Transcript the Brazilian experience

Conducting a national
greenhouse gas inventory
The Brazilian Experience
• Le Morne, Mauritius, 10 April 2003
• José D. G. Miguez
• Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology
Brazilian Initial National
Communication
• Definition of Success
– within timeframe
– within budget
– high quality
• 4 years late
• Out of funds since December 2000
• 15 reports available on the Internet
– LUCF is still missing
• http://www.mct.gov.br/clima
Strategy
• Large country (8.5M), population (175M)
and economy (500 G)
• Emphasis on inventory preparation
– Mitigation ( CDM )
– Adaptation (Regional Climate Change Model)
• Education and public awareness
– Web page publishing since 1995
Timeframe
• Art. 12.5
– 3 years after entry into force (May 1994)
– 3 years after availability of funds (SBI/2001/INF9)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Country endorsement 8/31/95
GEF Council Approval 6/14/96
Signature by UNDP 8/1/96 (timeframe 1.5 y)
First disbursement 12/96
Last disbursement 2/01
Since 2/01 financial resources from federal budget
– Low speed
Budget
• Meet “agreed” full costs
– USCS project US$ 0.4mi (signed in 1995)
– request US$ 3mi; approved by GEF US$ 1.5mi
• Additional funding required
• IBAMA, ELETROBRAS, FAPESP, Federal Budget
– out of funds since Feb, 2001
• Federal Budget (2000-2003) ‘survival’ funds
• Coordination by MCT (in kind contribution)
• only coordinator, no staff;
• 3 professionals with scholarships from CNPq
• Bureaucracy
• Brazilian Government (MCT, MRE, ABC, MF)
• UNDP first GEF Project, Contract in US$
Budget (current situation)
• No bridge funds
• Federal Budget – Climate Change Program
–
2000 US$ 800K;
– 2001 US$ 400K;
– 2002 US$ 150K;
– 2003 US$ 300K
• Concept paper for 2NC (hold under analysis)
– conditional to submission of 1NC
– conditional to the use of Decision 17/CP.8
• Legal problem in using Federal Budget in 2003
– remaining staff guaranteed until June, 03
Budget and compliance
• Art 4.7
– extent to which developing country Parties will
effectively implement their commitments will depend
on the effective implementation by developed country
Parties of their commitments related to financial
resources and transfer of technology and will take fully
into account that economic and social development and
poverty eradication are the first and overriding
priorities of developing country Parties
• Art. 13
Quality
•
•
•
•
•
1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines
UNFCCC Guidelines (Decision 10/CP.2)
comprehensive scope sectors/gases
steps taken or envisaged to implement the UNFCCC
involvement of institutions and experts
– Most knowledgeable or provider of information
• activity data x emission factor
–
–
–
–
Complex (Amazonian region)
Pioneer (Savannah burning, Reservoirs)
Lack of information
Methodology for activity data
• uncertainty
Quality (ctnd)
• Client - MCT (high quality product)
– UNFCCC (any product)
– GEF/UNDP (financial aspects and timeframe)
• QA/QC (GPG IPCC) (delays not foreseen)
– initial reports not accepted in MCT screening
– capacity building (learning by doing)
– pioneer and complex work
• Sugar cane burning (IPCC EF, field measurement, US EPA)
– lack of sufficient human and financial resources
• Uncertainty and responsibility
Project Control
• Progress measurement
– Contracts were not well done
• Communication among participants
– different institutions
– spread all over Brazil
– need of newsletter
• Corrective interventions
– lack of alternatives
– lack of financial resources
– lack of authority
Participants
•
•
•
•
Staff of participating institutions
MCT Staff - shrinking (future ?)
Government full political support
Coordination
– Sectoral - institutions top management (other duties)
– Project - Lack of authority
Positive Results
• Brazil constituted a multi-institutional and multi-stakeholder team
under coordination of MCT
– core scientific group will be able to assist Brazil in complying with future
commitments (2NC)
• 100 institutions and 500 professionals involved
– Sectoral/Industry coordination
– Different level of success in coordination
• Methodology established
• Capacity building process going on
• 16 reports prepared in 3 languages (summary of 5000 pages of
reports)
• Two reviews by GEF (positive comments of available reports by
auditors Prof. Sathaye and Dr. Jarle)
• National Communication to be submitted later this year