INDC: at the center of RAN-GRK was an economy wide target for GHG emission reductions by 2020, compared to a BAU scenario. The policy included actions and responsibilities across five ministries, and included a further conditional target based upon international support. Rather than starting a parallel process for the development of the INDC, Indonesia decided instead to embark upon a review and revision process for the RAN-GRK, based upon sophisticated systems analysis modelling. These revisions will lead to an update of the existing national policy, and the relevant parts of this policy will then be communicated as an INDC, which will essentially be a by-product of the existing process. The steps of INDC development in the review and revision process in the case of Indonesia, are as follows: Comprehensive qualitative and quantitative review of the results of policy implementation Review of new technical information, situational changes, and latest national development priorities Political process to determine the new policy target Similar processes have been undertaken or are underway in several countries, including most Annex I countries. The benefits of such a process include: Ensuring that the INDC is fully integrated in – or literally, a product of, - ongoing national policy making and national development priorities. Ensuring that the INDC is set, irreversibly, in national legislation. Reducing the burden and need to undertake new analysis from scratch. Roles and responsibilities for policy design, review and implementation are already established and in good working order. Furthermore, a review process of previous policies is likely to provide better guidance to the development of an INDC than an isolated background baseline study, since it offers: Experiences and evidence of the implications of policies on the economy and inter-connected sectors. Improved understanding on the limitations of policy options and scenarios. A tangible platform for dialogue on cross-sectoral interactions with climate change policy. In this way, a comprehensive review process could mitigate a great deal of the uncertainty associated with the less-validated information upon which many countries are developing their INDCs. Such reduced uncertainty can be a driver for increased willingness to increase mitigation ambition, and it can also provide the basis for a more realistic costed implementation plan with private sector investment. With the benefits of such review and revision processes in mind, countries developing their national mitigation targets and policies for the first time should consider the institutional, infrastructural and procedural requirements that should be set in place during design and implementation to ensure that the INDC leads the way to a long term, sustainable and dynamic policy framework. sustainable and dynamic policy framework.
- Co-benefit assessment Countries are expected to present contributions that are as ambitious as their national circumstances allow. A key consideration and constraint in this context is the perceived upfront costs associated with transitioning to a low carbon economy, including the gradual depreciation of unsustainable industries which often occupy a central position in a country’s economic and political climate. However, all too often, climate change mitigation ambition potential is stymied by cost-benefit analyses that neglect to consult a thorough consideration of the latter component – the benefits. Such benefits include reduced dependence on fossil fuel imports and improved energy security, health impacts from air pollution reduction and safer working environments, the generation of sustainable and decent jobs, and the protection of local ecosystem services upon which many local economies are enormously dependant. An increasing volume of research from recent years demonstrates how a more serious consideration of the co-benefits of climate change mitigation action can bring down the perceived costs considerably, and even generate positive economy-wide returns. For example, NewClimate Institute (2015a) found that the INDCs of the US, the EU, and China achieve substantial benefits in terms of cost savings from fossil fuel imports, improved health from reduced air pollution, and the creation of decent green jobs. Moreover, the potential benefits that could be achieved in addition by scaling up the ambition of the INDCs to meet a 2°C compatible pathway, as presented in Figure 11, is many times larger. The assessment of the co-benefits of potential climate change mitigation action has been useful in some countries for two main reasons: The potential accrual of co-benefits can help to prioritise sectors and measures to include within the INDC. Recognition of both the achieved and potential co-benefits may increase the willingness of decision makers and influential stakeholders to embark on more ambitious climate action strategies.
