Second  Regional  Technical  Dialogue  on    Intended  Nationally  Determined  Contributions  

 Africa  

     

 27-­‐29  January  2015  

Addis  Ababa,  Ethiopia    

     

MEETING  REPORT      

     

 

                 

  2  

Introduction    At  the  17th  Conference  of  the  Parties  (COP)  in  Durban  in  December  2011,  Parties  to  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change  (UNFCCC)  decided  to  launch  a  process  to  develop  a  protocol,  another  legal  instrument,  or  an  agreed  outcome  with  legal  force  under  the  Convention  applicable  to  all  Parties,  to  be  completed  no  later  than  2015.    At   COP   19   in   Warsaw   in   November   2013,   Parties   were   invited   to   initiate   or   intensify   domestic  preparations  for  their  intended  nationally  determined  contributions  (INDCs)  and  to  communicate  them  well  in  advance  of  COP  21  (by  the  first  quarter  of  2015  by  those  Parties  ready  to  do  so),  in  a  manner  that  facilitates   the  clarity,   transparency,  and  understanding  of   the   intended  contributions.    While   the  most  recent  COP   in  Lima  provided   further  guidance  on   INDCs,   including  upfront   information   to  be   included  when   submitting   INDCs   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   countries   are   preparing   their   INDCs   under   some  degree  of  uncertainty.        COP  19  also  decided  to  urge  and  request  developed  country  Parties,  operating  entities  of  the  financial  mechanism,  and  any  other  organizations  in  a  position  to  do  so  to  provide  support  as  early  as  possible  in  2014  for  developing  country  Parties  to  prepare  their  INDCs.     In  response  to  this  request,   in  April  2014,  the  United  Nations  Development  Program  (UNDP),  in  cooperation  with  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  and  the  World  Resources  Institute  (WRI),  launched  a  series  of  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  to  support  countries  in  the  process  of  preparing  and  putting  forward  their  INDCs.    This  project  is  receiving  financial  support  form   Australia,   Austria,   Belgium,   the   European   Union,   France,   Germany,   Japan,   Norway,   the   United  Kingdom,  and  the  United  States.    The  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  have  the  following  objectives:  

• To  ensure  that  participants  understand  the  scientific  context  and  UNFCCC  origins  of  INDCs;    • To   share   experiences   and   best   practices   in   developing   INDCs,   and   to   identify  solutions   to  

challenges  that  countries  are  facing;    • To  address  issues  related  to  the  underlying  technical  basis  required  to  prepare  robust,  realistic,  

and  achievable  INDCs;  and  • To   identify   support   needs   required   to   reach   domestic   agreement   on   INDCs   and  follow-­‐up  

actions.        The  first  Africa  Regional  Technical  Dialogue  on   INDCs  was  held   in  Accra,  Ghana  from  14-­‐16  May  2014.    This  dialogue  in  Addis  Ababa,  Ethiopia,  the  second  dialogue  in  the  region,  was  held  from  27-­‐29  January  2015.     Approximately   100  participants   attended   the  dialogue   in   Ethiopia,   including   representatives   of  developing  countries  in  the  region,  developed  countries,  multilateral  and  bilateral  agencies,  and  regional  organizations,  as  well  as  other  experts.    The  agenda  of  the  three-­‐day  Ethiopia  dialogue  included  sessions  on  National  Processes  to  Inform  INDCs,  Design   Options   for   INDCs,   Data   &   Analysis,   MRV   (Monitoring,   Reporting,   and   Verification),   Putting  Forward  Adaptation  Action,  and  Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  (Upfront  Information).    Most  of  these   sessions   included   an   opening   presentation   to   set   the   stage   for   discussion,   followed   by  presentations   of   countries’   national   experiences   (e.g.,   progress   on   INDCs,   lessons   learned,   and  challenges   being   encountered)   and   a   plenary   discussion.     Participants   also   took   part   in   two  Breakout  Working  Group  Sessions  and  a  Panel  Discussion  on  Brainstorming  the  Way  Forward  on  INDCs.        

  3  

This  report  summarizes  the  information  presented  and  discussed  in  the  various  sessions  of  the  dialogue,  with   the   intent   of   capturing   the   key   messages   and   ideas   put   forward   during   the   discussions.     The  messages  presented  here  should  not  be  considered  an  exhaustive  account  of  all   interventions,  nor  do  they  indicate  that  consensus  was  reached  on  any  specific  point.      

Contents    The  contents  of  the  dialogue  report  are  as  follows:    

• Introduction  o Link  to  Dialogue  Presentations  o Additional  Resources  

• Dialogue  Proceedings  • Annexes  

o Annex  I:  Participant  List  o Annex  II:  Agenda  o Annex  III:  Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation  o Annex  IV:  Dialogue  Evaluation  Results  

   Link  to  Dialogue  Presentations    Dialogue  presentations  can  be  found  at  the  following  link:    http://www.lowemissiondevelopment.org/events/regional-­‐events/eventdetail/74/-­‐/second-­‐africa-­‐regional-­‐technical-­‐dialogue-­‐on-­‐intended-­‐nationally-­‐determined-­‐contributions-­‐in-­‐addis-­‐ababa-­‐ethiopia        Additional  Resources    UNCCD  Presentation  on  Land  Use  INDCs:  http://www.lowemissiondevelopment.org/docs/Land_Use_INDCs_-­‐_UNCCD.pdf    FAOSTAT  Emission  Database  for  Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Land  Use:    http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/G1/G1-­‐PROJ/E    WRI’s  Mitigation  Accounting  Standards:  http://www.ghgprotocol.org/mitigation-­‐accounting    WRI’s  Open  Book  Project  http://www.wri.org/our-­‐work/project/open-­‐book  

   

  4  

Dialogue  Proceedings  

Opening  Session    The  workshop  was   opened   by  H.E.   Ato   Kare   Chawicha,   State  Minister   of   Environment   and   Forests   of  Ethiopia;   Mr.   Donald   Cooper,   Coordinator   of   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat’s  Mitigation,   Data   and   Analysis  Programme;  and  Mr.  Gerd  Trogemann,  Deputy  Director,  UNDP  Regional  Service  Center  for  Africa.    H.E.  Ato  Kare  Chawicha  welcomed  participants  to  Addis  Ababa  and  wished  them  success  in  the  dialogue.    He  recalled  the  outcomes  of  Warsaw,  highlighted  Ethiopia’s  progress  to  date  in  preparing  its  INDC,  and  underscored   the   usefulness   of   this   dialogue   for  exchanging  views  and  building  countries’  capacity.    Mr.  Donald   Cooper   complimented   Ethiopia’s   progressive  stance   on   climate   issues   as   part   of   its   national  development   and   thanked   the   country   for   hosting   the  dialogue.     He   invited   Parties   to   make   bold,   ambitious  statements   early   in   2015   to   build   momentum   toward  the   Paris   negotiations,   but   reminded   participants   that  this   dialogue   is   not   about   negotiating.     Mr.   Gerd  Trogemann   asserted   that   climate   change   is   having   far-­‐reaching   implications   on   development.     He   described  INDCs   as   a   way   to   take   concrete   actions   on   climate  change  and  underscored  the  urgency  of  the  situation.      

