Transcript How to mitigate limited capacity

Overcoming the challenges of
INDC preparation: experiences
and lessons learned
28 August 2015
NewClimate Institute
Thomas Day
Niklas Höhne
Markus Hagemann
Frauke Röser
Marie Kurdziel
Sara Becerra
Sofia Gonzalez
www.newclimate.org
This presentation report was prepared by NewClimate Institute on behalf of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Development Project (UNDP), under the project Experiences and lessons learned in the
preparation of INDCs. The contents express the views of the authors and participating country representatives, and do not
necessarily represent the views of the UNFCCC or UNDP.
The country-level data and information contained in this document are based upon publically available information, and information
provided by country representatives for the purpose of this research activity.
Usage rights: Unlimited re-use of this presentation report for all purposes is allowed only in its current format, without changes
made to content or design. Usage of information in this document is allowed when cited.
www.newclimate.org
2
Abbreviations
BUR
Biennial Update Report
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
GHG
Greenhouse gas
INDC
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
LEDS
Low Emissions Development Strategy
NAMA
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action
NAP
National Adaptation Plans
TNA
Technology Needs Assessment
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
www.newclimate.org
3
Contents
Introduction
5
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
9
1.1 What types of mitigation commitments are countries using in their INDCs?
1.2 What is the typical format of mitigation commitments in INDC documents?
1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs?
11
14
16
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
20
2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope?
2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?
2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits inform the design of an INDC?
2.4 How can the split between unconditional and conditional contributions be determined?
2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?
Challenge: Securing broad participation and support
21
23
27
29
31
34
3.1 How have countries obtained and benefited from high-level support
3.2 How have countries ensured cross-ministerial coordination?
3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation?
35
36
37
Opportunities
39
www.newclimate.org
4
Introduction
Context
The global challenge: Achievement of an ambitious global climate agreement at COP21
The national challenge: Development of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
Objective of this presentation
Enable knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer learning and identification of good practices for INDC
preparation through analysis of approaches and progress worldwide.
Methodology:
1) Collection of information through online surveys and detailed interviews
2) Analysis of information to distil lessons learned and relevant knowledge for
international processes
3) Multiple knowledge sharing activities
Statistics:
• Data collected from 125 countries; updated monthly from February to July 2015
• 44 detailed interviews with high-level country representatives
• Coverage includes countries from all regions and levels of economic development
www.newclimate.org
5
Introduction
Planned submissions




22 submissions received – approx. 60% of emissions
End of August: 66% of emissions expected
End of September: 76% of emissions expected
End of October: Up to at least 80 submissions - 83% of emissions expected
Source: http://files.newclimate.org/indc-preparation-progress/
www.newclimate.org
6
Introduction
Challenges in the preparation of INDCs
Countries report 5 major challenges:
“Too short timeframes for undertaking processes” (88%)
“Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs” (71%)
“Limited expertise for assessing mitigation options” (71%)
“Securing high-level political support” (61%)
“Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries” (59%)
www.newclimate.org
7
Introduction
Opportunities in the preparation of INDCs
Countries report opportunities:
“Improved international communication”
“Enhanced engagement of stakeholders in climate change planning”
“Acceleration of national climate change policy process”
“Improved national processes”
“Improved domestic communication between government, CSO and public”
www.newclimate.org
8
Introduction
What can be learned from experiences in other countries?
Experiences and lessons learned
1.
What to include in INDCs
(Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs)
2.
How to mitigate limited capacity
(Limited expertise for assessing mitigation options)
(Too short timeframes for undertaking processes)
3.
How to secure broad participation and support
(Securing high-level political support)
(Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries)
4.
What benefits can be gained from the INDC process?
www.newclimate.org
9
1. What to include in INDCs
Barrier
Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
(based on responses from 44 countries)
Topics covered
• What types of mitigation commitments are countries using in their INDCs?
• What is the typical format of mitigation commitments in INDC documents?
• How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs?
www.newclimate.org
10
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1 What can we learn from existing INDC submissions?
Overview of existing submissions
Coverage: Countries cover a range of regions and income levels.
INDC types: Most are based on economy-wide GHG targets; less than half of
all Parties are eventually expected to include these.
