Topic: MRV

Summary of Developed Country ‘Fast-Start’ Climate Finance Pledges

Maggie Barron — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:41:50 -0500

OpenClimateNetwork.org

Visit openclimatenetwork.org for the latest analysis, project info, expert perspectives, and more.

Reiterating a pledge made in Copenhagen in 2009, the Cancun Agreements of December 2010 formally commit developed countries to collectively provide resources “approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012” to support developing countries’ climate efforts. This so-called “fast-start” finance will help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, mitigate (reduce) their greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt and cope with the effects of climate change. These pledges also present an opportunity to build trust between developed and developing countries in the international climate arena, in turn fostering progress towards a comprehensive post-2012 international climate agreement.

WRI has synthesized available information on countries’ pledges and measures they have taken to make the pledged resources available to developing countries. The accompanying table sets out both the amounts and the mechanisms by which funding would be delivered. WRI has also looked at how countries indicate whether their pledges will provide “new and additional” funds compared to what they provide as official development assistance. In-depth analysis on a subset of countries’ fast-start finance contributions is available separately.

This table will be continuously updated as more information becomes available.

Q&A on this Analysis

(Updated on November 26, 2012)

Have developed countries met their fast-start finance pledge?

Based on our research, as of November 26, 2012, 23 developed countries and the European Commission have publicly announced their individual fast-start finance pledges, in addition to the European Union’s collective pledge. These pledges total USD 33.92 billion. While this represents a significant step in the right direction, the extent to which these pledges are consistent with internationally agreed principles for fast-start finance is unclear. The Cancun Agreements mandate that fast-start funds have a “balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation,” be “new and additional,” be “prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa,” and include “forestry and investments through international institutions.” Because the details of this mandate have not been defined, it is not clear that developed countries’ fast-start finance contributions fulfill these criteria.

Finally, ensuring that pledges are actually delivered will be essential. According to reported information of the pledged funds, USD 28.06 billion has been requested and/or budgeted by the executive bodies of the countries during the fast-start period. In some cases, the legislative bodies have also approved these requests. The actual delivery and implementation of the finance, however, can be complicated to track, and is generally not documented in countries’ fast-start finance reports.

Do the funds have a “balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation”?

Countries often specify the general objective that their fast-start funds will support. For example, of the USD 1.58 billion mobilized for fast-start by Germany in 2010 and 2011, 48 percent will support mitigation, 28 percent will support adaptation, 21 percent will support REDD+, and 3 percent will support multipurpose activities. In its 2010 fast-start finance report, Germany highlighted the challenges of identifying suitable adaptation projects as the reason for this, and recognized the need to adjust the allocation of funds across the three areas of mitigation, adaptation and REDD+. In the case of both Japan and the United States, a large majority of fast-start finance supports mitigation objectives. The grant-based portion of their contributions, however, gives more balanced consideration to adaptation. Several countries involved in the Interim REDD+ Partnership — a process created parallel to the UNFCCC to ensure effective and sustainable REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) actions over the next few years — have also specified that at least 20 percent of their funds will support REDD+. However, there is no agreed-upon definition among countries of what constitutes a “balanced allocation.”

Are the pledged funds “new and additional”?

“New” funding represents an increase relative to pledges or allocations from previous years. A number of pledges include restated or renamed commitments already made in the past. For example, Japan’s Hatoyama Initiative is a restructuring of the previously announced Japanese Cool Earth Partnership, with some new resources included in the Initiative. Countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are counting previous commitments to the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) as part of their fast-start finance pledge. The United States also counts its annual contribution to the Montreal Protocol Fund, a long-standing commitment that dates back more than two decades.

Funds that are “additional” ensure that their delivery does not result in the diversion of funds from other important development objectives. In other words, climate mitigation and adaptation funds should be additional to development aid. Parties to the UNFCCC have not yet achieved consensus on a clear and specific definition of ‘additionality’ that can be applied uniformly to developed country financial pledges. As a result, countries have proposed a variety of methods for defining the additionality of their fast-start finance.

Do the pledges include “investments through international institutions”?

Countries are channeling investments through a mix of multilateral, bilateral, and public-private institutions. Several countries, including Japan and the United States, are channeling a considerable amount of their funds through export credit agencies and other public-private channels. The Climate Investment Funds(CIFs) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) are the primary multilateral institutions of choice through which other funds will be channeled. The governance of the funds has implications for the effectiveness and perceived legitimacy of the overall climate finance architecture. Developing countries generally prefer that institutions governing finance ensure developing country ownership of funded activities and prioritize funding for climate vulnerable countries. Developed countries tend to emphasize the need to minimize bureaucratic costs and ensure the effective use of resources.

Why is fast-start finance “prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States, and Africa”?

Countries under the Convention recognize that developing countries are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts because they have fewer resources to adapt to the effects of climate change, which can include increased droughts and floods, rising sea levels, and greater uncertainty in the agricultural sector. Least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS) in particular are recognized as needing special consideration due to their extreme vulnerability. For these reasons, developed countries have pledged to prioritize fast start funds for the “most vulnerable countries.” Several countries are channeling their fast start finance through the Least Developed Countries Fund or the Adaptation Fund, many are channeling finance directly to SIDS and LDCs, and Australia in particular states that it will channel about one third of its fast-start finance to SIDS and about one quarter to LDCs.

What types of financial instruments are countries using?

There are several different types of financial instruments countries are using to deliver their fast-start finance, including grants, loans, equity, loan guarantees, insurance, and private investments. Many countries have provided some information on the type of financial instruments used. For example, the US reported providing USD 4.7 billion in grants through Congressional appropriations, USD 2.7 billion in development finance and export credits, which mostly take the form of concessional loans. Norway reports that all of its fast-start finance will be grants. Meanwhile, Japan’s fast-start finance includes grants and loans that meet ODA standards, finance in the form of ‘other official flows’, and may also count leveraged private finance, though this is ambiguous. However, reporting on the type of financial instrument used is neither comprehensive nor consistent. For example, little information is reported on the concessionality of the loans when used.