Session  1:  Scene-­‐Setting  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  set  the  scene  for  the  dialogue  by  providing  updates  from  the  Ad-­‐hoc  Working  Group  on  the  Durban  Platform  (ADP)  process  and  past  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  on  INDCs.      

Presentations    UNFCCC  Secretariat  Mr.   Claudio   Forner,   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   presented   an   overview   of   recent   progress   in   the   ADP  negotiations.    He  recalled  the  Warsaw  COP’s  invitation  to  Parties  to  initiate  or  intensify  preparations  for  their  INDCs,  to  be  submitted  well  in  advance  of  COP  21  with  no  prejudice  to  legal  character.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Forner  described  the  negotiating  text  as  the  raw  material  for  the  Paris  climate  agreement  –  the   “skeleton”   that   will   eventually   support   the   “meat”   of   countries’   contributions   (actions  Parties  will  undertake  to  contribute  to  the  ultimate  objective  of  the  Convention).      

• He  highlighted  two  important  outcomes  from  COP  20  in  Lima:  1)  the  Lima  “Call  to  Action,”  which  includes  language  on  INDCs,  and  2)  draft  elements  of  the  negotiating  text,  which  were  included  in  the  annex  of  the  Lima  Call  to  Action.  

• The   draft   negotiating   text,   to   be   ready   by  May   2015,  will   outline   options   for   the   agreement,  mostly   on   political   issues   like   differentiation,   legal   character,   etc.     Elements   of   the   text   will  

  5  

include   mitigation,   adaptation,   transparency,   means   of   implementation,   and   process-­‐related  aspects.    This  text  is  to  be  adopted  at  COP  21  in  Paris.  

• He  mentioned   that   the   concept   of   “no   backsliding”   (decreasing   contributions   over   time)  was  adopted   in   Lima,   as   was   an   invitation   to   Parties   to   include   adaptation   undertakings   or  components  in  their  INDCs  if  they  wish.  

• The   Lima   decision   clarified   upfront   information   to   be   included  when   submitting   INDCs   to   the  UNFCCC   Secretariat   to   facilitate   clarity,   transparency,   and   understanding   (see   session   on  Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  below).  

• INDCs   include  the  word  “intended”  because  their   legal  status  and  final   form  –  as  well  as  what  the  final  agreement  will  look  like  –  are  not  yet  known.      

• The   Lima   decision   also   helped   clarify   the   INDC   process   in   2015:   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat   will  publicize   communicated   INDCs   through   an   INDC   online   portal   and   will   prepare   a   synthesis  report  by  1  November  on  the  “aggregate  effect”  of  all  contributions  received  by  1  October.    

UNDP  Mr.   Yamil   Bonduki,   UNDP,   presented   the   objectives   of   the   Ethiopia   dialogue   (listed   above   in  Introduction),   as  well   as   takeaways   from   the  past   four   Regional   Technical  Dialogues   in   Latin  America,  Asia,  and  Africa.    Over  400  participants  have  participated  in  these  dialogues,  including  participants  from  110  developing  countries,  9  developed  countries,  multilateral  institutions,  and  other  organizations.    Key  takeaways  from  past  Regional  Technical  Dialogues  on  INDCs:  

• Political  process:  o INDCs   should   reflect   a  diversity  of  national   circumstances,   capacities,   and   capabilities;  

national  priorities  will  determine  contribution  types  and  scope.  o It   is   important   to   secure  a  political  mandate  with   clear  goals  and   timelines,  as  well   as  

defined  roles  and  responsibilities.  o Institutional   arrangements   can   be   defined   using   existing   or   new   structures   (the   lead  

institution,  policy/sectoral  experts,  and  technical  teams  should  be  identified).  o INDCs  should  be  linked  to  development  plans  and  be  fair,  equitable,  and  transparent.  

• Stakeholder  process:  o The  stakeholder  engagement  process  is  critical  to  build  trust,  feed  the  technical  process,  

and  create  mutual  accountability.  o Key  ministries   like   planning   and   finance;   civil   society   and   academic   stakeholders;   and  

the  private  sector  should  be   included  (it   is  not  always  clear  how  to  engage  the  private  sector).  

• Technical  process:  o Countries   can   build   on   existing   information,   efforts,   and   regulations   (e.g.,   national  

communications,   greenhouse   gas   inventories,   biennial   update   reports   (BURs),   Clean  Development   Mechanism   (CDM)   projects,   nationally   appropriate   mitigation   actions  (NAMAs),   national   adaptation   programs   of   action   (NAPAs),   development   plans,   low-­‐emissions  development  strategies  (LEDS),  and  national  climate  change  laws).      

o It  may  be  helpful  to  map  out  available  information  early  in  the  INDC  process  and  assess  adopted  and  planned  climate-­‐related  initiatives  (for  scaling  up  later).  

o Countries  asserted  that  INDCs  should  include  mitigation,  adaptation,  and  finance.  o More   analysis   is   needed   on   the   feasibility   of   proposed   contributions,   including   co-­‐

benefits.    One  challenge  will  be  striking  a  balance  between  sound  technical  information  and  realistic  goals,  given  the  political  processes  that  exist  in  countries.  

  6  

o Countries  should  make  use  of  possible  scenarios   to  determine   the  suite  of  options   for  INDCs   and   prioritize   policies   and   actions  with   the   highest   implementation   and   impact  potential.    

o The  package  of  policies  and  actions  to  be  put  forward  should  be  revisited  as  needed  in  order  to  assess  assumptions  and  pathways  and  ensure  buy-­‐in.  

o Countries  will  need  to  determine  what  could  be  funded  domestically  and  what  could  be  undertaken  with  additional  support.  

 Mr.  Bonduki  also  mentioned  an  INDC  guide  that  is  being  developed  by  WRI  and  UNDP,  in  collaboration  with  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  in  response  to  countries’  requests  during  the  Regional  Technical  Dialogues.    This  guide  has  gone  through  a  comment/review  period,  is  now  being  revised,  and  will  be  distributed  to  all   countries   by   the   end   of  March.     The   guide   provides   examples   of   good   practices   and   outlines   key  issues   to  be  considered  but   is  not  meant   to  be  prescriptive  or  prejudge   the  outcomes  of   the  UNFCCC  negotiations.        Mr.   Bonduki   also   informed   participants   of   a   Global   Support   Programme   (GSP)   funded   by   the   Global  Environment   Facility   (GEF)   and   launched   in   January   2015   to   assist   countries   with   their   national  communications,   BURs,   and   INDCs.     Support   is   available   for   countries   immediately   (given   timeline   of  INDC   preparation   in   2015)   and   the   GSP   will   run   until   2019   for   national   communications   and   BURs.    (Contacts:  yamil.bonduki@undp.org  and  george.manful@unep.org)      Global  Environment  Facility  (GEF)  Ms.  Milena  Gonzalez,  GEF,  provided  a  brief  update  on  GEF  support  for  INDC  preparation.    She  emphasized  that  the  Facility  is  expediting  the  funding  approval  process  given  the  short  timeframe  for  INDC  preparation.    She  mentioned  that  16  countries  are  already  in  the  process  of  receiving  GEF  financial  support  through  the  implementing  agencies  (UNDP  and  UNEP).  She  also  explained  the  technical  assistance  activities,  including  online  backstopping,  that  will  be  available  to  countries  through  the  GEF-­‐funded  Global  Support  Programme  on  national  communications,  BURs  and  INDCs.  She  encouraged  countries  to  request  such  assistance  from  the  implementing  agencies,  as  needed.    