- Quantification of non-GHG related benefits in the Dominican Republic In the Dominican Republic, an assessment of the co-benefits obtained by individual measures was the major criteria for the determination of the Party’s INDC. Table 3 shows the mitigation potential is just one of the benefits considered in the country’s prioritisation of measures, alongside job creation, economic benefits and other non GHG-related emissions. The table shows the country’s assessment of non-GHG related benefits for the energy and transport sector as an example; other sectors and measures were also quantified. In total, the Dominican Republic reports that the measures selected for their INDC will generate approximately 98,000 new jobs in 2030 and cost savings of around 3 billion USD per year, alongside a number of other non-quantified benefits. The assessment helped the Dominican Republic to select the energy, transport and forestry sectors as the key areas of the INDC, in addition to some “quick-wins” for particularly cost effective and co-benefit lucrative measures in cement, waste and tourism (Alvarez, 2015). In another example, Armenia (like Peru and Mexico) has also highlighted the multiple benefits of its potential climate action to increase the awareness and support of the public, through the country’s innovative media-led public consultation and engagement initiative (see section 3.3).
- Some countries have indicated that they wish to present a conditional contribution, based upon specific conditions regarding the availability of international finance, or the level of ambition proposed by other countries. For these countries, a major challenge in determining an INDC is to identify how much should be done unilaterally by the country and how much could be done with the support of the international community. Countries have used their existing strategies and on-going processes to help them determine their unconditional as well as conditional targets. The examples of Ecuador and Morocco show that in general countries tend to use existing policies or measures, or at least those that are currently seriously considered in national processes, to form their unconditional INDC. They also use a number of different ways that build on existing analysis to determine their conditional INDC. The latter also depends on their definition of conditionality. Ecuador intends to build its unconditional INDC on the basis of a previous analysis undertaken as part of the UNDP Focam programme. This analysis included three measures: the development of hydro-electric power stations, a programme to introduce induction based cook stoves and an energy efficiency programme in the petroleum sector. All three measures are currently under planning and Ecuador has decided to implement these unilaterally. For the conditional target they intend to use the currently existing CDM pipeline. This pipeline has the advantage that it includes projects that already have estimates of their emission reductions and associated costs which in turn allows Ecuador to determine its financial needs. Furthermore Ecuador is currently taking a closer look at the forestry sector which it also intends to include in its INDC. With the help of stakeholder consultation Ecuador intends to identify how much it will undertake as part of its unconditional and conditional INDC. Morocco - The mitigation actions proposed for the INDC were identified for the 3rd Nationl Communication. An initial brainstorm of possible actions that asked how much the country can deliver in an ideal case identified 54 projects /mitigation actions. These actions were quantified in terms of GHG emission reduction potential. From the 54 actions, 10 advanced actions were selected to constitute the unconditional target, acknowledging that there are still barriers remaining for implementation. The contribution was discussed and validated by the sectoral committees. The conditional INDC comprises all 54 actions. Conditionality in Morocco depends on 2 factors: i) that there is a legally binding 2015 agreement, and ii) funding alternatives. A further interesting aspect was that the discussion around the INDC did not only focus on the mitigation potential of the country but also addressed the risks of not being able to comply. The process included meetings of senior decision makers and involved the technical expert teams that support the INDC process. There were six ministries involved.
- In the absence of detailed country examples, we present here a conceptual approach that could be used to identify both the conditional and unconditional pledge is by developing analysis to determine what should we do as a country, given our responsibility and capability, and what could we do given our national circumstances. There are a number of analysis that can be used to support this analysis. A conceptual best practice way would be to use effort sharing approaches to determine what a “fair” level of emission reduction is for my country and to use mitigation potential calculations: Effort sharing – A large number of effort sharing principles and approaches exist that reflect different views on what would be “fair”. As a county one could select those from the existing approaches that are regarded most appropriate and determine an effort sharing level on their basis. Laying out transparently what the assumptions are will allow for international scrutiny. Countries who would like to be ambitious could opt for a target that goes beyond its “fair” contribution. Mitigation potential – Mitigation potential can give an indication of what is possible in a country at a low to reasonable cost. For instance, a country could identify its potential using MACC curves or other methods and group these into “no-regret”, “co-benefits” and “ambitious measures”. The country could then present anything that goes beyond the “fair” contribution and request international finance to reach this target. To this date, we are not aware of a country having used such an approach. The reason might be that countries face some challenges in reality: Determining a “fair” contribution can be a highly controversial and governments feel they need to decide what they consider fair. This could be mitigated if governments decided to use a median of all or a range of approaches. Both analysis for “fair” contribution and mitigation potential require analysis that is often not readily available. Especially mitigation potential analysis is often either not existing, of limited coverage in scope or outdated. These two analysis do not allow countries to judge the feasibility to implement the targets. The use of effort sharing and mitigation potential analysis give no indication as to how the resulting targets can be achieved. Additional analysis would be needed to identify policies and measures that the country could use to implement these. Nevertheless, the approach described above has the advantage that the INDC is transparent in that it clearly shows how a country determined its targets and that it can therefore be scrutinized.