What are the next steps to ensure clarity on the delivery of climate finance pledges in the future?

The UNFCCC system for developed countries to report on the delivery of climate finance faces several challenges, which limit the utility of available data. For example, countries currently use multiple methods for reporting and often provided insufficient information even where requested. To address this, the Cancun Agreements mandate more frequent reporting by developed countries using an enhanced common reporting format.

While these enhanced reporting provisions will be essential for successful tracking of developed country climate financial flows, they will not be ready in time to provide guidance for reporting on the short-term, fast-start finance. In the meantime, the Cancun Agreements invited developed country Parties to submit information to the UNFCCC secretariat, for compilation, on the resources provided to fulfill their fast-start finance commitment by May 2011, 2012, and 2013. Nine developed countries and the EU submitted their reports on or around the most recent May 2012 deadline. While the Cancun Agreements include reporting provisions for fast-start finance, it does not provide guidance on what these reports should include, resulting in reported information that is neither fully comparable, transparent, nor complete, as is demonstrated by the gaps in information in WRI’s fast-start table, the Open Climate Network’s fast-start finance assessments, and in a report by IIED assessing the transparency of the May 2011 fast-start finance reports. The UNFCCC secretariat hosts a fast-start finance module on its finance portal that enhances the comparability of the reports but it remains limited to information provided by developed country Parties. It also does not capture information available on the faststartfinance.org website or on individual donor or recipient websites, or other sources such as NGOs, the private sector or multilateral development banks.

To build trust with developing country counterparts, developed countries should improve their fast-start finance reporting in the future, for example, by including more comprehensive, comparable and transparent information on the following seven elements in their annual fast-start finance reports: scale, method for determining that the money is “new and additional,” channeling institutions, objective, geographic distribution, status of the pledge, and type of financial instrument.

Athena Ballesteros, Emily Chessin, Kirsten Stasio, and Remi Moncel contributed to earlier versions of this Q&A.

STATEMENT: UN Emissions Gap Report Finds Global Action On Climate Change Inadequate

James Anderson — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:46:48 -0500

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The latest Emissions Gap Report, by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Climate Foundation, is being released today. The report finds that emissions are now around 14 percent above where they need to be. The gap is on course to be 8 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020, which is 2 Gt higher than last year’s assessment.

Following is a statement by Jennifer Morgan, Director, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute:

“This report is another harsh reminder that the world is simply not moving aggressively enough to tackle the climate challenge. The gap is growing and carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, and yet the current pledges and commitments by countries remain sorely inadequate. We are already seeing how climate change—with more extreme weather events, rising seas and more droughts—is taking its toll on people, property and our economy. Without a rapid change in direction, the world is headed more and more firmly down a path to even more severe changes that will be felt around the globe.”

“As we look to the Doha climate talks, it’s essential that negotiators come prepared with a renewed sense of urgency. As the Emissions Gap Report points out, it remains possible to achieve the carbon reductions needed to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. The policy and technological solutions are within our reach. What we need is the political will and ambition to move forward with these solutions. We need to close the gap before it’s too late.”

-END-

COP 18: Doha

Kevin Lustig — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:09:59 -0400

WRI Experts at COP 18

WRI Events at COP 18

COP 18 Commentary

From November 26 to December 7, 2012, the United Nations will host the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Qatar.

WRI experts will be in attendance at this latest meeting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to help inform the talks. Here, you can find a variety of materials from the World Resources Institute that shed light on key areas of international climate policy.

WRI Resources for COP 18

Promises Kept: Ensuring Ambition and Accountability through a Rio +20 “Compendium of Commitments”

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:59:56 -0400

Introduction

In an effort to ensure that the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) generates meaningful outcomes, governments and other stakeholders increasingly support using the Conference to announce specific and time-bound commitments, and to agree on a “framework” to hold each other accountable for results. This so-called “Compendium of Commitments” has been criticized as suggesting a “bottom up”, “pledge-and-review” approach that will lead to business-as-usual outcomes that don’t meet the sustainable development challenges ahead of us. In the few months remaining, proponents of the Compendium of Commitments will have to demonstrate that this approach will lead to ambitious actions and that the accountability framework is sufficiently robust to incentivize and track performance. Rio+20 participants can learn from the range of experiences with past pledge-and-review initiatives and focus on ways to improve the quality of the content of pledges and of the institutions and procedures designed to review them.

Background

Rio +20 takes place in the context of a wider debate on the future of multilateralism and on the role of international law and international institutions in addressing global environment and development challenges. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit generated a variety of internationally agreed guidance and principles (Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development), spurred the adoption of three major, binding multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)).

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) focused on “implementation and compliance” rather than the development of new binding rules and obligations. To this end, it provided a platform for announcing “public private partnerships,” negotiated “bottom up” among interested parties (Brack 2000; Speth 2002; WRI 2004). But few of the more than 300 partnerships launched at WSSD have survived and the vast majority never resulted in significant change, due, at least in part, to the lack of any meaningful process for monitoring and review of performance.

The international climate change negotiations have, until recently, marked a similar trend away from “top down” treaty obligations contained in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, towards “pledges” proposed by each party in the 2010 Cancun Agreements. Others suggest that the more recent (2011) agreement by climate negotiators in Durban to aim towards a “protocol, another legal instrument or an outcome with legal force” means that an interest in negotiated, binding commitments remains. They also point to recent international agreement on new binding protocols to the CBD, and progress on a treaty to reduce mercury emissions.

In any case, it has been clear from the onset of the current negotiations that this Rio process is unlikely to lead to a new set of legally binding treaties. Until recently, it has, however, been unclear what alternative form of outcome would justify holding a global conference on sustainable development at time of heightened concern about the future of the planet.

