UNFCCC secretariat Ruta Bubniene, Programme officer, Reporting and Review unit, Mitigation and Data Analysis programme Overview of the synthesis report.

UNFCCC secretariat

Ruta Bubniene, Programme officer, Reporting and Review unit, Mitigation and Data Analysis programme

Overview of the synthesis report on submissions from Parties on the views on the common tabular format

SBSTA Workshop on common reporting format for the “UNFCCC biennial reporting guidelines for developed country Parties”Bonn, Germany, 11-12 October, 2012

Background

Mandate: SBSTA 36

− Invited Parties to submit, their views by 13 August on the common tabular format ;

− Requested secretariat: − to compile the submissions from Parties into a

miscellaneous document (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/MISC.11, Add.1, Add.2)

− to prepare a synthesis report of Parties submissions (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/INF.4);

− to organize a workshop in October 2012 (11-12 October, Bonn).

Background

Views were provided by 7 Parties

Matters addressed in Parties submissions

− Information on GHG emissions and trends;− Quantified economy-wide emission reduction target;− Progress in achieving the quantified economy-wide emission

reduction target;− Projections of GHG;− Provision of financial, technological and capacity-building

support to developing country Parties.

Background

Focus of the synthesis report

− Broad principles for the development of a CTF; − Specific Parties proposals under separate paragraphs of the

reporting guidelines − Summary of Parties’ views by:

− highlighting the common trends − noting areas where these views differ− identifying possible options for a CTF.

The options for CTF share many common elements and could be easily combined.

Approach

Principles for development of a common tabular format as emphasized in Parties’ submission

− Consistency with the biennial reporting guidelines;− Consistency, where appropriate, with the UNFCCC reporting

guidelines on national communications;− The use the information already reported in the annual GHG

inventories and national communications;− Enhanced transparency compared with the current reporting

requirements;− Clarity and simplicity in the structure of the reporting the CTF

information 

Approach

Common views on:

− The use of GHG inventories as a basis; − Coverage of gasses and sectors;

Different views on:

− Timeframe for summary of GHG emissions.

GHG emissions and trends

GHG emissions and trends

BR GLS para 2, SP table 1

Common elements

Common views on inclusion of information on:

− Base year; − Gases covered; − Sectors covered; − Accounting approach to emissions/removals from LULUCF;− The use of international market-based mechanisms.

Different views on:

a) The inclusion of GWP;b) The level of detail;c) A few specific elements to be included.

Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets

Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets

BR GLS para 5, SR table 2

Common elements

Common views on: − Using the UNFCCC national communication reporting guidelines (table

1. Summary of policies and measures by sector): − Name of policy and measure; − Objective and / or activity affected; − GHG effected; − Type of instrument; − Status of policy and measure; − Implementing entity or entities; − Estimate of mitigation impact by gas.

Different views on: − Flexibility for the timeline to report the impacts of policies and

measures; − Level of disaggregation of mitigation actions;− Estimate of progress in implementation.

Progress: mitigation actions

Progress: mitigation actions

BR GLS para 6, SR table 3

Common elements

Common views: Emissions reductions for the base year:

− total GHG emissions, excluding emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector;

− emissions and/or removals from the LULUCF sector based on the accounting approach applied taking into consideration any relevant decisions of the COP and the activities and/or lands that will be accounted for;

− total GHG emissions, including emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector.

Emissions reductions for each reported year: information on the use of units from market-based mechanisms.

Different views on: a) The level of detail on the units from market-based mechanisms;b) The level of detail on the reporting of the GHG emissions/removals

from LULUCF sector; c) The years to be reported.

Progress: emission reductions

Progress: emission reductions

BR GLS para 9 & 10, SR table 4

Common elements

Common views on reporting:

− Similarly to table 2 of the National communication guidelines: − Variables (i.e. GDP growth, world oil prices); − Historic and projected in 5 year intervals.

Single option based on National communication guidelines with updated timeline for historic (1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2010, 2011) and projected emissions (2015, 2020, 2025, 2030).

Some Parties highlighted possibility to select variables relevant to the modelling tools used.

Projections: variables and assumptions

BR GLS para 11, SR table 5

Common views on reporting:

− “With measures” scenario; − The latest reported year; − Projected years: 2020, 2030; − Disaggregation by sector (pre-defined/not pre-defined).

Different views on:

− the number of the scenarios to be reported on a mandatory basis (only “with measures” or also “without measures” and “with additional measures”);

− the time frame for GHG projections; − whether disaggregation by gas should be reported .

Projections: scenarios

Projections: scenarios

BR GLS para 11, SR table 6

Common elements

Common views on: • Currency: USD/international currency;

• Reported years: the two previous calendar or financial years without overlap

with the previous reporting period;

• Status of financial contributions and/or accounting for the financial information

provided: provided, committed or pledged;

• Institutions/channels:

a) The financial mechanism of the Convention and funds under the Convention

and the Kyoto Protocol:

b) Other multilateral climate change funds;

c) Multilateral financial institutions, including regional development banks,

d) Specialized United Nations bodies,

e) Contributions through bilateral, regional and other channels;

f) Total.

Provision of support: finance

Different views on:

− Whether to include a description of “new and additional” financial resources

− Whether to report a summary of bilateral financial support in a table for the multilateral support

− How to disaggregate the support (to adaptation and mitigation, or to adaptation, mitigation and other support)

Provision of support: finance

Provision of financial support: multilateral

BR GLS para 17, 18, SR table 7

Common elements

Provision of financial support: bilateral

BR GLS para 17, 18, SR table 8

Common elements

Common views on reporting of:

− Recipient country/region; − Targeted area (mitigation/adaptation); − Sector; − Contribution in USD/international currency;− The source of funding (private/public).

Different views on:

− The level of detail of the description to be provided:− the status (implemented, adopted or planned); − summary of actions and the co-financing arrangements.

Provision of technology development and transfer support

BR GLS para 22, SR table 9

Provision of technology development and transfer support

Common elements

Common views on the need to report description of capacity building support.

Different views on:

−The level of detail of the description to be provided:− the target area (mitigation, adaptation and technology

development and transfer) − the programme’s status (implemented, adopted or planned) − total programme/project contribution USD/international

currency, − a description of the action, the co-financing arrangements,

connections to technology development and transfer, etc.

Provision of capacity building support

Provision of capacity building support

BR GLS para 23, SR table 10

Common elements

THANK YOU VERY MUCH HAVE A PRODUCTIVE WORKSHOP