Enhanced action on Mitigation and Measurement, Reporting and Verification

Submission uner the Cancun Agreements | March 2011

Download this submission as a PDF file (135 kB)

1. Overview

This submission contains the views of the Australian Government on enhanced mitigation and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), as requested under Decision 1/CP.16 (Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention)(hereinafter referred to as “Decision 1/CP.16”).

The Cancun Agreements delivered a balanced package of decisions across all UNFCCC bodies. Some items are ready for implementation, and others require further elaboration. Guided by the Cancun Agreements, it will be important to use the negotiating forums at our disposal to progress work in a coordinated way, utilising the bodies best suited and considering joint work programs where useful.

Australia welcomes the opportunity to submit its views under the Cancun Agreements on enhanced mitigation and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), including international assessment and review (IAR) and international consultation and analysis (ICA). In summary, Australia considers:

  • The economy-wide targets and nationally appropriate mitigation actions put forward by Parties are the first step to achieving our mitigation objectives. The workshops in 2011 to clarify the assumptions and conditions associated with targets, and the diversity of actions, will be critical to improving our understanding of what undertakings Parties are making and how we are collectively tracking towards our goals.
  • An effective climate architecture must provide certainty about what Parties will do, as well as flexibility to recognise diverse types of undertakings and scale up ambition over time.
  • Annexes attached to decisions would transparently record the targets and actions that Parties’ have locked-in as firm mitigation undertakings, including actions that have secured support. A registry would complement them, serving as a voluntary tool for recording information on what developing Parties could further do with support.
  • A periodic process for scaling-up mitigation efforts would give Parties recognition for building their mitigation undertakings and encourage deepening ambition over time.
  • This will facilitate a smooth transition to a new climate treaty over time as countries gain confidence and experience.
  • An effective MRV system, including IAR and ICA, will provide the transparency needed to improve our understanding of the range of targets and actions being implemented, build confidence, and assess our efforts to achieve our global goal.
  • It will be important to build on and learn from the existing system under the Convention, and to ensure a coherent approach to MRV across the different processes and guidelines. This will help to aid understanding and avoid duplication.

2. A strong Mitigation and MRV regime

Australia remains committed to its objective of a durable and environmentally effective international outcome that includes legally-binding mitigation undertakings by all major economies. The Cancun Agreements establish the building blocks of this new regime and the implementation of the Agreements’ key elements will advance us towards that objective.

Two fundamental building blocks of the new regime are the mitigation targets and actions put forward by developed and developing Parties and the measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) framework established in the Agreements. From these building blocks, a transparent and environmentally rigorous regime can be designed to support the broad participation and ambitious action necessary to achieving our long term global goal and the Convention’s objective.

3. What mitigation contributions are countries making?

Understanding the mitigation undertakings in the INF documents

Australia welcomes the mitigation targets and actions put forward by Parties in documents FCCC/SB/2011.INF.1 and FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1 (together, the “INF documents”). In 2011, Australia urges Parties and particularly all major economies, to engage fully and constructively in the Secretariat-organised workshops. Early clarification of the assumptions and conditions associated with targets, and the diversity of actions, will assist Parties to understand better both individual and collective efforts and refine their own contribution. This process will help to clarify the targets and actions that should be recorded in annexes as Parties’ defined mitigation undertakings, and identify the developing country actions that are still seeking support and may be entered in the registry. The work will also underpin efforts to assess progress towards our global mitigation objective.

Developing a durable architecture to record mitigation undertakings

As well as understanding the information in the INF documents, we should invest some of our time this year in developing a durable mitigation architecture.

Establishing a vehicle for capturing quantifiable mitigation undertakings will be a core element of an effective new climate architecture. This will allow Parties to easily understand what others are doing and provide the basis for systems to track our progress. If well-designed, such a vehicle will encourage the broad participation and mitigation ambition necessary to achieve the 2 degree or lower global goal agreed at Cancun. In the short-term, this vehicle could take the form of annexes attached to decisions, building over time to national schedules attached to a new climate treaty.

The annexes should provide certainty about what countries are doing. This will give Parties confidence that they are not acting alone and encourage ambitious national action. It will also allow us as a global community to assess the collective effort against the long term global goal, and promote the environmental integrity of the new climate regime.

To provide this certainty, the climate regime will need to clearly distinguish between what Parties will do – that is, the targets and actions that Parties have locked-in as their defined mitigation undertakings – as well as what developing Parties could do with further support. The annexes should focus on the former, capturing autonomous mitigation undertakings and mitigation actions that have already secured support. Actions seeking support can be entered into the registry on a voluntary basis, discussed below.

The annexes should be capable of recognising the full spectrum of mitigation undertakings and encourage all Parties to participate in a way that is in line with their national circumstances and capabilities. The INF documents set out a wide range of different types of mitigation efforts and will be an important input to the annexes.