Yet there is some promise in the concept of pledges. Paragraph 128 of “The Future We Want - Zero Draft of the Outcome Document” states:

We welcome the voluntary commitments made at Rio+20 and invite the Secretary-General to compile them in a registry/compendium that will serve as an accountability framework.

A process that invites participants to come forward with “voluntary commitments”, rather than negotiating them collectively, raises a set of design challenges that will confront proponents of a compendium in Rio:

How do we ensure a common level of quality of commitments to be specific, time-bound, measurable, and ambitious beyond business as usual?
How do we ensure that commitments related to challenges requiring collective action, involving transboundary pollution, damage to the global commons, equitable access to scarce resources, are ambitious enough, in the aggregate, to make the needed difference?
How do we ensure that commitments that address fundamental rights and basic needs, such as information, participation and justice, and clean water, food, shelter, and health, are ambitious enough to respect individual human dignity?
How do we ensure that, in the absences of the force of law, there is an accountability framework robust enough to hold participants accountable to their constituencies and to each other to fulfill their commitments?

WRI and UNEP Submission to the UNFCCC For Increasing Ambition

Remi Moncel — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:09:33 -0400

Read the submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on increasing ambition from WRI and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Download the Submission (PDF, 154 Kb)

In Cancun at COP16/CMP6, UNFCCC Parties agreed to limit a rise in global average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to consider strengthening this goal to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The UNEP report Bridging the Emissions Gap, released in 2011, found that current country pledges for 2020 are not adequate to reduce emissions to a level consistent with the 2 degree or 1.5 degree target, with an emissions gap in the range of 6-11 GtCO₂e in 2020. However, the report demonstrates that this emissions gap can be bridged through many economically and technologically feasible options.

Despite several achievements at COP17/CMP7 in Durban, levels of ambition remain insufficient. Increased action is therefore urgently needed now, as well as up to and after 2020, to bring the aggregate ambition level in line with what science suggests is necessary. The level of ambition may be defined as the anticipated collective level of Parties’ greenhouse gas emissions by a certain date, based on successful implementation of their pledges and commitments under the UNFCCC and other relevant initiatives.

This submission focuses on options within the UNFCCC for increasing climate ambition. These options are complementary and include practical recommendations for the COP and CMP.

Our recommendations, discussed in depth in the submission (PDF, 154 Kb), include:

Revise existing commitments to increase ambition before 2020
Negotiate new commitments for the post-2020 period in line with the science
Enhance coverage of sectors and climate forcers
Scale up finance, technology and capacity building
Support and replicate effective implementation
Promote mitigation actions with an emphasis on co-benefits
Promote equity and environmental integrity
Establish consistent, complete, comparable, transparent, and accurate common accounting rules for Annex I emission reductions
Clarify Annex I and non-Annex I pledges
Launch rigorous, credible and effective periodic reviews

Download the submission from WRI and UNEP (PDF, 154 Kb)

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.

COP 17: Durban

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:42:52 -0500

UPDATE: Read WRI’s summary of the outcome of the Durban talks and review of key issues: Reflections On COP 17 In Durban

More information on China and climate change at ChinaFAQs.

From November 28 to December 8, 2011, the United Nations hosted the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP) in South Africa.

WRI experts were in attendance at this latest meeting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to help inform the talks. Below, you can find a variety of materials from the World Resources Institute that shed light on key areas of international climate policy.

Adaptation

World Resources Report 2010-2011: Decision Making in a Changing Climate: WRI’s flagship report offers specific, practical strategies and innovative case studies to inform how to integrate climate change risks into national policies and planning.
Report | Website

Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation: A practical framework for monitoring and evaluation systems to track the success and failure of adaptation initiatives.

Finance

Power, Responsibility, and Accountability: Re-Thinking the Legitimacy of Institutions for Climate Finance: An objective analysis of ongoing efforts to finance mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

Greenhouse Gas Accounting

Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard: Provides requirements and guidance for quantifying and publicly reporingt an inventory of GHG emissions and removals associated with a specific product.
Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard: Provides requirements and guidance for preparing and publicly reporting a GHG emissions inventory that includes indirect emissions resulting from value chain activities.

International Agreement

Building the Climate Change Regime: Survey and Analysis of Approaches: Seeks to identify concrete pathways for building an international “climate change regime” by surveying academic literature and proposals by NGOs and governments.

Assessing Non-Annex I Pledges: Building a Case for Clarification: Builds a case for the need to clarify the assumptions, methodologies, and other critical details underlying non-Annex I GHG mitigation activity pledges.

Science

Blog post: Five Takeaways from the IPCC Report on Extreme Weather and Climate Change
Blog post: IPCC Report Adds To Studies Tying Climate Change To Extreme Weather
Blog post: Study Testing Skeptics’ Critiques Reconfirms Basic Climate Science
Blog post: Q & A On The Release Of Climate Science 2009-2010

Technology

Two Degrees of Innovation—How to Seize the Opportunities in Low-Carbon Power: A strategic framework for policymakers seeking to capitalize on the low-carbon transition.
Working Paper | Fact Sheet

Grounding Green Power: Bottom-Up Perspectives on Smart Renewable Energy Policy in Developing Countries: Identifies key components of smart renewable energy policy in developing countries.

Summary: Workshop on How to Measure, Report, and Verify Climate Finance

Kirsten Stasio — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:19:54 -0400

OpenClimateNetwork.org

Visit openclimatenetwork.org for the latest analysis, project info, expert perspectives, and more.

An informal summary of WRI’s June 2011 workshop on the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of finance provisions in the Cancun Agreements.

On the sidelines of the international climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany in June 2011, the World Resources Institute hosted a workshop to facilitate a technical discussion on the MRV of finance provisions of the Cancun Agreements, with a particular focus on the reporting of climate finance. This workshop, which was co-chaired by Laurence Blandford from Environment Canada and Benito Jiménez from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, consisted of an informal forum of experts from developed and developing country governments, international organizations – including the UNFCCC, the OECD, and the World Bank – and civil society.