Session  2:  Country  Progress  on  INDC  Preparation  since  Ghana  Dialogue  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  provide  a  space  for  countries  to  share  their  national  experiences  and  recent  progress  in  preparing  their  INDCs  since  the  last  Africa  dialogue.  

Presentations    South  Africa  Mr.  Maesela  John  Kekana,  South  Africa,  presented  on  his  country’s  recent  progress  in  preparing  its  INDC  and  stressed  that  adaptation  should  be  at  the  center  of  the  2015  agreement.    Key  messages:  

• South  Africa’s   INDC  will   include   fairness,  adaptation,  and  mitigation  components.    Mr.  Kekana  explained  the  importance  of  fairness  in  reaching  a  durable  agreement  and  mentioned  a  proposal  by   the   African   Group   for   a   principle-­‐based   reference   framework.     He   suggested   that   South  

  7  

Africa’s  INDC  will  provide  some  assessment  of  the  country’s  contribution  to  the  required  global  effort  along  with  a  rationale  on  why  it  is  equitable.  

• South  Africa’s  scope  of  work  on  adaptation  includes  looking  at  the  existing  policy,  strategy,  and  implementation   process,   as   well   as   aspirational   goals   for   adaptation   within   development  planning.    The  country  will  identify  needs,  costs,  key  adaptation  sectors,  and  existing  and  future  programs  and  projects  (including  quantifying  adaptation  investments  in  the  last  five  years).      

• Mr.   Kekana   presented   a   template   for   adaptation   INDCs   in   an   effort   to   map   out   what   these  INDCs  would  look  like  (given  that  there  is  no  precedent  for  this  type  of  work).    

• South   Africa’s   mitigation   INDC   will   be   a   balance   between:   1)   the   long-­‐term   goal   required   by  science,  2)  South  Africa’s  fair  contribution  to  this,  and  3)  flexibility  to  allow  for  a  just  transition.    The   national   dialogue   in   South   Africa   began   in   2006  with   long-­‐term  mitigation   scenarios   that  mapped   out   mitigation   potential,   costs,   and   benefits   (and   led   to   South   Africa’s   previous  commitments).      

• Mr.  Kekana  explained  that  South  Africa   is  planning   to   take  either  a   trajectory  approach   (peak,  plateau,  and  decline  of  GHG  emissions)  or  a  carbon  budget  approach  (providing  more  certainty).  

• South  Africa  is  currently  collecting  data,  will  consult  with  stakeholders  in  April/May,  will  finalize  its   INDC   in   June/July,   and   plans   to   communicate   its   INDC   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat   by  August/September  following  government  consultations.    

Malawi  Mr.  Michael  Makonombera,  Malawi,   acknowledged   that   his   country   is   in   the   early   stages   of   its   INDC  preparations   and  mentioned   several   challenges  Malawi   is   facing   in   order   to   communicate   its   INDC   in  2015.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.   Makonombera   explained   that   Malawi   understands   that   INDCs   will   be   based   on   national  circumstances,  will   include  both  adaptation  and  mitigation,  and  will  be  supported  by  means  of  implementation.      

• Malawi  plans  to  build  on  national  communications,  technology  needs  assessments,  and  national  adaptation  plans  (NAPs)  as  a  starting  point  for  its  INDC.    The  country  has  had  briefings  on  INDCs  and   consultants   are   currently   working   on   a   roadmap   for   the   INDC   process.    Malawi   has   also  approached  several  countries  seeking  INDC  support.  

• Lessons  learned  from  Malawi’s  process  to  date  include  the  need  to:  1)  consult  with  stakeholders  at  all  levels  early  in  the  process,  2)  bring  the  INDC  concept  to  decision-­‐makers,  3)  involve  multi-­‐sectoral  teams,  and  4)  develop  implementation  plans  with  assigned  roles  and  responsibilities.  

• Challenges  include  limited  funding,  limited  technical  capacity  (for  modeling,  etc.),  and  difficulty  in  securing  buy-­‐in  from  sectors  and  politicians.  

 European  Commission  Mr.  Martin  Kaspar,  European  Commission,  presented  on  INDC  progress  in  the  European  Union  (EU)  and  the  current  state  of  play  on  climate  and  energy.    He  stressed  the  EU’s  goals  of  improving  energy  security,  further  decoupling  emissions  from  economic  growth,  and  achieving  significant  economic  co-­‐benefits.    Key  messages:  

• The   EU   has   been   carrying   out   a   national   stakeholder   process   since   2008   to   develop   a   2020  climate   package   and   a   2050   roadmap.     The   result   of   this   was   a   decision   in   October   2014   by  European  heads  of  state  to   implement  a  comprehensive,  binding  target  to  decrease  emissions  

  8  

by   40%   from   1990   levels   by   2030   (focusing   on   energy-­‐intensive   sectors).     This   target   is  accompanied   by   targets   to   increase   energy   efficiency   by   27%   and   to   achieve   27%   renewable  energy  in  the  same  time  period.      

• A  reformed  Emissions  Trading  Scheme  (ETS)  will  be  the  main  instrument  of  the  European  carbon  market   after   2020,   but   the   -­‐40%   target  will   be   split   between   the   ETS   and   non-­‐ETS.     The   ETS  annually   reduces   the   allowance   of   pollution   rights   by   2.2%.     If   a   new   market   mechanism   is  established  post-­‐2020,  resulting  reductions  would  go  beyond  the  EU’s  set  targets.      

• Mr.   Kaspar   mentioned   the   need   for   high-­‐level   political   support   and   the   need   to   reflect   on  national  circumstances  in  preparing  INDCs.    The  EU  is  providing  technical  assistance  to  partner  countries  to  support  INDC  preparation  and  has  developed  a  “modernization  fund”  to  modernize  energy  systems  in  lower  income  member  states.      

• Mr.   Kaspar   asserted   that   INDCs   should   focus   on   mitigation   and   explained   that   the   EU’s  contribution  will  not  include  adaptation  or  finance.  

 Discussion    In   discussion,   participants   asked   South   Africa   why   the   country   would   not   simply   peak   and   decline  emissions  without  a  plateau  period.    Mr.  Kekana  responded  that  time  is  needed  to  stabilize  emissions.    Mr.  Cooper,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  reiterated  the  usefulness  of  national  communications  as  a  sound  basis  for  INDCs  and  participants  mentioned  the  importance  of  establishing  base  years  for  commitments.        