Mitigation and adaptation: All focus primarily on mitigation; of 22 INDC
submissions, 13 have included adaptation; EU and US have submitted
separate documents on adaptation; over 50% of countries are expected to
include an adaptation component.
Conditional INDCs: Mexico’s and Morocco’s INDCs are existing examples that
include both an unconditional and a conditional contribution. For Ethiopia,
the distinction between supported and unsupported elements will come at a
later stage.
www.newclimate.org
11
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.1 Type of mitigation contributions
Existing mitigation contributions
Party
INDC Type (mitigation)
Target
Ref. Point
Andorra
Sectoral GHG target - BAU
37% GHG reduction by 2030
BAU
Canada
Economy-wide GHG target – BY
China
Decarbonisation indicator
Ethiopia
Economy wide GHG target – BAU
30% GHG reduction by 2030
2005
Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 60-65%
2005
by 2030
64% GHG reduction by 2030
BAU
EU
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
40% GHG reduction by 2030
1990
Gabon
Economy wide GHG target - BAU
50% GHG reduction by 2025
BAU
Iceland
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
40% GHG reduction by 2030
1990
Japan
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
26% GHG reduction by 2030
2013
Kenya
Economy-wide GHG target - BAU
30% GHG reduction by 2030
BAU
Liechtenstein
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
40% GHG reduction by 2030
1990
Table 1 (Page 1/2): Overview of existing submissions
+ = Unconditional contribution
Summary of INDCs submitted by June 11 2015
BY = target is relative to a Base Year
BAU = target is relative to a Business As Usual trajectory
++ =
Conditional contribution
www.newclimate.org
12
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.1 Type of mitigation contributions
Existing mitigation contributions
Party
INDC Type (mitigation)
Target
Ref. Point
Marshall Islands
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
32% GHG reduction by 2025
2010
Mexico
Economy-wide GHG target - BAU
25%+ / 40%++ GHG & SLCP reduction by 2030
BAU
Monaco
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
50% GHG reduction by 2030
1990
Morocco
Economy wide GHG target - BAU
13%+ / 32%++ GHG reduction by 2030
BAU
New Zealand
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
30% GHG reduction by 2030
2005
Norway
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
40% GHG reduction by 2030
1990
Republic of Korea
Economy-wide GHG target - BAU
37% GHG reduction by 2030
BAU
Russia
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
Limit GHGs to 70-75% by 2030
1990
Serbia
Economy-wide GHG target - BY
1990
Singapore
Decarbonisation indicator
9.8% GHG reduction by 2030
Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 36% by
2030
2005
Table 1 (Page 2/2): Overview of existing submissions
+ = Unconditional contribution
Summary of INDCs submitted by June 11 2015
BY = target is relative to a Base Year
BAU = target is relative to a Business As Usual trajectory
++ =
Conditional contribution
www.newclimate.org
13
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.1 Type of mitigation contributions
Existing mitigation contributions
Economy-wide
GHG target – BY
Type of
mitigation
contribution
Most existing submissions are from
industrialised countries
Economy wide
GHG target – BAU
Sectoral GHG
target - BAU
OECD
Decarbonisation
indicator
Europe (non-OECD)
Policies and
measures
Asia and Pacific (nonOECD)
Figure 1: Type of contribution in existing INDCs
Most existing submissions include
economy wide GHG targets, although
are expected to use this approach
Africa (non-OECD)
Regional
coverage
Latin America and
Caribbean (nonOECD)
Figure 2: Regional coverage of existing INDCs
www.newclimate.org
14
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.2 Format of mitigation contributions
Format and content of submissions as to
mitigation:
Elements: Most existing submissions include a number of the same elements
• Key information on the INDC (summary, ref. point, scope and coverage,
methodological details) is included in all submissions.
• Other elements are found in most submissions.
Typical level of detail: Short, concise information. Ca. 5 pages in total.
Typical format: Highlighted summaries followed by details in tabular format (e.g.
EU, Norway, Switzerland, Mexico, Russia).