- As is the case for the determination of unconditional and conditional contributions, countries also use a number of different ways for the assessment of equity and ambition. Four central reference points were reported by the countries consulted on this issue: Effort sharing: What is the “fair” share? How much should emissions be reduced? Potential: How much could emissions be reduced (irrespective of who pays)? Comparison to benchmarks for decarbonisation indicators: How are other countries developing? Good practice policy packages: What are other countries doing? Further info on effort sharing: Climate action tracker country pages: www.climateactiontracker.org Climate Equity Reference Calculator: http://gdrights.org/calculator-about/ Climate fair shares: http://www.climatefairshares.org Further info on potential: National studies if available Further info on decarbonisation indicators: Carbon Transparency Initiative from Climate Works (soon to come) Climate Action Tracker www.climateactiontracker.org (soon to come) Further info on best practice policy package: UNFCCC best practice tables Policies proposed in the chapters of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Action Tracker country assessments http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/publications/WP1_MethodologyCountryAssessment_website_2011.pdf
- At COP20 in December 2014, The Lima Call for Climate Action agreed that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their INDCs may include, inter alia, how the Party considers that its INDC is equitable and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances. In principle, whether a contribution is equitable and ambitious can be determined either multilaterally (on the basis of agreed criteria and indicators) or by each country for itself (on the basis of what a country thinks is equitable and ambitious). To date, no universally accepted criteria and indicators have been defined against which a multilateral assessment of equity and ambition could be made. Still, even though the INDCs submitted by July 2015 have limited information on equity and ambition, they permit conclusions about a small number of basic indicators: Alignment with IPCC trajectories Alignment with the country’s own long term target Deviation from the trend Per capita emissions Contribution to world total emissions Emission reductions per GDP Peak year Switzerland mentions responsibility, capability and potential as criteria, but does not provide quantitative evaluation (except that its contribution to global emissions is low, 0.1%) EU states that the INDC is consistent with its 2050 target and halving global emissions by 2050, without further specifying why. It states its per capita emissions (12 tCO2e/cap in 1990, 9 in 2012 and 6 in 2030) and states that its emissions peaked in 1979. Norway states that the INDC is in line with global “pathways towards 2050 that correspond to keeping global warming below 2°C”, without further specifying why. It quotes IPCC WGIII, table 6.4 to state the INDC “is at the high end of emission reductions that should be implemented by OECD-countries, given a global cost-effective, regional distribution of emission reduction targets”. Mexico refers to its responsibility (1.4% of global emissions) and per capita emissions (5.9 tCO2e/cap) and states that efforts are ambitious because they are more stringent than before. USA states that actions are ambitions because they are “a substantial acceleration of the current pace of greenhouse gas emission reductions.” “This target is consistent with a straight line emission reduction pathway from 2020 to deep, economy-wide emission reductions of 80% or more by 2050”. Gabon provides no information on ambition. Russia states that the emissions per GDP declined. Liechtenstein refers to its responsibility that “total emissions count up to 0.0073% of the global total emissions” and states that per capita emissions are 6.1 tCO2e today and at 3.6 tCO2e under the INDC in 2030. “Moreover the reduction path is well in line with the respective recommendations made by the IPCC in 2014.” Andorra refers to its small contribution of 0,00112% to global total emissions and states that its pathway is in line with IPCC pathways. Canada states that it is ambitious because it is “a substantial reduction from Canada’s business-as-usual emissions” Morocco refers to the fact that it proposes for the “first time, a formal commitment to limit the growth of its GHG emissions, despite having only emitted 0.2% of global GHG emissions in 2010.” Per capita emissions: 3.1 tCO2e/cap in 2029 under the conditional INDC and the GHG intensity improves. It states that it must focus primarily on minimizing the risks of climate change impacts Ethiopia states that it is an LDC. Per capita emissions are at 1.8 tCO2e, reduced to 1.1 tCO2 by 2030. Some countries have also forwarded proposals on the common assessment of equity and ambition. South Africa and the African Group have suggested that contributions should be