Participants  asked  for  clarification  from  the  European  Commission  on:  1)   addressing   double   counting   between   ETS   and   non-­‐ETS  components,  2)  how  the  EU  will  analyze  risk  in  its  contribution,  and  3)  what   individual  countries  within  the  EU  are  doing  in  terms  of   INDCs.    One  participant  asked  whether  the  EU  approach  to  its  INDC  could  be  viable  for  African  countries  or  whether  a  simpler  approach  would  be  more  appropriate.        One  participant  underscored  the  need  for  technicians  and  consultants  that   are   ready   to   respond   to   countries   on   INDC-­‐related   questions.    Another   participant   discussed   the   integration   of   adaptation   in   his  country’s   planning   processes   and   stressed   the   need   to   give   equal  attention   to   adaptation   and   mitigation.     He   mentioned   that   key  components   on   the   adaptation   side   are   identifying   how   much   a  country   is   investing   in   adaptation   efforts   and   projecting   climate  change  impacts  under  different  climate  scenarios.  

 

Session  3:  National  Processes  to  Inform  INDCs  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   provide   background   information   on   national   processes   that   can  inform  the  preparation  of  countries’   INDCs,  as  well  as  case  studies  of  national  processes   in  participant  countries.     The   session   focused   in   particular   on   institutional   arrangements;   securing   ministerial  mandates;   stakeholder   engagement   and   consultations;   and   challenges   that   countries   are   facing   in  establishing  national  processes  to  inform  INDCs.  

  9  

Presentations    UNDP    Mr.   Michael   Comstock,   UNDP,   presented   on   national   processes   to   inform   the   preparation   of   INDCs,  including  process-­‐related  recommendations  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  countries’  INDCs.        Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Comstock  opened  his  presentation  by  highlighting  the  benefits  of   INDCs,   including  making  progress   toward   the   two-­‐degree   goal,   demonstrating   political   commitment,   achieving   non-­‐climate   benefits,   better   integrating   policies,   engaging   stakeholders,   and   strengthening  institutional  processes.  

• He  suggested  several  broad  stages  of  INDC  preparation  and  design:    1) Initiation  –  Securing  a  political  mandate,  engaging  stakeholders,  defining  priorities,  etc.    2) Data  gathering  –  Emissions  inventories,  mitigation  potential  of  actions,  addressing  data  

gaps,  etc.  3) Analysis  of  options  –  Formulating  and  analyzing  options  based  on  mitigation  potential,  

costs,  and  other  considerations.  4) Design  of  INDCs  –  Choosing  INDC  type  and  selecting  among  mitigation  options.    5) Communication   of   the   INDC   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat   –   Compiling   upfront  

information  to  explain  the  INDC.  • Elements   that   can   enhance   INDC   effectiveness   include   national   leadership;   stakeholder  

engagement  (e.g.,  academia,  civil  society,  and  private  sector);  coordination  between  ministries  (especially   planning   and   finance);   clearly   defined   roles   and   responsibilities   (e.g.,   identifying  policy   options   and   collecting   data   on   mitigation   activities,   mitigation   potential,   national  emissions,  and  baseline  scenarios);  and  resources  (e.g.,  human  resources,  institutions,  financial  resources,  and  information  and  technology).    

 Ghana  Mr.   Kyekyeku   Yaw   Oppong-­‐Boadi,   Ghana,   presented   on   his   country’s   national   process   to   inform   the  preparation  of  its  INDC  in  the  context  of  low-­‐carbon  development.        Key  messages:  

• Ghana  met   in  December  2014  for  a  technical  brainstorming  meeting  on   its   INDC.    The  country  will  continue  to  have  meetings  with  various  government  ministries  and  the  private  sector,  and  is  now  fundraising  to  start  the  national  formulation  process.      

• Ghana   is   considering   both   mitigation   and   adaptation   as   part   of   its   INDC.     While   more  information   is   available   on   mitigation,   Ghana   has   prepared   a   NAP   and   a   technology   needs  assessment  (TNA).      

• Mr.   Oppong-­‐Boadi   explained   that   national   consultations   are   complex   because   they   involve  people  from  several  organizations  and  regions.    The  challenge   is  mobilizing  all  of  these  people  and  helping  them  come  to  a  vision  on  how  to  address  climate  change.      

• Other   key   challenges   he   mentioned   include   public   and   institutional   participation,   high-­‐level  support  from  all  ministries,  fund  mobilization,  and  technical  capacity.    

Zimbabwe  Mr.  Elisha  Nyikadzino  Moyo,  Zimbabwe,  presented  on  Zimbabwe’s  progress  to  date  on  the  development  of  its  INDC.  

  10  

 Key  messages:  

• Zimbabwe’s   climate   change  management   department  manages   all   climate   change   issues   and  deals  with   the   UNFCCC.     The   country   has   a   climate   change   response   strategy   and   is   building  from  its  second  national  communication  in  developing  its  INDC.  

• While   Zimbabwe’s   INDC   will   focus   in   particular   on   energy,   it   will   also   emphasize   agriculture,  given  the  opportunities  to  achieve  both  mitigation  and  adaptation  results.    Mr.  Moyo  explained  that  food  security,  disasters,  and  politics  all  come  into  play  when  considering  climate  change.      

• Mr.  Moyo  underscored  the  opportunity   for   INDC  development   to  help  build  national  capacity,  establish  institutional  frameworks,  and  better  integrate  policies.  

• Emerging   INDC-­‐related  challenges   in  Zimbabwe   include  ambiguity  of   the   INDC  process,   lack  of  data,   the   need   for   credit,   identifying   how   adaptation   fits   into   INDCs,   and   understanding   how  INDCs  will  affect  trade  agreements  and  economic  development.  

 Discussion    During  discussion,  South  Africa  offered  to  assist  other  countries  in  the  region  that  are  in  the  process  of  preparing  their  INDCs.    Participants  discussed  the  link  between  INDCs  and  the  Green  Climate  Fund  (GCF).    One  participant  who  is  involved  in  both  the  GCF  and  INDCs  saw  convergence  between  the  two  processes  and   suggested   that   progress   on   INDCs  will   be   useful   to   the  GCF.    He  mentioned   that   the  GCF   is   now  operational  and  is  looking  for  a  strong  pipeline  of  projects  to  fund.        One   participant   called   for   intermediate   guidance   on   INDCs   so   that   countries   know  whether   they   are  going  in  the  right  direction  in  preparing  their  contributions.    Mr.  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  explained  that  the  processes  in  countries  vary  significantly  (e.g.,  bottom-­‐up,  top-­‐down,  etc.),  making  it  difficult  to  provide   a   recipe   for   INDC   preparation.     However,   the   INDC   guidance   being   developed  will   provide   a  starting  point  for  countries.    

