Overcoming the challenges of INDC preparation: experiences and lessons learned INDC forum Rabat,...

Overcoming the challenges of INDC preparation: experiences and lessons learnedINDC forum

Rabat, 12-13 October 2015

Niklas Höhne

[email protected]

www.newclimate.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.newclimate.org/

www.newclimate.org 2

IntroductionReceived and planned submissions

119 submissions, representing 147 Parties, representing over 85% of total global GHG emissions

Before Paris: 92% of emissions expected

Source: http://files.newclimate.org/indc-preparation-progress/, NewClimate Institute survey for UNFCCC and UNDP

http://files.newclimate.org/indc-preparation-progress/






What can be learned from experiences in other countries?

Experiences and lessons learned1. What to include in INDCs

(Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs, 71%)

2. How to mitigate limited capacity(Limited expertise for assessing mitigation options, 71%) (Too short timeframes for undertaking processes, 88%)

3. How to secure broad participation and support(Securing high-level political support, 61%)(Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries, 59%)

Challenge for x% of the consulted countries


Opportunities in the preparation of INDCs

• Consolidated and accelerated climate change policy processes• Mainstreaming climate into other policy making processes• From planning to implementation

• Enhanced stakeholder engagement

• Improved data and information management• Enhanced south south cooperation

“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”

Attachments


Further reading

Full presentation report on lessons learned from INDC preparation: Attached below, http://newclimate.org/2015/08/31/overcoming-the-challenges-of-indc-preparation-experiences-and-lessons-learned-2/

Climate Action Tracker update of 1 October 2015 – INDCs so far leading to 2.7°C: http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/CAT_global_temperature_update_October_2015.pdf

Assessing the missed co-benefits of INDCs – Jobs, reduced fossil fuel imports and reduced premature deaths from air pollution: http://newclimate.org/2015/03/27/indc-cobenefits/

The impact of good practice policies on global greenhouse gas emissions: http://newclimate.org/2015/07/29/the-impact-of-good-practice-policies-on-regional-and-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

http://newclimate.org/2015/08/31/overcoming-the-challenges-of-indc-preparation-experiences-and-lessons-learned-2/



http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/CAT_global_temperature_update_October_2015.pdf




http://newclimate.org/2015/03/27/indc-cobenefits/

http://newclimate.org/2015/03/27/indc-cobenefits/

http://newclimate.org/2015/07/29/the-impact-of-good-practice-policies-on-regional-and-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/




Overcoming the challenges of INDC preparation: experiences and lessons learned13 August 2015NewClimate InstituteThomas DayNiklas HöhneMarkus HagemannFrauke RöserMarie KurdzielSara BecerraSofia Gonzalez

www.newclimate.org

http://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.

http://newclimate.org/portfolio/experiences-and-lessons-learned-in-the-preparation-of-indcs/




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


Contents

Introduction 5

Challenge: What to include in INDCs 91.1 What types of mitigation commitments are countries using in their INDCs? 111.2 What is the typical format of mitigation commitments in INDC documents? 141.3 How are different countries including adaptation in their INDCs? 16

Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity 202.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope? 212.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes? 232.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits inform the design of an INDC? 272.4 How can the split between unconditional and conditional contributions be determined? 292.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition? 31

Challenge: Securing broad participation and support 343.1 How have countries obtained and benefited from high-level support 353.2 How have countries ensured cross-ministerial coordination? 363.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation? 37

Opportunities 39


IntroductionContext

Methodology:1) Collection of information through online surveys and detailed interviews2) Analysis of information to distil lessons learned and relevant knowledge for

international processes3) Multiple knowledge sharing activities

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.

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

The global challenge: Achievement of an ambitious global climate agreement at COP21The national challenge: Development of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)


IntroductionChallenges 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%)


IntroductionOpportunities in the preparation of INDCs

Countries report opportunities:

“Improved international communication”






IntroductionWhat can be learned from experiences in other countries?

