Transcript INDCs and LEDS

Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions
and EC-LEDS
Implications for USAID
Programming
USAID Environment Officers Workshop,
February 24, 2016
Matthew Ogonowski, E3/GCC
Highlights
• INDCs: Overview, examples and challenges
• INDCs, LEDS and EC-LEDS
• Country support needed: USAID’s role
• Mission support available from USAID
Washington
INDCs and the UNFCCC
• Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
represent the culmination of efforts by the US government
and others to move beyond the previous two-track
UNFCCC structure
• At COP 19 in 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, the UNFCCC put
forth INDCs as a measurable step toward the goal of
keeping global average temperature rise below 2°C from
pre-industrial levels
• At COP 20 in Lima, Peru, Parties agreed on the basic
framework for INDCs, with each INDC to “represent a
progression beyond the current undertaking” of the Party
• INDCs are one of the fundamental pillars of the Paris
Agreement adopted at COP 21 in December 2015
Why Are INDCs Important
• INDCs engage more countries in more ambitious climate
actions
• Movement to economy-wide policies and objectives
• Increasing prominence of climate change on national policy
and political agendas
• Policies and related instruments
for low-emission and climateresilient development
• Interest in enhancing multilateral
cooperation to achieve climate
change goals
Photo Source: Arnaud Bouissou
• Connect domestic LEDS with global goals
INDCs: Overview
• INDCs represent a country’s
commitment to address climate
change through GHG mitigation, in
line with its national circumstances
and capabilities
• Emissions based-INDCs focus on
GHG reductions
‒
Absolute or intensity-based GHG
reduction targets from a specified
baseline (typically in more advanced
countries)
• INDCs can also have non-emission
outcomes as the immediate goal
‒
Implementing specific policies and
measures in one or more economic
sectors
‒ GHG reductions could be estimated or
refined later
What’s in an INDC?
Key Elements
• Policy background (climate change, energy / other
sectors, economic development)
• GHG emission reduction targets (unconditional and / or
conditional)
• Type (e.g., absolute, relative to BAU)
• Coverage (e.g., economy-wide, sectors, sources)
• Baseline used
• Target year(s), implementation period(s)
• Estimation metrics, models, methods employed
• Implementation policies to be employed
• Adaptation components
Summary of INDC Pledges
• 160 INDCs submitted to UNFCCC, representing 187
countries*
• INDCs represent 98.6% of global emissions
• Current pledges would lead to biggest cut ever
achieved, but still not enough to meet 2˚C scenario
– Current commitments projected to lead to 3 to 4˚C of warming
in 21st century
Year
Emissions with Implemented
INDCs (GtCO2e)
Difference in Emissions
Compared to Least-Cost 2˚C
Scenario (GtCO2e)
2025
55
+9
2030
57
+15
Source: UNFCCC 2015
*EU submitted one INDC covering 28 Member States
INDCs: Sectoral Analysis
• The USAID Resources to Advance LEDS Implementation
(RALI) project reviewed INDCs for 37 priority countries
(including all EC-LEDS countries)
• Energy was the most common priority area, identified by
80% of countries reviewed
– INDCs include sector-wide targets for clean energy, and specific
policies and action items
• Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) was
mentioned in all regions except E&E
– Over 75% of countries in both Africa and Asia
• LULUCF activities include improvements to:
–
–
–
–
Forest management
Forest law enforcement
Land rehabilitation
REDD+ participation
INDCs: Sectoral Analysis
Energy
LULUCF
Transport
Waste
Industrial
Processes
Agriculture
Africa
Asia
E&E
LAC
Identified as priority by: ■ >75% of countries; ■ 50 - 74% of countries;
■ 25% - 49% of countries; ■ <25% of countries
INDC Example: Mexico
• Unconditional reduction = 25% of emissions of
GHGs and short lived climate pollutants below
BAU (1,110 MtCO2e) for 2030
• 22% reduction of GHGs; 51% of black carbon
• Is “consistent with Mexico’s pathway” to reduce
emissions 50% below 2000 levels by 2050, as
mandated by the General Law on Climate Change
• Conditional reduction = 40% overall
• Economy-wide; all six Kyoto gases + BC
• No information on implementation policies
• Includes adaptation policies for 2020-2030
INDC Example: Malawi
• Estimated reduction of 14-16 MtCO2e per year
by 2030
• ~ 6 Mt unconditional actions; IDed only in sectors
• Emissions = 29 Mt in 2015; 3/4 from forestry
• Sectors: Forestry, agriculture, energy, waste,
industrial processes; carbon dioxide, methane
and N2O
• Little information on estimation methodology
• Includes detailed lists of both mitigation and
adaptation policies to be employed
• Time frame 2015-2040
Submitted INDCs: Limitations
• Inconsistency in GHG mitigation targets
– Different time frames, reference years, sectors
and gases included
– Inconsistent inclusion of LULUCF
– Different emission projection methodologies
• Base year; BAU; GDP intensity, etc.