Session  4:  Design  Options  for  INDCs  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  provide  participants  with  an  overview  of  design  options  for  INDCs.    Countries   also   shared   their   experiences   in   choosing   sectors   and   contribution   types,   in   building   from  existing  mitigation  efforts  to  a  national  contribution,  and  in  addressing  challenges  that  are  arising  in  the  design  and  development  of  INDCs.  

Presentations    World  Resources  Institute  Mr.  David  Rich,  WRI,  provided  participants  with  an  overview  of  different  ways  to  express  contributions,  as   well   as   the   advantages   and   disadvantages   of   each.     He   also   presented   a   “required-­‐by-­‐science”  scenario  to  limit  global  warming  to  two  degrees  Celsius.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Rich  asserted  that  emissions  reductions  put  forward  in  INDCs  should  be  realistic/achievable,  ambitious,   and   aligned   with   the   two-­‐degree   goal.     INDCs   should   prioritize   sectors   based   on  

  11  

national   inventories   and   may   include   long-­‐term   aspirational   targets   in   addition   to   a   2025   or  2030  target  year.  

• Two  broad  categories  of  contributions  may  be  considered:  actions  and  outcomes.    Actions  can  be   understood   as   intents   to   implement   specific   means   of   achieving   GHG   reductions   (e.g.,  policies  or  mitigation  actions),  while  outcomes  are  an  intent  to  achieve  a  specific  result.    While  outcomes  offer   flexibility   in   achieving   reductions,   are  easier   to   track,   and  enable   aggregation,  they  do  not  necessarily  clarify   the  means  of  achieving  outcomes.    Actions,  on   the  other  hand,  provide  more  clarity  but  are  harder  to  track  and  aggregate.    Mr.  Rich  stressed  that  ideally  INDCs  should  communicate  both  what  a  country  intends  to  do  and  what  the  results  will  be.  

• To  put  forward  outcomes  as  contributions,  countries  will  need  to  choose  the  type  of  outcome,  sectors/gases   to   be   included,   the   way   it   will   be   expressed,   and   how   GHG   impacts   will   be  quantified.    Targets  can  be  expressed  as  a  base  year  emissions  goal,  a  baseline  intensity  goal,  a  fixed-­‐level  goal,  or  a  baseline  scenario  goal.      

• In  considering  a  “required-­‐by-­‐science”  scenario,  Mr.  Rich  explained  that   the  world  has  already  used  up  52%  of   its  carbon  budget,  and  that   the  remainder  would  be  exhausted   in   the  coming  decades.     The   difficulty   lay   in   translating   this  budget  to  the  national  level.    He  cautioned  that  the   “required-­‐by-­‐science”   conversation   quickly  moves   from   science   to   equity,   and   that  Intergovernmental   Panel   on   Climate   Change  (IPCC)   guidelines   should   inform   the  conversation   but   are   not   very   helpful   (i.e.,  regional  2100  figures  that  are  mostly  about  cost  effectiveness).  

• Mr.   Rich   recommended   the   consideration   of  multi-­‐year   contributions,   the   need   for   global  emissions  to  peak  by  2020,  and  long-­‐term  phase  out  of  emissions.    

 NewClimate  Institute  Mr.  Markus  Hagemann,  NewClimate  Institute,  built  on  WRI’s  presentation  by  sharing  examples  of  past  commitments  from  Chile  and  the  Dominican  Republic,  as  well  as  a  hypothetical  country  example.        Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Hagemann  explained  that  the  format  of  a  country’s  INDC  will   likely  depend  on  the  level  of  capability   of   the   country.     He   presented   examples   of   possible   INDC   formats   correlating   to  varying   levels   of   country   capability   and   recommended   countries   decide   on   their   INDC  components   based   on   their   national   circumstances   and   priorities.     For   example,   an   advanced  developing  country  may  wish  to  focus  on  sectoral  targets  while  a  country  with   lower  technical  and  institutional  capacities  may  emphasize  policies  or  projects.  

• The   Dominican   Republic   announced   at   the   Doha   COP   an   absolute,   economy-­‐wide   reduction  target  of  25%   from  2010   levels  by  2030   (representative  of  a   commitment   that  a   country  with  high   capability   may   undertake).     This   target   was   informed   by   a   sector-­‐by-­‐sector   analysis   to  identify  mitigation  potential,  costs,  and  co-­‐benefits.      

• Chile   has   presented   a   target   to   reduce   GHG   emissions   by   20%   below   BAU   by   2020.     This  commitment   was   informed   by   the   Mitigation   Action   Plans   and   Scenarios   (MAPS)   process,  

  12  

stakeholder   consultations,   and   intensive   modeling   processes   to   identify   mitigation   options.    Chile  is  in  consultations  on  options  for  its  INDC,  including  a  2030  intensity  target.      

• Mr.  Hagemann  presented  a  possible   INDC   from  a  hypothetical   country   that  would   seek  100%  access  to  renewable  energy  by  2025.    This  type  of  INDC,  he  asserted,  would  be  unambiguously  ambitious,   would   have   clear   development   benefits,   would   require   little   data   (appropriate   for  less   developed   countries),   could  be   submitted   in   a   timely   fashion,   and  would  be   attractive   to  potential  funders.  

 ClimaSouth  (Tunisia  case  study)  Mr.   Faouzi   Senhaji,   ClimaSouth,   presented   Tunisia’s   experience   in   building   from   its   multiple   NAMAs  (developed  with  support  from  UNDP  and  the  GEF)  to  an  INDC.        Key  messages:  

• Tunisia’s  approach  to  developing  its  INDC  has  been  primarily  bottom-­‐up.    The  country’s  INDC  is  targeting   the   energy   efficiency,   renewable   energy,   industry,   forestry/land   use,   and   waste  sectors.      

• Tunisia’s  BAU  scenario  includes  on-­‐going  mitigation  efforts,  including  NAMAs.    The  country  has  estimated   the   expected   outcomes   of   its   NAMAs   in   2030   (approximately   40%   reduction   in  emissions).     Other   measures   and   strategies   included   in   its   mitigation   scenario   will   reduce  emissions  further  but  will  require  additional  support.  

• Tunisia   is   still   undertaking   national   consultations   and   has   not   yet   decided   between   2025   and  2030  as  a  target  year.      

Discussion    During   discussion,   Mr.   Rich   explained   that   the   choice   of   base   year   used   for   INDCs   should   be  representative  of  a  country’s  emissions  and  not  an  outlier  (ideally  the  base  year  would  be  one  for  which  a  country  has  a  national  inventory).    He  also  suggested  that  least  developed  countries  (LDCs)  may  wish  to   consider   a   less   quantitative   INDC.    Mr.   Forner,   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   explained   that   countries   may  present  an   INDC  focused  on  a  specific  sector  but   ideally  would   include   information  on  emissions   from  other  sectors,  as  these  may  increase  and  affect  the  aggregate  effect  of  the  country’s  contribution.    Participants   emphasized   that   adaptation   benefits   can   result   from   mitigation   efforts   and   that   these  should  be  reflected   in   INDCs.    Mr.  Cooper,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  stressed  that  the  options  presented   in  this  session  show  that  countries  should  be  able  to  come  forward  with  an  INDC  regardless  of  their  level  of  capacity.    