Given the variety of Parties’ undertakings, we will need to consider what basic information should be included in the annexes so that Parties can easily understand what others are doing. We should take care to avoid overly constraining Parties’ ability to define mitigation undertakings in order to maximise their mitigation potential. Nevertheless, some degree of commonality in the information provided could help to improve understanding of the different types of undertakings and create transparency about what countries’ undertakings mean. For example, Parties might agree common parameters, such as a set period of time for defining mitigation undertakings, common formats for defining particular types of undertakings, and common data requirements, such as expected emissions outcomes against a baseline.

Operation of the registry

The registry established under the Cancun Agreements can usefully serve as a complement to the annexes, as a voluntary tool for recording and sharing information on what developing country Parties could do with further support to realise their full mitigation potential.

As a voluntary information clearinghouse, the registry can provide an indication of the mitigation opportunities that could be realised by developing countries with support. This information could feed into a process for scaling-up Parties’ mitigation undertakings (discussed further below), with actions that have secured support being transferred from the registry to the annexes at this time. Consistent with this approach, FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1 includes some useful information about actions seeking support that could be entered into the registry. The actions in this INF document that are firm should, as discussed above, be entered in annexes following the workshop process of clarifying Parties’ mitigation undertakings.

The registry can help potential donors and recipients to find each other by recording voluntarily submitted information on actions seeking support and support available. The modalities for facilitation of support through the registry should be consistent with this information-clearinghouse role, providing guidance on the information to be submitted by potential donors and recipients to enable each to assess project support compatibility. To maximise opportunities for support, the modalities should allow all potential donors – bilateral, regional, multilateral; public and private – to voluntarily submit information on support available to assist developing countries undertake proposed mitigation actions.

In designing the registry and considering the need for linkages with other mechanisms, we must be mindful of the importance of achieving practical functionality and system-wide coherence. We should be careful to avoid duplication with other mechanisms, particularly with regards to funding decision-making.

Scaling-up mitigation efforts

The Cancun Agreements recognise that scaling-up overall mitigation effort is essential to achieving our long term global goal. The new climate regime should provide a clear avenue for Parties to take on new or enhanced mitigation undertakings over time as they learn from experience, deepen their capabilities and gain confidence in the level of global action.

To scale-up overall mitigation effort, the regime should include a regular process for Parties to deepen ambition. Regular negotiating sessions would promote higher ambition by giving Parties a distinct opportunity to understand the efforts of others and be recognised for scaling up. This process could link in with the periodic review of the long term global goal, to be first completed in 2015, so that Parties could take into account the review’s findings when considering further undertakings.

Scaled-up mitigation undertakings resulting from this process would be entered in the annexes; affording Parties full recognition for deepening their effort and facilitating understanding of the advancement in overall mitigation effort towards the long term global goal.

Between these periodic discussions, the architecture of the new climate regime could also provide flexibility for Parties to communicate any new or enhanced mitigation measures through other information channels, such as reporting. This information could be transferred to the annexes at the time of the scaling up process, along with actions from the registry that have secured support.

4. How are we tracking towards our goals?

Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV)

The Cancun Agreements recognise the importance of transparency to help understand Parties undertakings and track progress towards collective goals. Enhanced transparency will be achieved through two key measures; increased frequency of reporting for both developed and developing countries; and the establishment IAR and ICA processes. These measures will support improved understanding of the range of targets and actions undertaken, help build the confidence of all Parties, and provide a firm basis to measure our progress towards our long term global goal. Effective MRV, IAR and ICA will also position Parties to begin in 2013 the Review referred to in paragraph 138 of Decision 1/CP.16, based on the best available information. Priority should be given to progress work on MRV, IAR and ICA in 2011.

The objective of efforts to enhance MRV for both developed and developing country Parties should be to develop a system that is accessible and simple to use. Parties should build on the existing system under the Convention and use current processes and guidelines where these are already effective. Where possible, we should avoid duplication and impose additional requirements only where absolutely necessary. In all instances, simplicity should be a key consideration.

Australia welcomes the move towards biennial reporting as a key element of the new MRV system. It will be especially important in the immediate future, for developed countries and countries with expertise, to focus capacity building efforts toward helping developing countries to build-up necessary resources and expertise to prepare their first biennial reports. Australia supports consideration of options to build-in flexibility and appropriate sequencing to help ensure that biennial reports draw on the best available information and data, and help developing countries to consolidate experience, incorporate the benefit of lessons learnt and streamline the preparation of future biennial reporting. This would complement and augment national communications without unnecessarily duplicating existing information and effort.