assessed against a principle-based equity reference framework, which would require the negotiation of common indicators of responsibilities, capabilities, development, and adaptive capacity. Brazil, instead, calls on the IPCC to develop a reference methodology on historical responsibilities, which should guide mitigation contributions (the Group of 77 and China endorsed Brazil’s proposal; however, many Annex I Parties opposed it). The EU suggested a less prescriptive approach which highlights the responsibility of each Party to outline how its proposed commitment represents an appropriate contribution and which criteria and indicators the country wants to use in order to develop its proposed commitment (Van Asselt et al., 2015). Van Asselt, H., Saelen, H. and Pauw, P. (2015) Assessment and Review under a 2015 Climate Change Agreement, Nordic Council of Ministers 2015. Available via: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:797336/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed: 15 July 2014).
- The MAPS programme (carried out in four Latin American countries) grew out of the experience of developing Long Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS) in South Africa between 2005 and 2008. For the MAPS countries, the MAPS process has been the main input for designing the INDC. The MAPS methodology includes the development of two reference scenarios: a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario and a Required by Science (RBS) scenario. Between these two, a range of mitigation scenarios for each country can be found. The RBS scenario is determined based on a climatic objective, unlike other scenarios considering economical drivers, the RBS sets a limit to global emissions to avoid a 2°C increase in temperature and distributes those emissions among the countries. The limit of the emissions is set based on the Assessment Reports of the IPCC and the Emissions Gap Report. The “common but differentiated convergence” criteria can be applied for the emissions distribution among all countries. Initially, the RBS scenario was mostly seen as a reference scenario of what should ideally be done is possible, and to estimate the gap between the BAU and the RBS scenarios. After developing the country´s mitigation scenarios, for example in the Peruvian case, the RBS was used to motivate stakeholders to aim for a more ambitious mitigation scenario, one that is closer to the RBS line. For other MAPS countries, such as Chile, during the INDC preparation, the RBS in combination with other tools is used to argue equity and ambition of the country‘s contribution. Additionally, this scenario is being used in the final stages of the INDC process as a validation step, and this could potentially nudge the INDC a bit further.
- No text
- NewClimate Institute research and insight indicates that mandates to begin preparations for INDCs came in most cases from one of two sources: Head of State Minister of the ministry within which the UNFCCC focal point sits From each scenario, positive and negative aspects can be observed. Where the head of state mandated the preparation of the INDC, wider engagement of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders was ensured, and political sign-off processes were particularly clear. However, mandates for INDC preparation originate in most countries from line ministries, sometimes without detailed consultation with other high-level governmental stakeholders. NewClimate analysis as shown in Figure 12 indicates that towards the beginning on the INDC preparation process, only a quarter of countries expected to require sign-off from parliament or the head of state, whilst many more countries expected that Ministry level sign-off would suffice. In many cases, this appears to have been an underestimation of the sign-off process; many of the countries that indicated they would require sign-off from a Minister are currently revising their submission timelines, in light of unforeseen political processes such as the need for parliamentary approval. This is reflected in the slight delays observed in the submission of INDCs compared to forecasts made by NewClimate in March, which were based upon country-reported timelines; closer inspection shows that many countries have typically spent longer in the “Political process” phase than they may have anticipated. This insight provides a useful lesson for future rounds of international climate change mitigation communications: countries where engagement of the highest level of governance took place at an early stage have typically enjoyed more support and more reliable timelines. However, in some countries, such a level of governmental oversight can provide a hindrance in terms of bureaucratising the process, or over-politicising the process ahead of the technical analysis. The ideal approach depends on individual country circumstances, but experiences with this round of INDC preparations will afford all countries a better idea of the process requirements for the future.