Session  5:  Data  &  Analysis  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   discuss   the   data   and   analysis   that   may   be   required   for   the  preparation   of   INDCs.     After   an   introductory   presentation   that   emphasized   making   the   best   use   of  existing  data  and  analysis,  countries  presented  their  national  experiences  and   identified  data/analysis-­‐related  challenges  that  are  arising.  

  13  

Presentations    World  Resources  Institute  Mr.  David  Rich,  WRI,  opened   this   session  by  providing  an  overview  of   types  of   information,  data,  and  analysis  that  can  be  useful  for  preparing  an  INDC.    He  stressed  that  data  and  analysis  (in  particular  GHG  inventories)  will   serve  as   the   foundation  of   INDCs  and  can  help  ensure   that   INDCs  are  achievable  and  realistic,  aligned  with  national  priorities,  and  aligned  with  the  two-­‐degree  goal.          Key  messages:  

• Countries  often  have  a  considerable  amount  of  data  and  analysis  already  available  and  should  begin  with   this   information   before   initiating   new  –   sometimes   unnecessary   –   efforts.    Where  data  gaps  exist,  countries  may  be  able  to  use  proxy  data.  

• Types  of  information  that  might  be  necessary  to  have  when  designing  INDCs  include:  pre-­‐2020  emissions-­‐reduction   actions,   national   objectives/priorities,   current   GHG   emissions   profiles   (to  identify  the  highest-­‐emitting  sectors),  current  mitigation  activities  (e.g.,  CDM  projects,  NAMAs),  projections   of   future   BAU   emissions   (sources   exist   for   countries   that   do   not   have   this  information),  an  assessment  of  mitigation  potential,  the  scale  of  reductions  needed  to  meet  the  two-­‐degree   goal,   and   support   needs   to   achieve   further   mitigation.     Mr.   Rich   mentioned  potential  sources  of  data  for  each  of  these  and  why  each  is  important.      

• There  are   two  basic  approaches   for   formulating   INDCs:   top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up.    While   top-­‐down   approaches   may   better   take   into   account   global   science   and   consider   the   need   to  aggregate   emissions   reductions,   bottom-­‐up   approaches   may   better   consider   what   is  economically   feasible   in   countries   (useful   resources   for   bottom-­‐up   approaches   may   include  McKinsey,   MARKAL,   MAPS,   Long-­‐range   Energy  Alternatives  Planning  (LEAP)  tool,  etc.).    For  the  most   robust   results,   countries   would   ideally  combine  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  approaches.    

• Mr.   Rich   explained   that   quantifying   the   GHG  impacts   of   INDCs   is   necessary   to   enable  understanding  and  clarity  of  national  reductions  and  progress  toward  the  two-­‐degree  goal.    Data  needs   for  quantifying  GHG   impacts  will  vary  by  contribution   type.     WRI’s   Mitigation   Goal  Standard  and  Policy  &  Action  Standard  (see  link  to  standards  in  Additional  Resources  on  page  3)  can   help   with   this   process,   for   both   outcome-­‐  and  action-­‐oriented  INDCs.    

 UNEP  DTU  Partnership  Mr.  Joergen  Fenhann,  UNEP  DTU  Partnership,  presented  the  GACMO  model,  a  simple  tool  to  calculate  the  mitigation  contribution  of   INDCs,  as  well  as  calculations   from  the  model  using   the  example  of   the  Maldives.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Fenhann  explained  that,  because  of  the  short  timeline  for  preparing  INDCs,  a  simple  tool  is  needed  to  calculate  BAU  projections,  GHG  reductions,  and  costs  of  mitigation  options.      

  14  

• The   GACMO   model   uses   a   “quick   and   dirty”   BAU   projection   to   2020/2025/2030,   uses   IPCC  default  factors  to  change  start-­‐year  energy  balances  to  GHG  balances,  and  produces  mitigation  cost  curves.    This  allows  for  easy  comparison  of  INDCs  among  countries.  

• Although  data  availability  may  be  a  challenge  in  some  countries,  existing  GHG  reduction  reports  and  studies  in  countries  can  be  used  to  achieve  data  for  desired  mitigation  options.      

 Kenya  Mr.  Charles  Mutai,  Kenya,  presented  on  his  country’s  INDC  preparations,  which  are  informed  by  a  2030  vision,   a   national   climate   change   strategy   from   2010,   and   a   development   blueprint   with   five-­‐year  intervals.      Key  messages:  

• Kenya’s   constitution   recognizes   sustainable   development   and   public   participation,   and   its  climate   change   strategy   recognizes   the   impacts   of   climate   change.     The   country’s   national  climate  change  action  plan  lists  priority  actions  for  low-­‐carbon,  climate-­‐resilient  development.      

• Kenya’s  INDC  process  uses  the  GHG  inventory  from  its  first  national  communication  to  identify  emissions  by  sector  and  GHG  abatement  potential.    Mr.  Mutai  mentioned  proposed  institutional  arrangements  and  explained  that  Kenya  is  reconciling  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  processes  for  its  INDC.      

• Challenges   include   inadequate  data   and   technical   capacity,   lack  of   awareness   (in   particular   of  the   importance  of  GHG   inventories),  and   the   fact   that  current  data  collection  systems  are  not  tailored  to  GHGs.  

• Among   lessons   learned,   Mr.   Mutai   mentioned   the   importance   of   coordination   among  institutions,  stakeholder  involvement  in  decision  making,  cross-­‐sectoral  engagement,  and  high-­‐level  political  commitment.    

Senegal  Ms.  Madeleine  Diouf,  Senegal,  explained  that  the  coordination  of  her  country’s   INDC   is  being   led  by  a  national   committee   established   by   a   presidential   decree,   and   that   the   government   is   emphasizing   a  participatory  approach  with  media  involvement.    She  went  on  to  explain  key  elements  of  Senegal’s  INDC  preparations.    Key  messages:  

• Senegal’s  national  communications  and  LEDS  provide  an  important  base  for  the  country’s  INDC.    The   country’s   NAP,   TNA,   three   NAMAs,   and   regional   climate   change   strategies   are   also  important  inputs.    All  ministries  have  been  involved  in  the  INDC  preparation  process.  

• Climate   scenarios   have   been   developed   for   2030   and   2050,   and   on-­‐going   analyses   in   several  sectors   are   determining   the   abatement   potential   of   mitigation   options   (focused   primarily   on  energy,   agriculture,   and   land   use/forestry).    Ms.   Diouf   explained   that   Senegal   has   a   large   on-­‐going  program  in  biogas  and  said  that  her  country  is  currently  in  the  process  of  assessing  other  mitigation  options.  

• Data   availability   has   been   a   challenge   because   Senegal’s  GHG   inventory   is   from  2005  but   the  mitigation   component   of   its   INDC  will   be   based   on   2010.     The   country   is   also   coming   across  limitations  in  its  studies  of  mitigation  potential  and  its  GHG  inventory.  