The first session of the workshop focused on: the goal(s) of reporting climate finance under the Convention; how information and reporting practices of the OECD Development Assistance Committee can contribute to or complement these goal(s); and, what role civil society and private sector initiatives can play in helping the Convention fulfill these goal(s). The second session looked more specifically at how existing guidelines can be enhanced in order to fulfill the provisions of the Cancun Agreements. The third and final session of the workshop focused on the process for making an enhanced reporting system under the Convention operational, including implications for both new and existing institutions and entities under the Convention.

Discussions during the workshop yielded many ideas and proposals for moving forward on developing an enhanced system for reporting climate finance. It highlighted several areas of agreement among participants. It also highlighted several areas where more work needs to be done and more questions that need to be resolved by the COP and other relevant entities.

WRI has prepared an informal summary of the workshop’s presentations and discussions. It should not be taken to reflect the official positions of any government or institution present at the meeting.

Download the full summary (PDF, 343 Kb)

Measurement and Performance Tracking in Developing Countries

Samah Elsayed — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:31:09 -0400

Developing countries face the challenge of meeting development goals while at the same time reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to address climate change. For these efforts to succeed, effective systems are needed to manage greenhouse gases and related emissions reduction activities.

To that end, the World Resources Institute (WRI) is working through the Measurement and Performance Tracking (MAPT) project to build national capacities in developing countries to measure GHG emissions and track performance toward low-carbon development goals. Lessons learned are also being shared with international audiences in order to replicate successes and inform the design of relevant rules within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

WRI is partnering with a broad range of relevant stakeholders within the six MAPT countries, including government agencies, business, and civil society organizations. WRI’s engagement within each country is prioritized according to national capacity needs, which have been identified through scoping assessments conducted with in-country partners.

MAPT is a four-year project funded primarily by the International Climate Initiative of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and being carried out in partnership with key stakeholders in Brazil, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, South Africa, and Thailand.

For more information on the MAPT project contact the project manager, Kelly Levin at KLevin@wri.org.

To learn more about the MAPT project visit:
Tools and Outputs
Countries

You can also read more about the individual components that make up the work:
Institutions
National GHG Emissions Inventories
Mitigation Accounting
Civil Society Policy Implementation
Industry
Forestry and Land Use
International

Have Countries Delivered on Fast-Start Climate Finance?

Clifford Polycarp — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:31:37 -0400

As the reporting deadline for 2010 looms, developed countries will need to prove that they are honestly meeting their modest $30 billion commitment.

Today, WRI releases an updated summary of developed countries’ “fast start” climate finance pledges. These funds are intended to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change from 2010-2012.

To date, 21 developed countries and the European Commission have publicly announced individual fast-start finance pledges totaling nearly USD 28 billion to meet the USD 30 billion commitment in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.

In last year’s Cancun Agreements, developed countries reaffirmed their commitment and also agreed to provide greater transparency on the delivery of their pledges – in other words, information not just on what the pledge is, but on how the country plans on meeting it.

The timing of this information is crucial as developing countries await progress in this area before moving other pieces of the Cancun Agreements forward. For example, major developing countries – Brazil, China, India and South Africa – have explicitly linked progress in the Green Climate Funds discussions to the sizeable flows of fast start funds.

Developed countries are invited to voluntarily provide this information in annual reports to the UNFCCC Secretariat in May 2011, 2012, 2013. Unfortunately, the Cancun Agreements contain no specifics on what format the reports should follow.

With the May deadline looming, what do we already know about what developed countries are providing? Our updated summary presents the most up-to-date information available. The summary reveals that most developed countries are making tentative progress towards delivering their commitments. However, the information available is neither complete nor consistent, and developed countries should provide comprehensive and comparable information on the delivery of fast start finance in 2010 in the reports they submit this month.

Your browser does not support iframes.

The May Deadline

Some news reports have suggested that developed countries have “missed” the May deadline for reporting. This is based on the May 1 deadline specified by the secretariat. However, since the Cancun Agreements do not actually specify a particular date in May, countries are not obliged to provide information by May 1, and could reasonably be expected to submit their information by the end of May.

WRI is aware of several countries that are working on preparing these reports and we expect to see submissions fairly soon. It is important that they all meet the May deadline in the Cancun Agreement, and submit comprehensive and comparable reports and be completely transparent about underlying assumptions behind the numbers. The summary of pledges we are releasing today provides the most up-to-date information available, and will be updated once all country reports are formally submitted.

Changes in Pledges

While there have been no significant changes to the overall pledges, further details are emerging on how the pledged resources are being mobilized and allocated. There have been some concerns over the impact of Japan’s aid cuts and U.S. budget cuts on their respective fast start commitments. These events may have an impact on 2011 and 2012 allocations of these countries, but there have been no formal announcements by either country since these events.

The United States, in particular, has never made specific numerical commitments as part of their overall fast start pledge for the period 2010-12, always maintaining that it will contribute its “fair share.” The ambiguity in the overall pledge makes it hard to assess changes resulting from the budget cuts. Moreover, the budget documents do not allow us to accurately estimate the total fast start finance available for 2011. However, it is quite likely to be lower than the USD 1.9 billion that the administration had requested for FY2011 in early 2010 from the previous Congress, and some unofficial estimates indicate that it will be under USD 1 billion.

Did Countries Meet their 2010 Pledges?

Since many countries have not yet made public the resources that they have actually delivered for 2010, it is not possible to provide an accurate overall estimate. However, the updated summary does contain information on actions taken by the executive bodies of some countries. The amount requested and/or budgeted by these bodies totals roughly USD 12 billion.

Some countries have reported more specific information. For example, in November 2010, Germany indicated that it would disburse 356 million Euros in 2010, while the UK indicated that it had approved GBP 568 million for specific programs in 2010-11. This means that Germany and the UK will still need to allocate 904 million Euros and GBP 932 million, respectively, in fast start funds by 2012 in order to meet their pledges.