• Inadequate quantitative basis for proposed
ambition levels
• Lack of transparency in GHG reporting
• Incomplete/inconsistent information on
assumptions and methodologies
Implementation Challenges
• Capacity: Greater demand for assistance as countries,
sectors involved in mitigation increase -- may strain
resources
• Technical: Effective data collection procedures needed for
accurate MRV, transparency; countries utilize new
untested technologies and processes; etc.
• Economic: Costs, co-benefits and negative impacts may
be poorly understood, left out of key INDC-related plans
and policies
• Institutional:
• NDC mitigation actions in different sectors will require coordination
with each other, and with the national LEDS
• INDCs may be implemented by different sector agencies without
adequate consultation and coordination -- potential to exacerbate
“patchwork quilt” approach to mitigation
Connection Points
INDCs and LEDS
To support large-scale and long-term action, ideally, INDCs and other mitigation
actions will be integrated building blocks of an overarching, cross-sectoral,
development-focused, and inter-ministerial LEDS process
• LEDS provides a critical connection to a country’s national development goals,
and thus a strong foundation for INDCs
• Drawing from LEDS lessons and experiences to date, LEDS can also provide a
well-established approach for stakeholder engagement and coordinated action
across ministries, subnational governments and donors
LEDS AS AN OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT &
COORDINATION
NAMA
INDC
MITIGATION
DEVELOPMENT
ROBUST
ANALYSIS
INTERMINISTERIAL &
SUBNATIONAL
COORDINATION
ALIGNING WITH
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
PROCESS &
ANALYTICAL
ELEMENTS
CLIMATE
RESILIENCE
HOLISTIC CLIMATE &
DEVELOPMENT
14
APPROACH
INDCs and LEDS: Sequencing
• LEDS and other mitigation activities may have already been
developed and feed directly into INDCs (with full alignment)
• INDCs can be used to improve analytical robustness of LEDS (e.g.,
baseline and scenario analysis), feed back into future iterations of a LEDS
• INDCs can also promote or be the starting point for future LEDS
development, especially for countries that may be less advanced in
relation to mitigation action
EC-LEDS: Laying the Path
for Successful INDCs
USAID assistance through the EC-LEDS program has provided developing
countries with critical building blocks and capacity that helped them prepare and
implement INDCs:
• Baseline development and emissions accounting: Renewable energy
resource mapping (GeoSpatial Toolkit); Training on GHG inventory systems
(EPA IAA, RDMA’s LEAD program; SilvaCarbon)
• Economic analysis and modeling : CEADIR and cost-benefit trainings; LEAP
and TIMES energy/GHG modeling; India Sustainable Growth Working Group
(SGWG).
