WRI Publications Feed: Measurement and Performance Tracking in Developing Countries

A Seven-Country Assessment of National Capacities to Track Forest Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Removal

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:16:54 -0400

Summary

Forest carbon monitoring is critical to evaluating whether policies aiming to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from forest change are achieving their goals. The objective of this brief is to highlight the technical capacity needs for implementing national systems for forest carbon monitoring. This paper assesses the technical capacity in seven countries—Brazil, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand—for monitoring forests, forest change, and associated carbon dioxide emissions and removals. The results can be used by national agencies and the international community, including donor agencies and non-governmental organizations, to identify priorities for capacity-building and funding.

Based on findings from the assessment, the seven countries would benefit from the following:

Establishing processes to regularly and more frequently update data to enable understanding of trends in forest change.
Ensuring consistency of monitoring methods to allow comparison of data and interpretation of change over time.
Improving spatial resolution of forest monitoring where important drivers of forest change are difficult to detect with mid-resolution satellite imagery.
Establishing or updating national forest inventories regularly to enable accurate estimates of carbon dioxide emissions/removals.
Developing protocols and training programs to guide and harmonize sub-national data collection.
Strengthening data management and sharing among government agencies to enable integration of forest change information with other land use, permitting and tenure data.

Assessing Non-Annex I Pledges: Building a Case for Clarification

Maggie Barron — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:53:32 -0500

Introduction

Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Cancun Agreements, both Annex I and non–Annex I Parties have announced a diversity of mitigation targets and actions respectively for emissions reduction by 2020. While Annex I Parties have put forward economy-wide emissions reduction targets, non–Annex I Parties have proposed a variety of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). These non–Annex I actions include economy-wide goals (e.g., business-as-usual goals, carbon neutrality goals, and intensity goals) as well as sectoral actions, project-level activities, and policies (e.g., energy efficiency measures, no-till farming, projects related to mass transport systems, and investments in renewable energy sources).

Although the targets and actions of Annex I and non–Annex I Parties are different in form due to the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, many are similar in their lack of clarity regarding critical details, assumptions, and methodologies. For example, many of these pledges do not specify aspects such as which sectors or gases are covered, which methodologies are used for estimating expected reductions, if applicable, and/or the role of offsets. Without this and other information, it is challenging to track progress towards fulfillment of pledges, to ensure transparency, to estimate resulting emissions reductions, and to assess whether overall global emissions reductions are adequate for meeting global temperature limits.

For Annex I Parties, these problems should be resolved through the negotiation of common accounting rules. Although beyond the scope of this paper, the design of such rules is a critically important determinant of the regime’s environmental integrity. While common assessment methodologies for non–Annex I countries may be developed in the future, it is unlikely that the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, will resolve this issue.

There are a number of reasons for this, including the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities, the level of complexity of various types of non–Annex I actions, and the lack of experience in this field compared to the common accounting rules developed for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol from which Annex I Parties can draw. In the absence of a set of provisions similar to those discussed for Annex I, clarification of non–Annex I actions can assist in providing transparency and tracking performance for domestic and international purposes.

While this paper focuses on clarification of non–Annex I actions, we first explain how common accounting rules for Annex I targets resolve the lack of clarity surrounding targets for developed countries. The remainder of the paper is devoted to discussing why and how non–Annex I Parties’ pledges should be clarified. In doing so, we describe the benefits of clarification, as well as the related mandates under the Cancun Agreements. We then outline the specific clarification needs associated with each type of non–Annex I action. It should be noted that this paper focuses only on non–Annex I pledges that are stated in terms of emissions reductions or emissions limitation and not on pledges that are framed in terms of indicators unrelated to emissions (e.g., capacity building initiatives). Lastly, we recommend decisions that can be made in Durban to formalize both common accounting rules for Annex I targets and a clarification process for non–Annex I actions.

The International Partnership on Mitigation and Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV): Lessons and Next Steps

Maggie Barron — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:28:05 -0500

The International Partnership on Mitigation and MRV was launched by the Governments of Germany, South Africa and South Korea at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue I, in May 2010, in Germany. It aims to support practical exchange and sharing of experiences between developing and developed countries, and to support in particular developing countries around three themes: the design and implementation of National Low Carbon Development Strategies (LCDS), Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the set up of systems to measure, report and verify (MRV) mitigation actions.

The paper aims to take stock of what was discussed at the Partnership meetings and draw lessons learned from the first five meetings. It also aims to help further develop the Partnership’s activities and enhance its value to the international climate community.

GHG-Framed Mitigation Actions by Developing Countries

Maggie Barron — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:37:05 -0400

International negotiations on climate change have recognized the importance of enhanced national action on mitigation, and of finance, technology, and capacity-building support to developing countries. Since 2009, a growing number of developed and developing countries have pledged mitigation targets and actions, and developed countries have committed to provide financing to developing countries, including US$30 billion in “fast-start” finance during 2010 – 2012.

WRI has tracked these targets, actions, and pledges since 2009 in an effort to shed light on their implications for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for finance, respectively, and to call attention to data gaps.

This paper summarizes a subset of the mitigation actions announced by developing country parties and submitted to the UNFCCC, focusing on those actions that are framed in GHG terms. While 41 developing countries have put forward actions that take a variety of forms, this summary includes only those 16 countries that have framed their actions in terms of their expected GHG impact, i.e. “GHG-framed mitigation actions.” The types of GHG-framed mitigation actions examined in this paper are illustrated in Box 1.

Ultimately, it will be important to understand the GHG impact of all targets and actions that have been pledged internationally. In light of the diversity of forms that developing country actions take, however, we focus first on those that are framed in GHG terms. This approach allows us to identify the accounting and performance-tracking issues common to this form. Additionally, the developing countries that have framed their actions in GHG terms contributed approximately 60 percent of all developing country GHG emissions in the year 2000.

The purpose of this paper is to identify (a) the GHG impacts that could result from the mitigation actions assessed and (b) the accounting questions that would need to be clarified in order to better understand the magnitude of those impacts. It does not attempt to compare the actions to one another or to assess their ambition, adequacy or appropriateness.

This paper builds on a previous summary, released in 2010, that presented actions articulated in the Copenhagen Accord and in other country announcements.