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
15
15
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.2 Format of mitigation contributions
Format component commonly included in existing submissions
Examples
Concise 1 sentence summary of the target
Liechtenstein, EU, US, Switzerland
Reference point
Andorra, Mexico and Gabon for BAU
Scope and coverage
EU, Norway, US, Russia
Methodological approaches including LULUCF
EU
Further technical details of the INDC
EU
Long-term goals, stated but not major focus
Norway, US, Mexico
Legislative planning process
Russia, Norway
Fairness, ambition and convention objective
See section 1.4
Additional conditional contribution
Mexico, Morocco (see section 2.5)
Finance requirements
Gabon
Adaptation component
Mexico, Morocco, Ethiopia and Gabon
Gender considerations
Mexico
Table 2: Major elements included in existing INDCs and useful examples for their formatting. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
16
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs?
Countries were asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree that adaptation plans would
form a major component of their INDC:
(based on responses from 159 countries)
www.newclimate.org
17
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs?
Format and content of submissions as to
adaptation:
• Some countries consider the adaptation component to be on equal footing with
the mitigation component; however, most countries focus on mitigation and
secondly on adaptation in their INDCs.
• Countries follow very different approaches with regard to format and contents of
the adaptation component of their INDCs.
Format: addressed in single chapter (and sub-chapters); integrated into tabular
format; included in annex; included in NatCom; separate document on adaptation
Elements: long- and short-term goals (qualitative or quantitative); long- and shortterm actions; strategies; policies/ programmes; action plans; monitoring and
evaluation systems; investment estimates; international support
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
18
18
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
1.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs?
Party
Format
Elements
Focus
China
Chapter in INDC text
Adaptation strategy; intern. support
M&A
Ethiopia
Chapter/ sub-chapters in INDC table
Long-term goal (qual); short- and long-term actions; M&E
M&A
Gabon
Chapter in INDC text
Adaptation strategy
M
Kenya
Chapter in INDC text
Long-term goal (qual); NAP; sector-specific goals & actions
A
Marshall Islands
Ref in INDC table (short)/ annex (long)
Adaptation framework; adaptation plan; intern. support
M
Mexico
Ref in INDC table (short)/ annex (long)
Sector-specific goals & actions, intern. support
M&A
Monaco
Chapter in INDC text
Adaptation strategy; adaptation action plan
M
Morocco
Chapter/ sub-chapters in INDC text
Long-term goals (quan); sector-specific goals & actions;
investment estimation; M&E; intern. support
M&A
Serbia
Ref in INDC table
Sector vulnerability; investment estimation
M
Singapore
Ref in INDC table (short)/ annex (long)
Sector-specific goals & actions
M
South Korea
Chapter in INDC text
Adaptation plan; sector-specific actions (short)
M
EU
Separate document
Adaptation strategy; sector-specific actions; lessons learnt
M
New Zealand
Reference to 6th National Communication
Adaptation policies; sector-specific actions
M
Norway
Reference to 6th National Communication
Adaptation framework; sector-specific actions
M
United States
Separate document
U.S. domestic and international adaptation priorities
M
www.newclimate.org
19
Challenge: What to include in INDCs
Where is further information and guidance available?
See also…
Höhne, Ellermann & Fekete (2014) Process guidance for Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions (INDCs). http://newclimate.org/2014/12/06/process-guidance-on-indcs-prepared-bynewclimate-staff-4/
WRI (2015) Designing and Preparing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
(INDCs). http://www.wri.org/publication/designing-and-preparing-indcs
PMR (2015) Checklist on Establishing Post-2020 Emission Pathways.
https://www.thepmr.org/content/checklist-establishing-post-2020-emission-pathways
CDKN & Ricardo-AEA (2015) A guide to INDCs. http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CDKN-RicardoAEA-Guide-to-INDCs_FINAL_WEB1.pdf
Website resources from the International Partnership for Mitigation and MRV.
http://www.mitigationpartnership.net/intended-nationally-determined-contributions-indcs
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
20 20
2. Mitigating limited capacity
Barriers
Limited technical expertise for assessing mitigation options
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
Too short timeframes for undertaking processes
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
(based on responses from 44 countries)
Topics covered
•
How are countries determining their sectoral scope?
•
How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?