Better Reporting Standards Going Forward

Since we started tracking fast start pledges over a year ago, voluntary reports by each developed country have been quite varied, making it very difficult to track and monitor progress against the pledges.

To ensure clarity, WRI recommends that countries include the following elements in their submissions: the scale of finance provided, the method for determining that the resources provided are indeed ‘new and additional’, the institutions through which they are channeling resources, the objectives, geographic distribution, whether the amount pledged has been allocated or delivered, and the types of financial instruments used.

The uncertainty in estimating the exact amount of funds clearly underscores the need for greater transparency and consistency in reporting. Yet what is more important is that the finance is actually delivered at the pace and scale needed to address the growing threat from climate change. We are yet to see this sense of urgency as developed countries continue to teeter in honoring even their modest commitments.

Transparency of Climate Finance: Results from Cancun and Next Steps

Kirsten Stasio — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:52:59 -0400

OpenClimateNetwork.org

Visit openclimatenetwork.org for the latest analysis, project info, expert perspectives, and more.

The UNFCCC Cancun Agreements of December 2010 marked an important step forward for transparency of country actions to respond to climate change. In addition to creating a new standard for the way countries report on their national climate commitments and actions, the agreements mandated advances in the reporting and review of countries’ climate finance contributions.

The success of Cancun in improving the transparency of climate finance will depend on the actions countries take to implement this mandate in the coming months, as there are still many details that need to be filled in. As countries meet in Bangkok this week, they will have to decide how to move forward on the details that were left up-in-the air in Cancun. The following questions help explain the issues on the table and the next steps.

What is transparency of climate finance and why is it important?

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed to by 195 countries, recognized that developed countries should provide new and additional financial, technology and capacity-building support to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate. Accordingly, developed countries have committed to mobilizing $100 billion in climate change financing by 2020.

Keeping track of these funds and ensuring that they are delivered effectively is a huge undertaking. In the world of international climate negotiations, the transparency of these climate finance arrangements – how governments, banks, international institutions and civil society groups report and review financial contributions –is referred to as the “measurement, reporting and verification” (MRV) of finance.

Transparent and accurate reporting has many benefits. For example, developed countries can gain international recognition for their support and developing countries can gain assurance that the money pledged is actually delivered. Furthermore, increased transparency can help governments and civil society groups assess the scale and type of support provided, identify trends and pinpoint possible gaps in sectors or regions.

Don’t countries already report their climate finance contributions?

Yes, but existing systems need to be improved. Developed countries report their bilateral and multilateral climate finance contributions in periodic national communications submitted to the UNFCCC. However, countries currently use multiple methods for reporting and often provide insufficient information even where requested. Because of this, the data gathered are of limited utility.

Outside the UNFCCC, developed countries report their overall development assistance to the OECD DAC and indicate which supported projects aim to help mitigate climate change. However, this framework has certain limitations. For example, development assistance supporting mitigation is measured in a qualitative rather than quantitative way, making it difficult to aggregate and analyze information. In addition, the mitigation category is applied to an entire project even if only a portion of the project relates to climate change.

Do the Cancun Agreements improve MRV systems for long-term financial commitments?

The Cancun Agreements mandate the revision and improvement of climate finance MRV, which could help alleviate some of the current limitations of reporting under the UNFCCC.

Specifically, they call for enhanced reporting in national communications by developed countries. Enhanced reporting should include “common reporting formats” and “methodologies for finance”, to be developed, and should “ensure that information provided is complete, comparable, transparent and accurate.” Developed countries will also need to generate biennial reports that include information on progress in providing financial, technology and capacity-building support to developing countries.

In addition to enhanced reporting of financial information, the COP called for enhanced review of this information.

The Cancun Agreements also call for developing countries to submit national communications every four years, in which they must report on “support received.” This information could help reviewers cross-check information from developed countries.

What about the transparency of the so-called ‘fast-start finance’?

The Cancun Agreements invite developed countries to annually report their financial commitments to 2012 (known as “fast-start”). Reiterating a pledge made in Copenhagen, developed countries committed to providing $US30 billion of new and additional resources for the period 2010-2012, with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. The Cancun Agreements invite developed countries to submit information on how they are meeting this ‘fast-start finance’ commitment by May 2011, 2012, and 2013.

It is important to note, however, that the Cancun Agreements contain no specifics with regard to the format that such reporting should follow, putting the quality of these reports at risk. That is why WRI has issued a list of elements we hope to see in these reports.

What new institutions were created in Cancun that relate to the MRV of finance?

The Cancun Agreements established a “Green Climate Fund,” to channel financial resources to developing countries. A Standing Committee was also established to improve coordination in the delivery and MRV of climate finance.

In addition to these bodies under the financial mechanism, the Cancun Agreements established a registry that will help developing countries match their projects with available international support.

What are the next steps in this process?

The Parties to the UNFCCC have a great deal of work to do in the months leading up to the next Conference of the Parties in Durban in December 2011 in order to improve the transparency of climate finance.

Countries will need to draft enhanced guidelines and methodologies for reporting climate finance, as well as review procedures. This should include an agreed common approach for reporting on additionality, which was not addressed in Cancun.
In the meantime, developed countries will need to report on their fast-start financial commitments starting this year each May until 2013.
In addition, countries will need to clarify the role of the Standing Committee, particularly in relation to the MRV of finance process.
Finally, many of the characteristics of the registry have yet to be determined. This includes the role, if any, the registry or another other international body will play in reviewing the actions and support submitted to the registry.

Seven Elements Developed Countries Should Include in their "Fast-Start" Climate Finance Reports

Kirsten Stasio — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:35:52 -0400

Developed countries have collectively pledged USD 30 billion from 2010-2012 to support developing countries’ climate efforts. This pledge, known as “fast-start finance,” was initially made in Copenhagen in 2009, and reiterated in the 2010 Cancun Agreements.