Experiences and lessons learned1. 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?


1. What to include in INDCsBarrier

Lack of certainty on what to be included in INDCs

(based on responses from 44 countries)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

• 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?

Topics covered


Challenge: What to include in INDCs1 What can we learn from existing INDC submissions?

Overview of existing submissionsCoverage: 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.


Challenge: What to include in INDCs1.1 Type of 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 30% GHG reduction by 2030 2005

China Decarbonisation indicator Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 60-65% by 2030 2005

Ethiopia Economy wide GHG target – BAU 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

Summary of INDCs submitted by June 11 2015 + = Unconditional contribution ++ = Conditional contributionBY = target is relative to a Base Year BAU = target is relative to a Business As Usual trajectory

Table 1 (Page 1/2): Overview of existing submissions

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 9.8% GHG reduction by 2030 1990

Singapore Decarbonisation indicator Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 36% by 2030 2005

Summary of INDCs submitted by June 11 2015 + = Unconditional contribution ++ = Conditional contributionBY = target is relative to a Base Year BAU = target is relative to a Business As Usual trajectory

Table 1 (Page 2/2): Overview of existing submissions





Economy-wide GHG target – BY

Economy wide GHG target – BAU

Sectoral GHG target - BAU

Decarbonisation indicator

Policies and measures

Type of mitigation

contribution OECD

Europe (non-OECD)

Asia and Pacific (non-OECD)

Africa (non-OECD)

Latin America and Car-ibbean (non-OECD)

Regionalcoverage

Most existing submissions are from industrialised countries

Most existing submissions include economy wide GHG targets, although are expected to use this approach

Figure 1: Type of contribution in existing INDCs

Figure 2: Regional coverage of existing INDCs

Format and content of submissions as to mitigation:


Challenge: What to include in INDCs1.2 Format of mitigation contributions

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).



Challenge: What to include in INDCs1.2 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


Challenge: What to include in INDCs1.3 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:

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 adaptationElements: long- and short-term goals (qualitative or quantitative); long- and short-term actions; strategies; policies/ programmes; action plans; monitoring and evaluation systems; investment estimates; international support




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


See also…

Challenge: What to include in INDCsWhere is further information and guidance available?


Höhne, Ellermann & Fekete (2014) Process guidance for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). http://newclimate.org/2014/12/06/process-guidance-on-indcs-prepared-by-newclimate-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-Ricardo-AEA-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

http://newclimate.org/2014/12/06/process-guidance-on-indcs-prepared-by-newclimate-staff-4/

http://www.wri.org/publication/designing-and-preparing-indcs

http://www.wri.org/publication/designing-and-preparing-indcs

https://www.thepmr.org/content/checklist-establishing-post-2020-emission-pathways

http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CDKN-Ricardo-AEA-Guide-to-INDCs_FINAL_WEB1.pdf

http://www.mitigationpartnership.net/intended-nationally-determined-contributions-indcs


2. Mitigating limited capacityBarriers

Limited technical expertise for assessing mitigation options

Too short timeframes for undertaking processes


0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

• 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?

Topics covered

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.1 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.


INDC

How are countries determining their sectoral scope? Sector prioritisation practices

Figure 5: Criteria that countries have used to prioritise sectors for their INDCs

Potential impact Synergies/continuity

Emissions reduction potential Common mitigation and adaptation goals

Other national climate change processes

National prioritiesAccrual of wider economic and social co-benefits


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.1 How are countries determining their sectoral scope?


Examples of practices for scope selection and sector prioritisation

Potential impactEmission reduction potentialAssessment through use of existing data and processes(see section 2.2)• Chile & Peru: Mitigation Action Plans and

Scenarios (MAPS)

Co-benefits assessmentMaking a case for sectoral action(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.