• Evaluation of co-benefits and associated reductions in mitigation costs:
AILEG, Development Impacts Assessment tool (Zambia), and MAC curves
(Mexico)
• Policy design, evaluation, testing, and pilots: Promote strong enabling
environments; Scaling up RE; grid integration (Greening the Grid) to give
countries confidence in implementing variable renewable energy; subnational REDD activities (Indonesia, Colombia)
• Institutional coordination: (Colombia EC-LEDS interministerial working group;
India’s Sustainable Growth Working Group)
EC-LEDS: Contributing to
Success in Paris
• Direct technical support for INDC analysis and
preparation:
– 12 countries incl. Kazakhstan, Philippines, Georgia, Jamaica,
Gabon
• USAID’s work on the ground thus helped to facilitate a
good outcome at the international level at COP 21
– USAID’s approach to low emissions development enabled
countries to participate in the Paris Agreement
– USAID helped 26 key countries formulate initial INDCs and
improve or start LEDS
– USAID programs enabled partner countries to identify sources
of emissions from land use and energy sectors, provided
support for strategic policy to achieve GHG reductions
Aligning USAID with Paris
• Identifying Key Partner Countries
• Building on LEDS to increase ambition in INDCs
– Enable countries to implement current commitments
– Enable and encourage greater ambition in future
NDCs
– Provide tools and ability to publicly and transparently
track emissions reductions
– Assisting countries to prepare and submit “midcentury” LEDS in 2020
Potential Support from USAID
Ambition
Transparency
Implementing
INDCs
Accountability
Action
Ambition
Requirements
– Parties to establish NDCs and submit new, more ambitious NDCs
every 5 years thereafter
– Global stocktaking every 5 years starting in 2023
– 2020 “mid-century” LEDS
Challenges
– Current INDCs are insufficient to limit global average temperature
to <2˚C above pre-industrial levels
– Many INDCs lack quantitative basis for level of ambition
Activities that need USAID support
Identify and assess emission reduction options to set and achieve
ambitious, yet realistic targets. Opportunities include:
–
–
–
–
GHG projections modeling
Economic modeling (e.g., marginal abatement cost curves)
Benefits analysis
Benchmarking analysis
Transparency
Requirements
– Parties to provide a national inventory at least every two years
– Support to be provided by developed countries for developing
transparency-related capacity building for developing Parties
Challenges
– INDCs provide limited inventory information
– Parties may have outdated inventories, Biennial Update Reports (BURs)
– Inconsistent reporting of mitigation goals and supporting basis
Activities that need USAID support
Improve clarity and transparency in INDC reporting, including:
– National GHG inventory improvement
• Emission factors, Inventory methodologies and tools
• National Inventory Systems Training
– BUR improvement
– Compliance with yet to be written UNFCCC Transparency requirements
• Tool development
• Training/workshops
Accountability
Requirements
– Parties to provide information to track progress made in
implementing and achieving INDCs
– Developed countries to report on financial support provided;
developing countries encouraged to report on financial support
received
– Mitigation activities reported to undergo expert technical review
Challenges
– Parties lack capacity for tracking progress on mitigation or financial
flows
Activities that need USAID support
– Support measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) through
tool development to quantify emission reductions and financing
received / leveraged
– Training on compliance with future UNFCCC mitigation reporting
requirements
Action
• Mobilizing and increasing large-scale public
and private investments to support partner
country INDCs and LEDS
• Scaling up renewable energy and energy
efficiency
• Increasing sustainable production; decoupling
agriculture and deforestation
• Land tenure and resource rights; supporting
long-term land investments
• Urban mitigation, sub-national LEDS
Boosting Stakeholder
Engagement
• Raise importance of climate change work at
country team level
– USG Interagency engagement
– E3 and Washington to play a coordinating and
facilitating role
• Engaging with Implementing partners
– E3 Open House
– Outreach to implementers through Wilson Center
events
• Facilitate coordination with other donors
– LEDS-GP
– NAP Global Network
Support from USAID/W
• In addition to field support, DC can assist with:
–
–
–
–
–
Assessments
Program design (to link with USG priorities)
Reporting (such as APGs, climate finance mobilization, etc.)
Technical Assistance
Guidance: Revising OP Guidance for 2016 to reflect the priority
of implementing the Paris Agreement
• E3 Mechanisms to support implementation, analysis
–
–
–
–
–
–
CEADIR
RALI
NAP Global Network (State funded, accessible to USAID)
IAAs with DOE, EPA, SilvaCarbon
ProLand (Agricultural sector)
CCAFS (Agriculture, Landscape Emissions)
USAID and INDCs: Next Steps
• Discussions and further consultation (E3 & Regional
Bureaus)
– Schedule follow-up consultations with missions on LEDS
– Identify opportunities and priorities to rapidly engage with key
countries on INDCs, transparency
– Adjust, design and deploy mechanisms to address needs and
opportunities
– Develop a programmatic understanding of USAID support for the
Paris Agreement to improve communication of USG efforts to
meet our obligations
– Washington will provide additional information on any updates to
the reporting process to meet Paris Agreement commitments on
reporting
• Q&A to address questions from the field
THANK YOU !