The Cancun Agreements took the pledge one step further, by adding an important reporting provision not present in 2009: it invites Parties to submit information to the UNFCCC secretariat on the resources provided to fulfill their commitment by May 2011, 2012 and 2013. Unfortunately, this invitation provides few details on what these reports should include.

While the Cancun Agreements mandate a new standard of transparency for climate finance over the long term, revised guidelines will not be ready in time for reporting on the short-term, fast-start finance commitment. At present, countries are voluntarily reporting information on fast-start finance in an ad-hoc manner, which makes it difficult to track and monitor their pledges. This leaves developing countries in the uncomfortable position of wondering whether, and how, the expected financing will be fulfilled. To build trust with developing country counterparts, we present below seven elements that developed countries should include in their annual fast-start finance reports to make them transparent and comprehensive.

1. Scale: Developed countries agreed to collectively provide USD 30 billion in fast-start finance. Thus, developed countries should provide information on the scale of fast-start finance provided in order to allow an assessment of progress against the collective pledge. While providing information on the scale of finance may seem fairly straight-forward, a variety of other information is key to nuancing and understanding information on scale, as enumerated in elements 2-7.

2. Method for determining that the money is “new and additional”: The Cancun Agreements require that funding be “new and additional” – i.e. it represents an increase in ambition from previous years, and does not divert other funding for development. There is currently no internationally-agreed baseline to assess whether finance for climate change is new and additional. Short of such an agreement, countries should explain clearly what definition they used for their report and share supporting information. For example, they could provide information on current and previous levels of climate finance and of development assistance, and indicate whether they are counting climate finance towards their official development assistance commitments.

3. Channeling institutions: The Cancun Agreements also mandate that fast-start finance include “investments through international institutions.” Moreover, they invite Parties to provide information on “ways in which developing county Parties access these [fast-start finance] resources.” Therefore, countries should specify the institutions through which their fast-start finance will flow. The governance structure of the channeling institution, whether bilateral, multilateral, or public/private, has implications for the level of developing country access to the funds, and the effectiveness and perceived legitimacy of the overall climate finance architecture.

4. Objective: The Cancun Agreements require that fast-start finance be delivered “with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation,” and include forestry resources. While countries should break down their fast-start finance using these three broad objectives, more information would be gleaned from a break down that specifies other categories as well, such as technology sector or type of activity, akin to those proposed by WRI.

5. Geographic distribution: Recognizing that the most vulnerable developing countries have a specific and immediate need to adapt to the changing climate, the Cancun Agreements mandate that funding for adaptation be prioritized for least developed countries, small island developing states and Africa. To ensure that fast-start finance collectively meets this need, countries should also report on the countries and regions receiving the fast-start finance.

6. Status of the pledge: The Cancun Agreements invite developed countries to report on finance provided to fulfill their fast-start finance commitment. However it remains unclear on the specific definition of ‘provided’ finance. In order to avoid confusion, countries should distinguish between finance that has been pledged or planned, committed or allocated by a national governing body, and delivered to the recipient.

7. Type of financial instruments: Countries should indicate the type of financial instrument used for their fast-start finance. For example, is it in the form of grants, loans, or equity?

Once information on fast-start finance is reported by developed countries, the UNFCCC Secretariat will compile it into an information document. As is usually the case with national communications, the Secretariat could provide a synthesis that highlights cross-cutting elements, and, based on that synthesis, provide recommendations to developed country Parties for the next round of reporting. Countries could give such a mandate to the Secretariat. Moreover, the bodies in charge of the drafting of enhanced reporting guidelines for the reporting of long-term finance should incorporate lessons learned from this fast-start finance process.

For more information about transparency of climate finance, see WRI publications here.

Breathing New Life into Climate Talks in Bangkok

Jennifer Morgan — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:10:59 -0400

Negotiators are now figuring out the details that will turn the Cancun Agreements into something that makes a difference on the ground.

It has been a few months since the standing ovations in Cancun and the tremendous sense of relief in the Hall that final morning. Next week, climate negotiators will get back together in Bangkok with an opportunity to continue that positive spirit and breathe life into the Cancun Agreements.

They can start by developing much more detailed rules for many elements of the agreements and set the agenda for COP-17 in Durban, South Africa (coming in November 2011).

While a number of details were not finalized in Cancun, countries should build on the successful areas. These issues include country pledges, technology transfer, and adaptation.

Several key issues in the Cancun Agreements require further negotiations in order for implementation to occur. For instance, the agreements called for international assessment and review of developed countries’ emissions commitments, but provided few details on how that will occur. What kind of accounting guidelines are needed so one can compare developed country commitments? What elements of the Kyoto Protocol should be adopted within the other negotiating track to ensure consistency? How does a review in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation function? The transparency provisions for developing countries also need more detailed guidelines to ensure implementation.

The finance issue also continues to be a crucial element of the negotiations. Negotiators in Bangkok must begin to address how to make the Transitional Committee for the new Green Climate Fund operational; develop a common reporting framework for developed country financing; and figure out which sources of climate finance can be used to meet the $100 billion goal that countries agreed to in Copenhagen.

Some fundamental issues cannot be ignored in the hope that they will be resolved at the next COP. The Bangkok meeting should set an agenda to address the gap between the current commitments and actions outlined in the Cancun Agreements with the long-term target of reducing global temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius. Similarly, decisions need to be made around the future legal form of the agreement and its relationship to the Kyoto Protocol.

The science review, an important component of the broad package of measures in the Cancun Agreements, provides a basis to transition from rulemaking in the short term to a more ambitious goal over the long term. The agreements indicate that this review that should start in 2013 and end no later than 2015, and it includes information about how such a review could take into consideration findings by groups, such as the IPCC. But how would this review occur? Who leads it? What are the implications of its findings? How will the 1.5 degrees C target listed in the agreements be used as a benchmark? According to the Cancun Agreements, these are all questions on the agenda for Durban. The Bangkok meeting provides a forum to develop a clear process to answer such questions this year.