- Sufficient inter-ministerial engagement has long been a major barrier to the planning and implementation of climate change related strategies in many countries. Often, governmental stakeholders in departments not traditionally involved in the climate change discourse lack a thorough understanding of the science of climate change and its implications for national adaptation and mitigation policy. The synergies between climate change strategy and national development priorities in all sectors of the economy are also often overlooked, and as such, potential quick-wins for climate change mitigation and adaptation are often omitted from sectoral policies. Moreover, since it requires interventions in various sectors, the implementation of climate change policy cannot be executed without the full comprehension and engagement of these decision makers across various spheres of governance. As such, many countries have found it difficult to move beyond planning for climate change and into implementation. Establishing an inter-ministerial framework for the INDC process is essential to ensuring that INDCs are realistic and achievable, in terms of buy-in and the creation of a sense of common responsibility. It is also of key importance at the stage of preparation, as a means of collecting useful data, information and insights from all spheres of governance, which are key for the design of an INDC that follows the priorities of national development strategy as closely as possible. To tackle this issue, many countries have established inter-ministerial steering committees to share responsibility and oversight for the preparation of the INDC. For example, in Georgia, an inter-ministerial committee holds ultimate responsibility for the INDC preparation, whilst the Department for Climate Change is responsible for the provision of technical support to this committee. Key responsibilities along the process are assigned to different ministries, in order to secure their buy-in and engagement. In many countries, the INDC process was able to adopt existing inter-ministerial committee structures engaged in other climate change processes. This is the case, for example, in Senegal, where an inter-ministerial steering committee was established for the development of the countries Technical Needs Assessment (TNA). A major benefit of adopting an existing governance structure in this way is that all stakeholders are already fully informed about their role; in the case of Senegal it also meant that analysis and outcomes from the TNA could be seamlessly integrated into the process of INDC design. Armenia has taken several measures to ensure successful inter-ministerial cooperation. Various ministries have become more engaged with climate change issues in recent years, owing to other ongoing climate related programmes such as the Covenant of Mayors programme in which national and local governmental stakeholders from several sectors have developed low emissions strategies for urban areas. For the INDC, the inter-ministerial steering committee established under the Third National Communication process was adopted, and responsibility was co-assigned to three major ministries in order to secure buy-in and support to the process. Furthermore, deputy ministers from several key ministries attended an intensive 2-day seminar to develop a more thorough understanding of the upcoming INDC process and how it relates to the work of each ministry. These measures, along with the regular participation of various deputy ministers in roundtable interviews for public consultation (see section 3.3) have ensured that various governmental stakeholders are informed and engaged.
- Why to engage stakeholders? Stakeholder consultation is an important part of any policy planning process, including INDCs, for several reasons. Engaging stakeholders helps to secure broad level buy-in and public support for policies, it ensures embeddedness of resulting decisions in the national context and it enables decision makers to harness useful, often very sector or industry specific, expertise and information which is needed to define effective approaches and policy responses. As in the case of Singapore, the consultation of stakeholders generated new ideas and opened skills sets not previously available to government. Lastly, consulting stakeholders throughout the planning process mobilises those actors required to ensure the effective implementation of activities resulting from the INDC including public awareness building which was a focus of consultations in Armenia. For most countries stakeholder consultation has become a firm element of (climate) policy planning and experiences from, for example, LEDS or NAMA processes, are transferred to the INDC development process. The processes are broadly similar, however, the comprehensiveness of the INDC, the time constraints and expected formality of the outcome present particular challenges for INDC consultation. Who to involve? The first questions that arises when starting a stakeholder engagement process is who to involve. For INDCs, typically a broad range of stakeholders from government civil society, academia and the private sector are included in the consultations. For example Armenia embarked on a broad consultation approach which was also targeted at the general public in order to increase awareness and public buy-in. Depending on the structure (and size) of the country, often also consultations take place at the regional as well as municipal level. For example, in Uganda and Kenya consultations at the regional government level is an important part of the process, reflecting the decentralised nature of government and important role of local decision makers in these countries. In other countries, the focus was on specific stakeholder groups, for example, the private sector in Singapore. How to manage the process? Stakeholder engagement requires careful planning. Timing of inputs for the INDC consultation is critical given the overall time constraints in the process. Stakeholders may be consulted bilaterally which ensures targeted discussions and inputs, through multilateral workshops and events which helps to improve the understanding of stakeholders of the complexities and exchange potentially different viewpoints, as well as through written input, for example using online tools. Norway, for example, applied a novel approach by holding a one day „speed dating session“ with stakeholders. It is critical to manage expectations of stakeholders in order to avoid disappointment. Those conducting the process need to be transparent about the degree of involvement and influence of different stakeholders and how inputs are used in the decision process. For example, stakeholders may be involved in specific parts of the INDC process (for example, prioritisation and scope of the INDC as is the case in Uganda and Senegal); to provide particular inputs and ideas related to measures and implementation (e.g. Singapore) or more broadly to share information and raise awareness of the process overall (e.g. Armenia). Consultation objectives and approaches may also be combined to maximise benefits of engagement.