•
How can an assessment of co-benefits inform the design of an INDC?
•
How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined?
•
What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?
www.newclimate.org
21
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope?
Not all Parties have the resources and/or capacities to determine appropriate
economy-wide contributions in this first INDC round.
How are countries determining
their sectoral scope?
Figure 5: Criteria that countries have
used to prioritise sectors for their INDCs
Sector prioritisation practices
Potential impact
Synergies/continuity
Emissions reduction potential
Common mitigation and
adaptation goals
Accrual of wider economic
and social co-benefits
National priorities
Other national climate change
processes
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
22 22
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope?
Examples of practices for scope selection and sector prioritisation
Potential impact
Synergies/continuity
Emission reduction potential
Common mitigation and adaptation goals
Assessment through use of existing data
and processes
• Thailand: Major synergies between adaptation and mitigation
• Philippines: Vulnerability of mitigation options assessed
(see section 2.2)
• Chile & Peru: Mitigation Action Plans and
Scenarios (MAPS)
Co-benefits assessment
Making a case for sectoral action
National priorities
Using the INDC to accelerate the implementation of
other national priorities
• Senegal: Electrification & reduced consumption of dirty fuels
• Uganda: Focus on forestry and energy to align with national
development priorities
• Solomon Islands: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
(see section 2.3)
• Dominican Republic: Quantified jobs,
economic impact and other benefits
• Colombia: extensive co-benefit analysis under
the Colombian Low Carbon Development
Strategy (ECDBC), which is a key input for the
INDCs.
Figure 6: Examples of practices for scope selection and sector
prioritisation. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
23
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?
Potential links of INDCs with other national
climate change processes
Most countries use existing documents as data sources for
their INDC development:
• National Communications (e.g. Morocco)
• National Inventories
Other
CDM
NAMA
LEDS
National Communications
National Inventories
Some countries build upon ongoing national climate
change processes to compile and communicate their
INDC:
• Low Emissions Development Strategies - LEDS (e.g.
Colombia)
• Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions - NAMAs
(e.g. Thailand)
• Clean Development Mechanism - CDM (e.g. Vietnam)
Figure 7: Examples of practices for links of INDCs with other national climate change processes. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
24
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?
Use of existing data and processes:
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
CNCCMDL
•
TNC/BUR
INDC
LEDS
(CCDP)
Energy
Transport
Forestry
CDM – PoA – NAMA
•
Quick
wins
•
Inter-ministerial coordination:
National Council for Climate
Change and Clean Development
Mechanism (CNCCMDL)
Legal framework: National
Development Strategy (NDS)
2030
Framework for action: Climate
Compatible Development Plan
(CCDP)
Figure 8: Links of the Dominican Republic’s INDC with other national climate change processes. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
25
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?
Use of existing data and processes: Peru
NAMAs
MAPS
PlanCC
INDC
5 June. Start
consultation process
•
•
•
BUR
Forest projects and
Forest Investment
Program (PIF)
Plans and
programs
58 mitigation actions across 6 sectors
31% reduction of emissions for 2030 against BAU scenario
82.2 mtCO2eq reduction by 2030
17 July. End consultation
process and revision of
draft INDC
31 August. Country
presents INDC to the
UNFCCC
Figure 9: Use of existing data and processes in Peru. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
26 26
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?
Review and revision of existing targets
Embedding the INDC into a Review and Revision process of
existing policy targets is more efficient and more effective
than beginning new processes.
“Indonesia’s INDC is a
by-product of the
Indonesia Mitigation
Policy review process”
2015
- BAPPENAS, 2015
2030
•
•
•
•
•
Beyond
Continued review and
revision of institutionalised
climate change policy / INDC
Ensure integration of INDC in national policy
Reduce burden of undertaking new analysis from start
Established roles and responsibilities
Experience and evidence to reduce uncertainty
Understand the implications of policy implementation
Figure 10: Review and revision of existing targets in Indonesia. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
27 27
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits help to inform the design of an INDC?
Co-benefit assessment
Cost savings from fossil fuel imports,
improved energy security, health from
reduced air pollution, job creation, traffic
decongestion, economic development etc.