For the most part, the UNFCCC is now entering a phase in which figuring out the details will be essential to turn the Cancun Agreements into something that makes a difference on the ground.

Negotiators need to find a way to breathe life into these decisions. Doing so without sucking the life out of the legal form discussion will be crucial for success. While Durban must focus on delivering on Cancun’s promise, it should not neglect the longer term goal of injecting renewed urgency and ambition into the global climate architecture.

Making progress on these issues can help advance the efforts of individual countries that are already taking place. A number of countries, particularly developing nations, are developing their national climate and energy policies. South Africa is debating a carbon tax; China introduced its new 12th Five Year Plan; and the European Commission has introduced a long-term, low-carbon roadmap. The UNFCCC should support these developments, which can help promote the successful shift towards a lower-carbon, more climate-resilient world.

Q&A: Transparency in the Cancun Agreements

Hilary McMahon — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:38:19 -0500

Last month’s international climate negotiations in Cancun showed progress on many fronts, especially in ensuring greater transparency in countries’ emissions reporting.

The Cancun Agreements create a new standard for transparency in which all major economies will report on progress towards achieving their climate targets and actions, and will submit their progress to a review.

These transparency provisions build extensively on existing provisions from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. The new transparency mandates could open up important new information on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the globe.

While the Cancun Agreements outline the major transparency requirements, the success of these provisions will depend on the design and operationalization of these components in the coming months.

What are the new transparency provisions in the Cancun Agreements?

New provisions for developed countries that did not exist under previous UNFCCC agreements include the development of common reporting formats for national communications, more frequent reporting with the submission of biennial reports, and to the adoption of a process under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation¹ of “international assessment” to assess emissions and removals associated with targets.

WRI Analysis of Emission Reduction Pledges, Transparency & Reporting

Developing countries are also subject to new transparency provisions in the Cancun Agreements, including more frequent reporting through biennial reports, which will be submitted to International Consultation and Analysis (ICA). They are also requested to register mitigation actions seeking support in a newly formed “registry.”

The Cancun Agreements also established workshops, convened under the UNFCCC, for the exploration of all countries’ assumptions underlying targets and actions. (See Table 1 for more information.)

Are these a departure from existing provisions?

Not entirely. These new provisions build on tools, such as national communications and greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, which are already being enhanced through discussions under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (see FCCC/SBI/2010/L.36/Add.1). Furthermore, given the important role of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation outlined in Cancun Agreements, it is likely that the review system will largely draw from existing structures.

How will the new transparency processes help us understand Parties’ mitigation pledges?

These provisions will prove useful at both the national and international level. If implemented, the quality, timeliness and reliability of information available on both developed and developing country pledges will significantly improve. The improvements could contribute to a greater level of trust among countries in the international climate arena and a better ability to share lessons learned. These provisions would also provide a framework within which countries can track progress against their domestic climate and energy policies.

If implementation is successful, the quality, timeliness and reliability of information available on both developed and developing country pledges will significantly improve.

Additionally, the Cancun Agreements establish workshops to clarify both developed and developing country targets and actions. These will be critical to any assessment of emissions reductions achieved post-2012. Developed countries will be required to share assumptions underlying their targets regarding the use of market-based mechanisms (e.g. offsets) and land use, land-use change and forestry. Developing country workshops will focus on sharing assumptions underlying the diversity of actions submitted, as well as the amount of support necessary to implement these actions.

The Cancun Agreements also provide a process to develop accounting rules for tracking developed country performance towards meeting targets, by way of an international assessment of emissions and reductions associated with Parties submitted targets (para 44). If these rules are developed in a manner that ensures accounting is comparable, consistent, transparent, complete and accurate, then the worst implications of unharmonized accounting rules could be avoided.

Lastly, the Agreements’ scientific review provisions require an assessment of aggregate global emissions reductions, and whether or not they will achieve long-term temperature goals. This will be critical to understanding whether and if additional emissions reductions are required, and will serve as a basis for increasing the ambition of Parties’ future commitments.

How do the Cancun Agreements address the capacity gap in some countries in terms of reporting?

The implementation of these new reporting provisions will require enhanced capacity at the national level in many countries, and for this reason some of the requirements for reporting differ according to a country’s level of development. Some examples:

In terms of the content of reporting, developed countries report on progress towards achieving their mitigation targets and emissions reductions achieved, while developing countries report on their mitigation actions and their effects. The precise differences in terms of reporting are unclear and will likely have to be discussed among Parties. Least developed countries and small island developing states will also be given additional flexibility in the frequency and content of their reporting.
While the frequency of reporting on national communications and GHGs will likely still warrant some discussion, the Cancun Agreements specify that the frequency of developing country national communications will not be more onerous than that of developed countries, and will take into account developing country needs for financial support to strengthen reporting capacities. Both developed and developing countries, however, will submit information through the same tool - biennial update reports.
On the review of reported information, there are some differences for different countries. For developed countries there will continue to be a review of the progress they make towards achieving their targets (including providing climate finance) and their emissions reductions. For developing countries there will be a review of the domestic measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of unsupported actions and their effects and the international MRV of their actions which receive international support.

What is the registry agreed to in Cancun?

The Cancun Agreements create a registry in which the UNFCCC Secretariat will record developing country actions that seek international support, as well as support available and provided from developed countries. This will help match actions with the financial and technical support they need. A separate section of the registry will house the actions submitted to the Conference of the Parties (COP) by developing countries, regardless of support sought or received.

The Agreements remain unclear on the operational details and structure of the registry. For example, the text does not say how the matching of actions to support will take place, nor does it specific the relation of the registry to the financial mechanism. The frequency of recording actions in the registry is also unclear, as well as the relation of the actions seeking support to the separate section of the registry that records all actions.

What are the next steps?