- Consultation processes are country specific and will depend on a variety of factors, including the size of the country, the structure of government as well as the culture of communication. For example, the use of online consultation tools is more appropriate for technologically advanced countries, in others direct, personal communication is essential. More devolved government structures require the involvement of local and regional decision makers, in other countries a centralised approach is more feasible. Also the scope of the INDC, the sectors and envisaged measures may require a higher degree of involvement of certain stakeholder groups, e.g. rural communities or the private sector. The case of Singapore The consultation process in Singapore comprised an online platform for public feedback as well as a series of dialogue sessions. The online platform was available for a period of over 10 weeks to seek inputs and suggestions on sector specific opportunities and measures. The dialogues were co-organised with key stakeholder groups, mainly business associations as a reflection of Singapore‘s green growth aspirations, and focussed on the following: business knowledge sharing of best practices, and/ or their experiences with government schemes, to serve as inputs for future reviews; exchanges of views on opportunities and challenges for emission reductions, and sub-sectoral perspectives; sharing of studies, pilots or initiatives. The exchanges proved useful not only as inputs to government policy planning but also for peer to peer learning within and across sectors by show casing successful examples of energy efficiency measures (for example, green freight) and deployment of renewable energy technology (for example, building integrated solar PV). The diversity of different viewpoints (for example, a debate on more or less stringent government regulation) allowed the government as well as participating stakeholders to have a more holistic picture of different concerns. Better understanding of the different views will help to calibrate policy formulation and to inform current and future pilot programmes, policies and measures. It also signalled the need for deeper consultation on specific implementation options. The consultations provided the government with new ideas and inputs on specific mitigation measures and opportunities and provided specific feedback on how current or planned policies and initiatives can be improved. Conversations and discussions between stakeholders that had differing opinions balanced different viewpoints. The case of Armenia Armenia followed an innovative approach to public consultation by employing the NGO media outlet Ecoluz to undertake broad public outreach. The initiative forms part of a longer term public awareness strategy on climate change. Based on a briefing by the Ministry of Environment on the key themes and general content of the INDC, Ecoluz collected opinions, concerns and feedback through a public survey. For each topic area of the INDC a roundtable interview was organised with high level government officials, including deputy ministers from the various ministries. During the one hour sessions the opinions and concerns raised by the public were presented and discussed directly with the decision makers. The roundtable interviews were broadcast to the public through live streaming, and the findings of each session were summarised in the media outlet‘s reporting. This process had an impact in Armenia in two ways: The consolidated opinions and concerns raised by the public provided an important input for the further development of the INDC content The initiative increased awareness of the INDC process and climate change more generally amongst the Armenian public to increase buy-in as well as provide an enhanced platform for stakeholder involvement during later implementation
- No text
- Consolidation of existing climate change processes This is a particularly important opportunity for developing countries which have not been required to submit formal climate change targets in the past, and for which the broad variety of nationally and donor driven climate related activities may not have been consolidated. For these countries, the INDC provides a stimulus for the opportunity to take stock of the ongoing programmes, policies and initiatives, and to consolidate these into components of a single long terms strategy which is advanced in line with national priorities. Senegal, for example, like many countries has benefitted during the INDC process from an opportunity to combine the National Adaptation Plans (NAP), the Technology Needs Assessment (TNA), the Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, national policies, and national strategy documents. In the Dominican Republic the INDC development strongly builds upon multiple national climate change processes that interact with each other. In 2008, Presidential Decree 601-08 establishes the National Council for Climate Change and the Clean Development Mechanism (CNCCMDL) with the objective to coordinate national public policies for climate change. The CNCCMDL serves as National Focal Point (NFP) under the UNFCCC for NAMAs, CDM projects, and, recently, the INDC (see section 2.2 for more details).
