Climate and Energy
UNFCCC COP19 IGES Event：
Making Nationally-determined Contributions Operational and More Ambitious
Many Parties support the idea of “nationally-determined contributions” to mitigate climate change with some form of international consultation. This event discussed specific steps and time frames that aim to add ex-ante clarity to nationally-determined mitigation contributions and enhance their levels of ambition.
|Date||16 November 2013|
|Venue||Japan Pavillion (Warsaw Poland)|
|Organiser||Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)|
|Co-Organiser||WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE （WRI）|
Kelly Levin, WRI, discussed a paper on the comparability and measurability of nationally-determined commitments, including the extent to which these can be measured, reported and verified ("MRVed"). She concluded with recommendations, inter alia, to: use economy-wide goals to maximise measurable emissions reductions; target the highest-emitting sector if sectoral goals are set; frame goals from a base-year or a fixed level since these are more measurable; and use intensity goals when countries are deciding between baseline and intensity goals, and consider setting a peak and decline pathway.
Yamide Dagnet, WRI, outlined a matrix of options on international guidance for submissions of offers by parties, including: basic reporting guidance; additional reporting on factors such as equity, emissions projections and costs; detailed reporting on assumptions methodologies and criteria; and reporting obligations plus prescriptions on how parties carry out various aspects of target design.
Kentaro Tamura, IGES, proposed the establishment of a consortium of research institutes to assess and review the targets of UNFCCC parties that are members of the G20 on the basis of a common template. He outlined advantages including that it: builds on existing initiatives; can be integrated into existing institutional arrangements through additional COP decisions; and contributes to mainstreaming existing mitigation science into target setting processes.
Bert Metz, European Climate Foundation, emphasised the importance of keeping the architecture of such a system simple. Niklas Höhne, Ecofys, highlighted the ClimateActionTracker. Reflecting on that experience, he stated that a common template could be useful, and added that once offers are on the table they hardly change. Neha Pahuja, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), commented that the suggestion of a common framework is very good, but she fears that the post-Copenhagen dynamics in the negotiations will continue, stressing the importance of agreement on an equity framework to prevent this.
|A Pathway to a Climate Change Agreement in 2015: Options for Setting and Reviewing GHG Emission Reduction Offers
Yamide Dagnet, Senior Associate
|Mainstreaming Scientific Knowledge into the Process for Nationally-determining Contributions
Kentaro Tamura, Area Leader, Climate and Energy Area, IGES
|Designing National Commitments to Drive Measurable Emissions Reductions after 2020
Kelly Levin, Senior Associate, WRI
|Comments on the presentations|
|Jurgen Lefevre, European Climate Foundation|
|Bert Metz, European Climate Foundation|
|Niklas Höhne, Ecofys|
|Neha Pahuja, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)|