Synergies/continuityCommon mitigation and adaptation goals• Thailand: Major synergies between adaptation and mitigation• Philippines: Vulnerability of mitigation options assessed

National prioritiesUsing 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)

Figure 6: Examples of practices for scope selection and sector prioritisation. See Notes for details


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.2 How are countries building upon their existing knowledge and processes?


Potential links of INDCs with other national climate change processes

Figure 7: Examples of practices for links of INDCs with other national climate change processes. See Notes for details

Most countries use existing documents as data sources for their INDC development:• National Communications (e.g. Morocco)• 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)National Inventories

National Communications

LEDS

NAMA

CDM

Other




Use of existing data and processes: Dominican Republic

Figure 8: Links of the Dominican Republic’s INDC with other national climate change processes. See Notes for details

• 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)

Dominican Republic

TNC/BUR INDC

LEDS (CCDP)

Energy Transport

CDM – PoA – NAMA

Forestry Quick wins

CNCCMDL




Use of existing data and processes: Peru

NAMAs MAPS PlanCC

Forest projects and Forest Investment

Program (PIF)BUR Plans and

programs

INDC • 58 mitigation actions across 6 sectors• 31% reduction of emissions for 2030 against BAU scenario • 82.2 mtCO2eq reduction by 2030

5 June. Start consultation process

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




Review and revision of existing targets

“Indonesia’s INDC is a by-product of the Indonesia Mitigation Policy review process”

- BAPPENAS, 2015

2015

2030

BeyondEmbedding the INDC into a Review and Revision process of existing policy targets is more efficient and more effective than beginning new processes.

• 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

Continued review and revision of institutionalised climate change policy / INDC

Figure 10: Review and revision of existing targets in Indonesia. See Notes for details


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits help to inform the design of an INDC?


Co-benefit assessmentCost 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


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.3 How can an assessment of co-benefits help to inform the design of an INDC?


Sector/measure Job creation in

2013

Economic impacts

(mUSD/a)

GHG emission reduction

(MtCO2e/a)

Other non-GHG benefits

EnergySubstitute all fuel-oil plants with gasReduce inefficient auto generation from 25% to 5%Increase share of renewable energy to 38%Energy efficiency: reduce energy demand 13%

34,300--1,30033,000

1,00013020300550

8.610.54.32.8

Cleaner air

TransportEstablish efficiency standardsShift to CNGIncrease consumption of biofuelsScale-up public transport

25,000-4,00021,000-

1,700500600400200

5.31.31.12.40.5

Cleaner air, black carbon reduction, less traffic congestion

Table 3: Assessment of co-benefits of proposed actions in Dominican Republic. Source: Alvarez (2015)

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 Figure #)

Determining contributions - using existing and planned policies and strategies


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.4 How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined?


Emis

sion

leve

l in

2025

/ 20

30 Unconditional INDC

Conditional INDC

Figure 3: Determining contributions using policies and strategies. See Notes for details

10 measures in place from

forthcoming 3rd NC

3 measures from UNDP FOCAM

excercise

CDM pipeline

54 measures the country could

potentially implement as identified in 3rd NC

Dialogue on forestry

Ecuador Morocco

Determining contributions top down


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.4 How can unconditional and conditional contributions be determined?


“Fair” contribu

tion

Mitigationpotential

Emis

sion

s in

202

5/ 2

030 Unconditional

INDC

Conditional INDC

“Fair” contribution Mitigation potential

Question to ask : “What level of emissions should I achieve to make a fair and equitable contribution?”

How: Effort sharing approaches

Question to ask: “What level of emission reductions could I achieve given the mitigation potential in my county ?”

How: National mitigation potential analysis (e.g. MACC)

Identifying what you should do and what you could do can help you in determining your contributions.

Figure 4: Determining contributions top down. See Notes for details

Ways to compare mitigation efforts


Challenge: Mitigating limited capacity2.5 What are the best practices for the assessment of equity and ambition?


• Effort sharing What is the “fair” share? How much should emissions be reduced?

• PotentialHow much could emissions be reduced (irrespective of who pays)?