• Make a case for prioritizing sector and
measures to include in the INDC.
• Increase the willingness of decision
makers and stakeholder to increase
ambition.
Figure 11: Infographic on co-benefit assessment in the US, the EU and China .
See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
28 28
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits help to inform the design of an INDC?
The Dominican Republic quantified the non-GHG related benefits for specific
measures in all sectors, in order to inform the design of the INDC. (see energy
and transport, for example, in earlier slide)
Sector/measure
Job
creation in
2013
Economic
impacts
(mUSD/a)
GHG emission
reduction
(MtCO2e/a)
Energy
34,300
1,000
8.6
Substitute all fuel-oil plants with gas
Reduce inefficient auto generation from 25% to 5%
Increase share of renewable energy to 38%
Energy efficiency: reduce energy demand 13%
1,300
33,000
130
20
300
550
1
0.5
4.3
2.8
Transport
25,000
1,700
5.3
Establish efficiency standards
Shift to CNG
Increase consumption of biofuels
Scale-up public transport
4,000
21,000
-
500
600
400
200
1.3
1.1
2.4
0.5
Other non-GHG benefits
Cleaner air
Cleaner air, black
carbon reduction, less
traffic congestion
Table 3: Assessment of co-benefits of proposed actions in Dominican Republic. Source: Alvarez (2015)
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
29 29
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.4 How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined?
Determining contributions - using existing and
planned policies and strategies
Morocco
3 measures from
UNDP FOCAM
excercise
10 measures in
place from
forthcoming 3rd
NC
Dialogue on
forestry
CDM
pipeline
Emission level in 2025/ 2030
Ecuador
Unconditional
INDC
Conditional
INDC
54 measures the
country could
potentially implement
as identified in 3rd NC
Figure 3: Determining contributions using policies and strategies. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
30 30
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.4 How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined?
Determining contributions top down
Emissions in 2025/ 2030
Identifying what you should do and what you could do can
help you in determining your contributions.
Unconditional
INDC
“Fair”
contribu
tion
Mitigation
potential
Conditional
INDC
“Fair” contribution
Mitigation potential
Question to ask : “What level
of emissions should I achieve
to make a fair and equitable
contribution?”
Question to ask: “What level
of emission reductions could I
achieve given the mitigation
potential in my county ?”
How: Effort sharing
approaches
How: National mitigation
potential analysis (e.g. MACC)
Figure 4: Determining contributions top down. See Notes for details
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
31 31
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?
Ways to compare mitigation efforts
• Effort sharing
What is the “fair” share? How much should emissions be reduced?
• Potential
How much could emissions be reduced (irrespective of who pays)?
• Comparison to benchmarks for decarbonisation indicators
How are other countries developing?
• Good practice policy packages
What are other countries doing?
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
32 32
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?
Ambition and equity in INDCs so far
Country
States to
be in line
with IPCC
trajectories
In line with
own long
term target
Ambitious
because a
deviation
from trend
Mentions
per capita
emissions
EU
X
X
Liechtenstein
X
X
Andorra
X
X
X
Switzerland
Norway
USA
Canada
Mentions
small
contribution to
world total
Mentioni
ng peak
year
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Russia
X
Mexico
X
X
X
Morocco
X
X
X
Ethiopia
Mentiones
reduction in
emissions
per GDP
X
X
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
33 33
Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity
2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?
Examples: MAPS countries
• Integrated in the INDC
preparation methodology:
Determine “required by
science scenarios” for
comparison with mitigation
potential
“Required by science scenario”
Source: MAPS Chile:
http://mapschile.cl/files/resumen_MAPSChile_Fase2_102014.pdf
• Received limited attention in
the beginning
• But is used in the final stages
of the INDC preparation as a
validation step, that may
nudge the INDC a bit further
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
34 34
3. Securing broad support
Barriers
Securing high-level political support
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
(based on responses from 44 countries)
Topics covered
• How have countries obtained and benefited from high-level support?
• How have countries ensured inter-ministerial coordination?
• What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation?
www.newclimate.org
35
Challenge: Securing broad participation and support
3.1 How have countries obtained and benefited from high level support?
Mandate and level of sign-off for INDCs
In most countries, the mandate to begin preparations for an INDC came from the
Ministry in which the UNFCCC focal point is based.