• Some  work  has  been  done  on  how  to  address  adaptation  in  the  INDC,  including  an  inventory  of  actions  in  different  sectors  (e.g.,  agriculture,  water  resources,  health,  etc.).      

  15  

Discussion    Participants  discussed  how  to  assess  the  ambitiousness  of  an  INDC  and  what  makes  a  contribution  fair  in  relation   to   global   objectives.    Mr.   Rich   acknowledged   the   difficulty   of   translating   the   global   objective  into   what   individual   countries   should   commit   to   nationally   but   suggested   that   quantification   and  transparency  are  important  to  determining  whether  individual  INDCs  are  sufficient.    Mr.  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,   asserted   that   ambition   is  ultimately   a   value   judgment   that  depends  on  how  one   sees   the  world  (e.g.,  historical  emissions,  share  of  global  emissions,  cost  of  reductions,  emissions  per  capita,  etc.).    He   mentioned   that   Colombia   is   currently   in   the   process   of   deciding   how   they   see   the   world   in   this  context  and  suggested  that  countries  “tell  their  own  story”  in  their  INDCs.    Mr.   Rich   highlighted   the   importance   of   involving   stakeholders   in   GHG   projections   and   explained   that  some  goal  types  (e.g.,  deviation  from  BAU)  require  more  data  and  complex  modeling.    One  developing-­‐country  participant  liked  that  there  are  options  for  INDC  types,  as  countries  will  ultimately  choose  what  works  for  their  national  circumstances.    He  mentioned  that  the  role  of  international  support  should  be  to  enable  countries  to  go  above  and  beyond  what  they  can  do  with  domestic  resources.        Mr.  Mutai   said   that,   in  Kenya,   INDC  consultations  are   taking  place  at  various   levels,  up   to   the  cabinet  level,  and  that  an  executive  body  is  responsible  for  coordinating  climate  change  activities.    He  explained  that   Kenya’s   constitution   requires   public   consultation   and   that   the   president   can   be   sued   for   not  consulting   with   the   public.     Ms.   Diouf   responded   to   a   question   on   base   year   by   saying   that   Senegal  would   like   to   use   2010   and   will   need   to   adjust   its   inventory   for   its   third   national   communication  accordingly.    Another  participant  shared  this  concern  about  the  timing  of  GHG  inventories.    

Session  6:  Monitoring,  Reporting  and  Verification  (MRV)  Systems;  Quantification  of  Co-­‐Benefits  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   discuss   national   MRV   systems   in   the   context   of   preparing   and  tracking  progress  of  INDCs  during  implementation.    Presenters  spoke  to  MRV  of  both  GHG  and  non-­‐GHG  effects.  

Presentations    UNDP  Mr.   Yamil   Bonduki,   UNDP,   provided   a   brief   introduction   to   the   design   of  MRV   systems   and   spoke   to  UNDP’s   MRV-­‐related   support   for   developing   countries   through   the   Low   Emission   Capacity   Building  (LECB)  Programme.    He  presented  several  observations  based  on  UNDP’s  work  with  countries  on  MRV  systems:  

• Most  countries  have  started  MRV  work  and  are  making  good  use  of  existing  and  new  data  for  MRV;  

• A   large   proportion   of   MRV   systems   will   measure   factors   beyond   GHG   emissions   (e.g.,   co-­‐benefits,  economic  indicators,  etc.);  

• Countries   are   often   developing   MRV   systems   on   various   levels   (e.g.,   national,   sectoral,  project/firm   level)   and   for   multiple   purposes   (e.g.,   NAMAs,   national   communications,   GHG  inventories,  BURs,  LEDS,  etc.);  

  16  

• MRV  system  design  is  being  informed  by  IPCC  guidelines,  UNFCCC  guidance,  CDM  guidance,  etc.;    • Few  MRV  systems  are  supported  by  current  national  legislation/rules;  and  • Few   countries   have   included   quality   assurance/quality   control   processes   in   their  MRV   system  

design,  and  few  have  determined  how  verification  will  be  applied.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Bonduki   recommended   that   countries   be   strategic  when   considering  MRV   implications   of  INDCs  and  suggested  they  start  incrementally  using  available  resources  and  data.    He  explained  that   there   is   no   need   to   cover   every   component   from   the   beginning,   but   that  MRV   systems  should  be  considered  holistically  and  improved  over  time.  

• Mr.  Bonduki  suggested  that  there  is  no  “recipe  book”  for  MRV,  and  that  existing  guidance  (e.g.,  IPCC  Volume  1)  can  be  applied  to  countries’  national  circumstances  and  needs.      

• UNDP’s   support   for   MRV-­‐related   work   includes   a   webinar   series   on   MRV   design;   the   MRV  chapter   of   its   NAMA   guidance   document;   guidance   on   evaluating   co-­‐benefits   of   mitigation  actions;  MRV  training   in   the  context  of   the  LECB  Programme;  case  studies   in   the  Global  Good  Practice  Analysis;  and  MRV  technical  backstopping  through  the  Global  Support  Programme  for  national  communications,  BURs,  and  INDCs.  

 World  Resources  Institute  Ms.  Kelly   Levin,  WRI,   presented  on  MRV   in   the   context  of   INDCs.     She  explained   that  one   can  MRV  a  number  of   things   at   a  number  of  different   levels,   including  GHG  emissions,  GHG  effects  of  mitigation  efforts,  non-­‐GHG  effects  of  mitigation  efforts,   implementation  of  mitigation  or  adaptation  efforts,  and  finance.      Key  messages:  

• At   the   international   level,   MRV   is   helpful   in  building   trust,   meeting   international   reporting  obligations,   and   tracking   progress   toward   the  two-­‐degree   goal.     At   the   national   level,   MRV  helps   countries   understand   emissions   profiles,  design   effective   strategies,   estimate   the  emissions   impacts   of   mitigation   actions/goals,  and   track   progress   over   time.     Ms.   Levin  explained  that  countries  are  often  going  beyond  what   is   required   internationally   because   of  these  other  purposes.  

• The   design   of   MRV   systems   for   INDCs   will  depend   on   the   type   of   contribution   being   put  forward  by  countries.    Ms.  Levin  mentioned  several  factors  affecting  the  measurability  of  various  contribution  types  (e.g.,  policies/actions,  baseline  scenario  goals,  base  year  intensity  goals,  etc.).    She  explained  that  the  GHG  impacts  of  mitigation  goals  (e.g.,  fixed-­‐level  or  base-­‐year  emissions  goal)  are,  in  general,  easier  to  assess  than  those  of  policies.      

• MRV   is  also  helpful   for   tracking  progress   toward  an   INDC  during   its   implementation.    But  Ms.  Levin  explained  that  there   is  significant  uncertainty  around  what  will  be  decided  on  this  under  the  UNFCCC  (e.g.,  reporting  requirements  for  GHG  effects,  non-­‐GHG  effects,  etc.).  