- In addition to providing an impetus for the consolidation of on-going climate related activities, most countries report that the INDC has played a role to accelerate the development of these individual activities. Approximately 75% of countries agreed that the INDC process had produced the positive effect of accelerating their existing climate change processes. There are multiple reasons why the INDC process may accelerate the development of existing processes and programmes. Firstly, in some countries, the completion of existing processes under development was deemed essential for input into the INDC design. In Georgia for example, the development of a Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) was given renewed priority as the comprehensive analysis and scenario building conducted under the LEDS programme will form the primary input to the INDC. In this case, this positive development was effectively guaranteed by designating the existing inter-ministerial steering committee for the LEDS as the leading entity for the INDC process. Secondly, in other countries, this acceleration has occurred as a result of the generally increased domestic and international awareness and attention given to climate change related programmes and policy making due to importance and broad implications of the national contributions and, collectively, the new international climate change agreement to be reached in 2015. This was a co-benefit reported by Armenia, following their major public consultation and outreach exercise (see section 3.3 for further details). Armenia report that they now have “a relationship and a common understanding” with the general public, on a level, which was previously not possible, and this should help to accelerate the implementation of important mitigation and adaptation measures. Thirdly, the INDC process is removing some of the barriers that previously hindered the progression of existing initiatives and planning processes, since the successful completion of the INDC process requires the overcoming of some of these same challenges (such as those discussed in this document), and provides a high priority stimulus to do so. The INDC in Thailand made the sectoral plans more visible for relevant government agencies and thus there is a more supportive political environment, thus contributing to speeding up other processes not directly related to the INDC.
- The design of an INDC calls for the active participation of all areas of governance, including ministries not traditionally involved in the climate change dialogue, and high-level officials whose engagement in climate change issues may also have been limited. Whilst this has also proved a considerable challenge for the development of INDCs in most countries (see section 3.1 and 3.2) the positive outcome is often tangible improvements towards the goal of mainstreaming climate change related considerations in all government planning and policy making, including at the level of regional and local governance. In Georgia for example, the inter-ministerial led INDC process has assigned responsibilities across various ministries, many of whom are becoming engaged with climate change related responsibilities for the first time. Whilst formal meetings between the inter-ministerial groups occur at intervals of 3 months, deputy ministers are also proactively holding informal discussions far more regularly, indicating the intent of these ministries to assume and act upon their responsibilities effectively. In Thailand the INDC process has highlighted the efforts on climate change that the different ministries have included in their sectoral plans. These efforts have been incorporated in the INDCs one ministry at a time, e.g. the Ministry of Energy is a actively engaged in the preparation of the INDCs since it constitutes a priority sector. The INDC process has, therefore, shown to the ministries that the INDCs are in line with their goals. Other sectors are being included progressively in accordance with the mitigation and adaptation priorities.
- Many countries have been increasingly proactive in their approach to climate change planning in recent years; preparation of an INDC provides a driver to commit to implementation within a defined timeframe. For many countries, this is the first time that internationally communicated commitments with a defined temporal scope for implementation have been set. For some countries, the fixed timeframe defined has allowed for an enhanced focus on the development of implementation plans. In Thailand, for instance the INDCs will provide more specific actions for implementation of the energy plan of the Ministry of Energy. A concrete example is the objective to promote efficient lighting and with the INDCs they have to select the appropriate technologies for lighting and also propose incentives measures to support this goal.