Only a quarter of countries
expected to require sing-off from
parliament or the head of state,
at the start of the INDC process.
Which level of
governance, is
responsible for the
final sign-off of the
INDC submission?
- Asked March 2015
Political processes for INDC
preparation may have been
underestimated by a lot of
countries.
Figure 12: Required level of sign-off forecast by countries
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
36 36
Challenge: Securing broad participation and support
3.1 How have countries ensured cross-ministerial coordination?
Many countries have difficulties to
engage all governmental bodies.
Some countries overcame this
barrier through:
•
New, formally established interministerial processes or committees,
dedicated to the INDC, with a leading
(steering) role
•
Use of existing inter-ministerial
processes
•
Distribution of key responsibilities
between ministries
•
Intensive training seminars for deputyministers
“The establishment of an
inter-ministerial steering
committee dedicated to
the INDC process, ensured
maximum participation
and understanding across
all relevant governmental
bodies”
- Georgia
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
37 37
Challenge: Securing broad participation and support
3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation?
Why stakeholder involvement?
•
•
•
Secure broad level buy-in and public support for policies (e.g. Armenia)
Provision of specific information, data, and new ideas as well as new skill sets
Mobilisation of key actors for later implementation process
Who to involve?
•
•
•
Broad range of stakeholders from government, civil society, academia and private sector (e.g.
Chile, Senegal)
Potentially focus on specific key stakeholder groups depending on focus of the INDC (e.g.
private sector in Singapore)
Inclusion of local and regional government (e.g. Uganda, Kenya)
How to manage the process?
•
•
•
Careful planning of timing and degree of involvement is essential
Transparency on process and use of stakeholder inputs
Consultation methods may differ: bilateral, multilateral or online
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
38 38
Challenge: Securing broad participation and support
3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation?
Two country examples on how to engage stakeholders successfully.
SINGAPORE
ARMENIA
WHY?
- Specific inputs and expertise
WHY?
- Public awareness and buy-in
WHO?
- Focus on private sector
WHO?
- Focus on general public
HOW?
- Use of an online platform open for
comment for 10 weeks
- Dialogue sessions co-organised with key
stakeholder groups, mainly business
associations
HOW?
- Public opinion survey on INDC themes
through media outlet
- Organised 10 thematic roundtables with
senior government officials
- Discussions were broadcasted to general
public
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
39 39
4. Opportunities
“Improved international communication”
“Enhanced engagement of stakeholders in climate change planning”
“Acceleration of national climate change policy process”
“Improved national processes”
“Improved domestic communication between government, CSO and public”
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
Topics covered
• Developing the national climate change agenda
• Improving collection and coordination of information
www.newclimate.org
40
Opportunities
4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda
Consolidation of existing climate change processes
In some countries without previous formal climate
targets, the variety of national, subnational and
donor driven climate activities may be fragmented.
See section 2.2 for further
details on process consolidation
For some, the INDC has provided an impetus to
consolidate fragmented activities:
•
Senegal has consolidated NAP, TNA, LEDS, NAMAs, CDM,
national policies and national strategy documents
•
In the Dominican Republic the INDC strongly builds upon
multiple national climate change processes such as CNCCMD,
NAMAs and the CDM (see section 2.2)
Result: Resource efficiency gains, improved strategic
planning, identification of synergies between efforts
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
41 41
Opportunities
4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda
Acceleration of existing climate change processes
75% of countries report that the INDC process has helped to accelerate
existing processes.
Completion of existing processes required as input
LEDS process in Georgia given renewed priority since its comprehensive analysis
on mitigation options and scenarios will be the main input to the INDC design.
Increased attention and awareness for climate change activities
Armenia developed a “relationship and a common understanding” with the public, helping to
accelerate the implementation of grassroots mitigation and adaptation measures.
Priority stimulus to overcome barriers common to INDC and other processes
The INDC in Thailand has made the sectoral plans more visible for relevant government agencies and thus
has developed a a more supportive political environment, also for other indirectly related processes .