The UNFCCC Parties have set themselves an arduous task for the coming months in the form of a ‘work programme’ outlined in the Cancun Agreements. This requires the “enhancement” of the existing rules around national communications, inventories and the review systems. Parties will need to agree on “modalities and procedures for international assessment and review of emissions and removals related to quantified economy-wide emission reductions targets” submitted by developed countries. In other words, a process to develop accounting rules for developed countries’ emissions reductions and enhanced sinks will be launched. Parties will also need to agree on provisions for developing countries’ reporting. It is likely that much time will be spent on: the creation of a registry; modalities and guidelines for the measurement, reporting and verification of supported actions; details in the biennial reports; domestic verification of mitigation actions; and on the specifics of International Consultation and Analysis, and other review provisions.

**Table 1. Transparency Provisions in the Cancun Agreements**
	Annex I	Non-Annex I
Nature of pledge	Quantified economy-wide emissions reduction targets.	Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, aimed at achieving a deviation in emissions relative to “business as usual” emissions in 2020.
Provisions for planning	Low-carbon development strategies or plans.	Non-Annex I countries are also encouraged to develop low-carbon development strategies or plans in the context of sustainable development.
Recording of pledge	Emissions reduction targets to be contained in document FCCC/LCA/AWG/2010/INF.X.	NAMAs to be contained in document FCCC/LCA/AWG/2010/INF.Y and recorded in a separate section of the registry.
Clarification of pledge	The Secretariat will “organize workshops to clarify the assumptions and the conditions related to the attainment of these targets” and means for increasing ambition. Additionally, the Secretariat is to “prepare a technical paper based on Parties’ submissions” with the aim of facilitating understanding about such assumptions and conditions related to attainment of targets.	Requests the Secretariat to “organize workshops, to understand the diversity of mitigation actions submitted, underlying assumptions, and support needed.”
Reporting	Biennial reports on their progress in achieving emission reductions, including information on mitigation actions to achieve their quantified economy-wide emissions targets and emission reductions achieved, projected emissions and on the provision of financial, technology and capacity building support to developing country parties.	Biennial reports, containing updates of national greenhouse gas inventories including a national inventory report and information on mitigation actions, needs and support received.
	Enhanced guidelines for national communications, including common reporting formats.	Enhance reporting in national communications, including inventories, on mitigation actions and their effects, and support received; with additional flexibility given to the least developed countries and small island developing states.
		A registry to record NAMAs seeking support, and to facilitate the matching of support to these actions.
		Non-Annex I Parties should submit their national communications every four years.
Review	Enhance guidelines for the review of national communications.	Internationally supported mitigation actions will be domestically measured, reported and verified (MRV) and subject to international MRV in accordance with guidelines developed under the Convention, while domestically supported mitigation actions will be measured, reported and verified domestically.
	A process for international assessment of emissions and removals related to quantified economy-wide emission reductions targets in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation.	Biennial reports are subject to international consultations and analysis by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation. They aim to increase transparency about mitigation actions and their effects, through analysis by technical experts in consultation with the country concerned, and through a facilitative sharing of views, and will result in a summary report.
	Revised guidelines for the review of national communications, including the biennial report, annual greenhouse gas inventories and national inventory systems.	Information considered should include information on mitigation actions, the national GHG inventory report, progress in implementation and information on domestic MRV and support received.
Work programme	Decides on a work programme for the development of modalities and guidelines described above. Invites Parties to submit views on the work programme by March 28, 2011.	Same.

The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) is one of two permanent subsidiary bodies established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The SBI makes recommendations on policy and implementation issues to the Conference of the Parties (COP). For example, the SBI reviews the information in the National Communications and inventories submitted by Parties to the UNFCCC to assess the Convention’s overall effectiveness. ↩

Topic: MRV

Summary of Developed Country ‘Fast-Start’ Climate Finance Pledges

OpenClimateNetwork.org

Q&A on this Analysis

Have developed countries met their fast-start finance pledge?

Do the funds have a “balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation”?

Are the pledged funds “new and additional”?

Do the pledges include “investments through international institutions”?

Why is fast-start finance “prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States, and Africa”?

What types of financial instruments are countries using?

What are the next steps to ensure clarity on the delivery of climate finance pledges in the future?

STATEMENT: UN Emissions Gap Report Finds Global Action On Climate Change Inadequate

COP 18: Doha

WRI Experts at COP 18

WRI Events at COP 18

COP 18 Commentary

WRI Resources for COP 18

Promises Kept: Ensuring Ambition and Accountability through a Rio +20 “Compendium of Commitments”

Introduction

Background

WRI and UNEP Submission to the UNFCCC For Increasing Ambition

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

Introduction

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

COP 17: Durban

WRI on COP17 Durban

Media

Commentary

Adaptation

Finance

Greenhouse Gas Accounting

International Agreement

Science

Technology

Summary: Workshop on How to Measure, Report, and Verify Climate Finance

OpenClimateNetwork.org

Measurement and Performance Tracking in Developing Countries

Have Countries Delivered on Fast-Start Climate Finance?

The May Deadline

Changes in Pledges

Did Countries Meet their 2010 Pledges?

Better Reporting Standards Going Forward

Transparency of Climate Finance: Results from Cancun and Next Steps

OpenClimateNetwork.org

What is transparency of climate finance and why is it important?

Don’t countries already report their climate finance contributions?

Do the Cancun Agreements improve MRV systems for long-term financial commitments?

What about the transparency of the so-called ‘fast-start finance’?

What new institutions were created in Cancun that relate to the MRV of finance?

What are the next steps in this process?

Seven Elements Developed Countries Should Include in their "Fast-Start" Climate Finance Reports

Breathing New Life into Climate Talks in Bangkok

Q&A: Transparency in the Cancun Agreements

What are the new transparency provisions in the Cancun Agreements?

WRI Analysis of Emission Reduction Pledges, Transparency & Reporting

Are these a departure from existing provisions?

How will the new transparency processes help us understand Parties’ mitigation pledges?

How do the Cancun Agreements address the capacity gap in some countries in terms of reporting?

What is the registry agreed to in Cancun?

What are the next steps?