• Comparison to benchmarks for decarbonisation indicatorsHow are other countries developing?

• Good practice policy packagesWhat are other countries doing?

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

Mentions small contribution to world total

Mentiones reduction in emissions per GDP

Mentioning peak year

EU X X X X X

Liechtenstein X X X

Andorra X X

Switzerland X

Norway X

USA X X

Canada X

Russia X

Mexico X X X

Morocco X X X X

Ethiopia X

Examples: MAPS countries




• Integrated in the INDC preparation methodology: Determine “required by science scenarios” for comparison with mitigation potential

• 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

“Required by science scenario”

Source: MAPS Chile: http://mapschile.cl/files/resumen_MAPSChile_Fase2_102014.pdf

http://mapschile.cl/files/resumen_MAPSChile_Fase2_102014.pdf

http://mapschile.cl/files/resumen_MAPSChile_Fase2_102014.pdf


3. Securing broad support Barriers

Securing high-level political support

Lack of understanding in other sectors/ ministries


0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

• 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?

Topics covered

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Challenge: Securing broad participation and support3.1 How have countries obtained and benefited from high level support?


Mandate and level of sign-off for INDCs

Which level of governance, is responsible for the final sign-off of the INDC submission?- Asked March 2015

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.

Political processes for INDC preparation may have been underestimated by a lot of countries.

Figure 12: Required level of sign-off forecast by countries


Challenge: Securing broad participation and support3.1 How have countries ensured cross-ministerial coordination?


“The establishment of an inter-ministerial steering committee dedicated to the INDC process, ensured maximum participation and understanding across all relevant governmental bodies”

- Georgia

Many countries have difficulties to engage all governmental bodies.

Some countries overcame this barrier through:

• New, formally established inter-ministerial 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 deputy-ministers


Challenge: Securing broad participation and support3.3 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


Challenge: Securing broad participation and support3.3 What are good practices for INDC stakeholder consultation?


ARMENIASINGAPOREWHY?- Specific inputs and expertise

WHY?- Public awareness and buy-in

HOW?- Public opinion survey on INDC themes

through media outlet- Organised 10 thematic roundtables with

senior government officials - Discussions were broadcasted to general

public

WHO?- Focus on general public

WHO?- Focus on private sector

HOW?- Use of an online platform open for

comment for 10 weeks- Dialogue sessions co-organised with key

stakeholder groups, mainly business associations

Two country examples on how to engage stakeholders successfully.


4. Opportunities

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

• Developing the national climate change agenda

• Improving collection and coordination of information

Topics covered

“Improved international communication”






Opportunities4.1 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.

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

See section 2.2 for further details on process consolidation




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 inputLEDS 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 activitiesArmenia 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 processesThe 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 .




Mainstreaming climate change in policySome 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.




Implementation

INDC

Planning

Progressing from planning to implementation

Recent years: Planning with limited implementationMany countries have been especially active in their climate change planning activities in recent years.

2015: INDC submission INDC’s prepared with formal implementation timeframe

Beyond 2015: ImplementationINDC’s implementation timeframe provide an enhanced focus on the development and execution of implementation plans.

• In Thailand, for example, the INDCs will provide more specific actions for implementation of the energy plan of the Ministry of Energy.

For some countries, where implementation has thus far been limited, the INDC may catalyse a progression from planning to implementation:




Enhanced engagement of stakeholders

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.

See section 3.3 for further details on stakeholder consultation


Opportunities4.2 Improving collection and co-ordination of information


Information and data managementAccess 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/


Opportunities4.2 Improving collection and co-ordination of information


Enhanced south-south cooperationA 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


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.diva-portal.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).


Annex I: Major types of INDC and options for expression

Overcoming the challenges of INDC preparation: experiences and lessons learned INDC forum Rabat,...

Documents

Transcript of Overcoming the challenges of INDC preparation: experiences and lessons learned INDC forum Rabat,...