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
42 42
Opportunities
4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda
Mainstreaming climate change in policy
Some countries report tangible improvements in consideration of climate
change issues in ministries usually unconcerned in climate policy making.
• In Georgia the inter-ministerial led INDC process has assigned
responsibilities across various ministries, many of whom are becoming
engaged with climate change related responsibilities for the first time.
• In Thailand the INDC process has highlighted the efforts on climate
change that the different ministries had previously included in their
sectoral plans.
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
43 43
Opportunities
4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda
Progressing from planning to implementation
For some countries, where implementation has thus far been limited,
the INDC may catalyse a progression from planning to implementation:
Recent years: Planning with limited implementation
Many countries have been especially active in their climate change
planning activities in recent years.
Planning
2015: INDC submission
INDC’s prepared with formal implementation timeframe
INDC
Beyond 2015: Implementation
INDC’s implementation timeframe provide an enhanced focus on the
development and execution of implementation plans.
•
Implementation
In Thailand, for example, the INDCs will provide more specific actions for
implementation of the energy plan of the Ministry of Energy.
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
44 44
Opportunities
4.1 Developing the national climate change agenda
Enhanced engagement of
stakeholders
See section 3.3 for further details
on stakeholder consultation
Broad coverage and important implications of INDCs necessitates the
participation of wide stakeholder groups.
↓
INDC preparation provided the stimulus to broaden the stakeholder
consultation base, with benefits.
(Approx. 80% of countries report benefiting from improved stakeholder consultation)
↓
•
Singapore - major participation from business, CSO and academia – uncovered ideas and skill
sets not previously available to the government.
•
Georgia – consideration of embassies as a major stakeholder for the first time – uncovered
opportunities for support and improved international dialogue.
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
45 45
Opportunities
4.2 Improving collection and co-ordination of information
Information and data management
Access to data and information from
various sectors and ministries is often a
great challenge, causing delays and
uncertainty.
The INDC process catalyzed the
development of improved information
management systems in many countries:
•
Senegal: new climate change data office
•
Costa Rica: expanded national registry
•
Ghana: online climate change data hub
•
Philippines: Climate Change Database (NICCDIES)
Figure 13: Ghana’s Climate Change Data Hub - http://197.253.69.38/
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
46 46
Opportunities
4.2 Improving collection and co-ordination of information
Enhanced south-south cooperation
A large number of international fora for
INDC preparation support have provided
ample south-south cooperation and
learning opportunities
This is the most commonly reported
benefit of the INDC process amongst all
surveyed countries.
• Chile - major increase in the number of consultations and dialogues with
developing country governments
• Morocco - developing a climate competence center for south-south
cooperation
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
47 47
References
Diagne (2015) Experiences in Prioritizing Sectors for INDCs: SENEGAL. Available via:
http://lowemissiondevelopment.org/lecbp/docs/El_Hadji_Mbaye_Diagne_Senegal__Prioritization_of_Sectors.pdf
LEDS Global Partnership (2015) LEDS/INDC/NAMA Connection Points, April 2015. Available via:
http://www.africacarbonforum.com/2015/english/presentations.htm (accessed: 12 June 2015).
NewClimate institute (2015) Status of INDC preparation worldwide. Available via:
http://files.newclimate.org/indc-preparation-progress/ (accessed: 05 August 2015).
UNFCCC (2014) Lima call for climate action, Decision -/CP.20, December 2014. Available via:
https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_
action.pdf (accessed: 15 July 2015).
Van Asselt, H., Saelen, H. and Pauw, P. (2015) Assessment and Review under a 2015 Climate Change
Agreement, Nordic Council of Ministers 2015. Available via: http://norden.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:797336/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed: 15 July 2014).
Van Tilburg, X., Cameron, L., Harms, N., Esser, L. and Afandor, A. (2015) Status Report on Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Mid-year update 2015. ECN Policy Studies/ Ecofys, 2015.
Available via: http://mitigationpartnership.net/sites/default/files/nama-status-report-june-2015.pdf
(accessed: 12 June 2015).
www.newclimate.org
www.newclimate.org
48 48
Annex I: Major types of INDC and options for expression
www.newclimate.org
49