- Enhanced engagement of stakeholders in climate change planning processes Through the development of national policies, LEDS, NAMAs and other climate related programmes and initiatives, many countries have experience with consulting non-governmental stakeholders for climate change related issues. However, these activities are often limited in their scope, and the INDC represents the first time for most countries that a climate change related process is broad enough in its scope to cover all stakeholders, and important enough in its implications to require such comprehensive participation. For example, although the Climate Change Department of the Ministry of Environment in Georgia has great experience with stakeholder consultations for its various activities, such processes were somewhat fragmented and the INDC has provided the opportunity to create a centralised platform for dialogue between all effected parties, including many stakeholders who were not previously identified, and donor organisations whose various activities were not always coordinated and effectively interconnected. In Singapore, increased efforts to consult stakeholders across the countries major private sector sphere, as well as academia and CSO, uncovered several ideas and skill sets that could be used to aid the INDC preparation process and the implementation of measures (see section 3.3 for further details).
- Information and data management One of the challenges facing many countries in the preparation of their INDCs has been the ability to efficiently access information and data which can inform the selection of mitigation and adaptation options and scenarios. For some countries, the process of information and data consolidation occupies a large amount of the resources available for the preparation processes. In some cases, key information and data is not available or readily accessible, and this may cause delays to the process or, more importantly, uncertainties in the implications of potential design options. Essentially, this restricts the level of potential “buy-in” from high-level decision makers and wider stakeholders due to the increased level of risks attached to the uncertainties. As such, several countries have taken the INDC process as an opportunity to develop more sophisticated means of collecting and managing data centrally: Senegal will open an office dedicated to centralised data collection and management in the Climate Change Department Costa Rica is developing a national registry for all climate related transactions, including those from the carbon markets and from forestry-based payment for ecosystem service (PES) systems. This national registry will be expanded to include information for all climate change related projects in all sectors. The Philippines has developed their National Integrated Climate Change Database Information and Exchange System (NICCDIES), with centralised information on greenhouse gas inventories, mitigation actions and means of implementation. Ghana has developed the Climate Change Data Hub, an public access, online centralised data management system for climate change data and information, including an emissions database, a policies and measures database, and a domestic electronic registry system for information on all climate change initiatives. The Data Hub can be accessed online: http://197.253.69.38/
- A large number of international forums have provided ample south-south networking opportunities. Many regional workshops were held for South-South cooperation around the world, and these have reportedly improved international communication significantly; this is the most commonly reported benefit of the INDC process amongst all surveyed countries. Through these international forums aimed at INDC preparation support, developing country representatives have had a large number of opportunities to meet and share experiences with their international counterparts. Chile reports that it has benefitted from a great increase in the number of consultations and dialogues with developing country governments Morocco is developing a climate competence centre, which will focus on south-south information coordination.
- The table in Annex I outlines the broadest categories of INDC types which Parties may consider to use to structure their contributions. These formats may also be used in combination with each other to provide further detail and transparency. Although most existing submissions to the UNFCCC INDC portal include economy-wide GHG emission targets, NewClimate Institute research indicates that fewer than half of countries worldwide are eventually likely to develop such targets, with either countries likely to present their contributions either in the form of sectoral targets or a list of quantified or unquantified policies and measures. The type of INDC chosen should be based largely upon the respective capabilities of the country. In this context, capability may refer to resources available for INDC preparation, data availability, availability of existing analysis on mitigation scenarios, and, to an extent, the resources available for the implementation of mitigation measures. The type of format for the INDC is not necessarily linked to the degree of mitigation ambition; Parties with limited resources for the implementation of mitigation measures may still present economy-wide targets if they have the required capability to do so. On the other hand, it should be considered that carefully planned and clearly communicated policies and measures may have a greater mitigation impact and may attract more international support than hastily constructed economy-wide targets which are unclear and/or less efficient in their implementation.