This year we should prioritise the revision of reporting guidelines, including in relation to biennial reports, in order for sufficient information to be available for the 2015 review. In some cases we will need to identify and address different areas of reporting for developed country Parties and for developing country Parties. Enhanced guidelines for developed country Parties should revise standard approaches to report policies and measures, projections and support provided to developing countries. Enhanced guidelines for developing country Parties should set out standard approaches to establish inventories and to reporting the progress of mitigation actions and support provided and received.

In relation to MRV of support, the national communication guidelines drafted in 1999 (Decision 4/CP.5) for Annex II Parties’ support for developing countries have been useful in laying the foundations for Annex II reporting on financial resources and the transfer of technology. Some revision would help ensure that a rigorous and effective process of MRV of support can be undertaken in the future. There are a number of opportunities to enhance the national communications guidelines and tailor them for use in biennial reports. The enhancements would provide further transparency by assisting Parties to produce accurate and comparable data. This will help improve the understanding of financial flows and their outcomes as well as assist in the consideration of future climate change priorities.

Australia welcomes work already underway to enhance MRV, including under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). We urge Parties to continue this work in the spirit and context of the Cancun outcome and our future MRV system.

International assessment and review (IAR) and international consultation and analysis (ICA)

Effective IAR and ICA processes will significantly increase transparency and will help to build confidence and capacity to implement more ambitious mitigation contributions over time. In Australia’s view, IAR and ICA will be of most value if Parties regard it as an opportunity to learn and collaborate with the objective of building our collective capacity and ambition.

Australia supports open consultation that provides Parties with an opportunity to acknowledge, comment on and learn about countries’ national efforts in a non-adversarial environment. Australia welcomes and is encouraged by its experience with consultation and review models in other international bodies, including the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. IAR and ICA have the potential to be effective tools to assess how we are tracking toward our global mitigation goal. In this context, Australia considers the key objective should be to develop a practical approach that facilitates improved policymaking by encouraging Parties to collaborate and adopt best practices.

IAR and ICA will have many elements in common because they share the same objective. They are intended as parallel processes for developed and developing country Parties respectively. For example, IAR will be undertaken on biennial submissions of developed country Parties, just as ICA will be undertaken on biennial submissions on developing country Parties. Australia encourages Parties to streamline the design and administration of the two processes, as far as is appropriate, for example, by establishing both processes under the same body. Common rules, procedures and standards of information would simplify and help reduce administrative costs and minimise the potential for misunderstanding information.

This year we should prioritise the development of guidelines that establish detail on the operation of IAR and ICA. In relation to IAR, the “R” (review) is something that developed country Parties are already subject to. The “R” should be designed to enhance and consolidate the existing review process for Annex I national communications. As Parties develop guidelines for IA and IC, priority should be given to ensuring they are complementary and do not create an unnecessary proliferation of administrative or procedural requirements. In relation to ICA, consideration will need to be given to how technical analysis will work, including the composition and operation of the technical panel, and the procedures for international consultations.

Priorities for progressing MRV work

Australia considers that the Cancun Agreements on MRV, IAR and ICA have great potential to provide a transparent system to underpin and support our global mitigation effort. The work program to implement new elements must build on the processes already in place under the Convention. Going forward our work priorities should be to develop and agree:

  • Guidelines for biennial reports (attachment outlines elements to be addressed)
  • Process for IAR (developed country Parties) and ICA (developing country Parties)
  • MRV for actions by developing country Parties (international MRV of internationally supported actions and domestic MRV of domestically supported actions)
  • MRV of support for support provided by developed countries to developing countries.

Attachment
Elements to be addressed in biennial reports

Biennial reports should address eight elements. Consideration will need to be given to the level of detail required on each of those elements, in particular for those that are also addressed in full national communications to promote a streamlined approach that is not burdensome. This will help to avoid duplication and maximise efficiency.

  • National greenhouse gas inventories
  • Emissions projections and indicative trajectory
  • A detailed description of the Party’s mitigation contribution(s) (targets and/or actions as relevant, including emissions allowances and/or expected emissions outcome as appropriate) and progress towards achievement, including in relation to mitigation undertakings contained in the annexes (for detail on the ‘annexes’ see above section: “Developing a durable architecture to record mitigation undertakings”), and descriptions of policy and measures used in implementation
  • Methodologies used and assumptions made to quantify emissions and emissions reductions or removals, and other information needed to understand implementation
  • Tracking of emissions units, including the acquisition, transfer and retirement of units, as well as their link with international offsets
  • Information on receipt of finance, technology and capacity-building support, how the support was used, and how it related to the needs identified in the Party’s low-carbon development strategy/plan and national and subnational adaptation plans and strategies, enabling environments for receipt of support, and actions linked to international offsets or trading
  • Information on the provision of support to developing country Parties
  • For developing country Parties, a detailed description of the Party’s system of domestic MRV and detailed results of domestic verification of domestic mitigation actions.