  17  

• Ms.   Levin   indicated   that   all   countries   already  have  GHG   inventories   and   some  are  developing  MRV  systems  for  different  purposes;  countries  can  build  off  these  past  experiences   in  building  MRV  systems  for  INDCs  (perhaps  requiring  little  new  data).      

 Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD)  Sara  Moarif,  OECD,  discussed  the  quantification  of  non-­‐GHG  benefits  of  climate  actions  in  order  to  help  advance  national  development  priorities.      Key  messages:  

• Ms.   Moarif   explained   that   sustainable   development   requires   the   integration   of   economic,  environmental,   and   social   considerations   into   decision-­‐making.     If   costs   are   not   adequately  reflected  in  economic  policies,  this  can  lead  to  unsustainable  policies.  

• She  mentioned  that  recent  OECD  work  attempts  to  better  quantify  the  impacts  and  benefits  of  policies   (e.g,   economic   and   health   impacts   of   air   pollution,   reduced   energy   use   from   energy  efficiency,  and  lowering  vulnerability  through  adaptation  policies).      

• With   regards   to   adaptation,   a   national   monitoring   and   evaluation   framework   may   include   a  limited  set  of  indicators  reflecting  a  country’s  priorities  (these  should  build  on  existing  data  and  indicators).  

Discussion    During  discussion,  one  developing-­‐country  participant  mentioned  that,  because  INDCs  will  be  assessed  against   the   global   goal,   international   MRV   will   be   needed.     She   asserted   that   guidelines   and  methodologies  are  needed   for  each  type  of  contribution.    Ms.  Levin  agreed  with   this  comment  saying  that   a   common   methodology,   accounting   rules,   and   avoidance   of   double   counting   will   be   needed.    Another  participant   referred  to  MRV  for  adaptation  and   financial   support,   suggesting  that   it  would  be  good   to   set   clear   policies   and   engage   the   private   sector   and   civil   society.     He   said   that   while   GHG  inventories  are  the  basis  for  mitigation  MRV,  a  common  format  is  needed  for  adaptation  and  means  of  implementation.        Participants  expressed  trepidation  about  the  different  types  and  complexity  of  MRV.    One  felt  countries  are  taking  a  “leap  of  faith  into  unknown  territory,”  referring  to  uncertainty  around  verification  and  the  level  of   scrutiny   for  nationally   funded  efforts.    Another   suggested   that  perhaps  expectations  could  be  lower  for  African  countries.    Ms.  Levin  responded  that  MRV  systems  do  not  need  to  be  up  and  running  before  the  rules  are  determined,  and  that  countries  should  build  on  national  experiences  with  national  inventories  and  BURs.    

Session  7:  Adaptation  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   hear   case   studies   of   countries’   adaptation   experiences   and   to  discuss  whether/how  countries   intend   to   include  adaptation   in   their   INDCs   in  a  meaningful  way.     The  session  began  with  an  introductory  presentation  by  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat.      

Presentations    

  18  

UNFCCC  Secretariat  Mr.  Matti  Goldberg,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  provided  an  introduction  on  the  status  of  adaptation  discussions  in  the  UNFCCC,  including  related  outcomes  from  the  Lima  COP.    Key  messages:  

• Mr.  Goldberg  discussed  the  evolution  of  adaptation  discussions  over  time,  leading  to  a  scaled-­‐up  focus  on  adaptation  in  particular  in  Bali  and  Cancún.    He  explained  that  the  Paris  agreement  will  specify  long-­‐term  adaptation  objectives  and  will  provide  more  detail  on  implementation  through  national  actions,  contributions,  or  commitments.      

• Mr.  Goldberg  presented  several  adaptation  work  streams  (e.g.,  Nairobi  work  programme,  NAPs,  NAPAs,  mechanism  for  loss  and  damage,  and  Adaptation  Committee)  that  will  provide  inputs  into  adaptation  components  of  INDCs.    He  recommended  that  adaptation  INDCs  build  on  existing  arrangements,  such  as  NAPs.  

• He  closed  by  reminding  participants  of  the  Lima  Call  for  Climate  Action,  which  decided  to  strengthen  adaptation  in  the  2015  agreement  and  invited  countries  to  carry  out  a  consultative  process  on  how  adaptation  could  be  included  in  their  INDCs,  if  they  wish  to  do  so.      

 Namibia  Mr.   Jonathan   Mutau   Kamwi,   Namibia,   indicated   in   his   presentation   that,   as   an   acutely   vulnerable  country  dependent  on  agriculture,  Namibia  intends  to  include  adaptation  in  its  contribution.        Key  messages:  

• Several  national  climate  change  documents  will  influence  Namibia’s  INDC,  including  its  National  Climate  Change  Strategy  and  Action  Plan,  its  Disaster  Risk  Management  Act,  and  others.    Other  information  will   come   from  Namibia’s   BUR,   vulnerability   assessments,   and   TNAs.     Namibia   is  currently  in  the  process  of  developing  assumptions  and  methodologies  related  to  the  adaptation  component  of  its  INDC,  as  well  as  thinking  through  the  fairness  of  its  INDC.  

• Mr.   Kamwi   presented   several   on-­‐going   adaptation-­‐related   efforts   in   Namibia,   including   a  sustainable   crop   system,   a   rural   food   security   program,   conservation   agriculture,   and  community  resilience  efforts  to  reduce  vulnerability  to  droughts  and  floods.      

• INDC  preparation  activities  to  date  include  stakeholder  consultations  on  the  INDC  concept  and  compilation   of   INDC-­‐related   documents.     Namibia   intends   to   analyze   collected   data   in   April,  finalize  the  INDC  between  May  and  July,  and  submit  its  INDC  before  1  October  2015.  

• Namibia   has   learned   that   stakeholder   consultations   help   build   trust   and   that   multi-­‐sectoral  teams   help   build   capacity   and   ownership.     The   country   is   facing   the   challenge   of   limited  technical  capacity  (e.g.,  modeling,  analysis)  and  a  limited  understanding  of  how  to  contextualize  adaptation  in  INDCs.  

 South  Africa  Mr.  Maesela  John  Kekana,  South  Africa,  briefly  added  to  his  presentation  from  Day  1  to  provide  further  thoughts   on   adaptation   components   of   INDCs.     He   underscored   the   importance   of   cross-­‐country  implementation,  in  order  to  share  best  practices  and  identify  knowledge  gaps.    He  said  that  he  expects  an  assessment  of  both  developing-­‐country  adaptation  needs  and  developed-­‐country   financial  support.    Mr.  Kekana  suggested  that  fairness  and  equity  will  come  into  play  and  offered  that  clarity  is  needed  on  what  happens   after   an   INDC   is   submitted.    He  asserted   that  mitigation  and  adaptation  must  move   in  parallel.  

  19  

Discussion    In  discussion  following  the  presentations,  Mr.  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  posed  the  questions  of  how  to  move  from  national  adaptation  issues  to  the  international  level  and  how  to  link  concrete  adaptation  actions  and  INDCs.    One  of  the  key  issues  raised  relates  to  the  lack  of  clarity  on  how  countries  envision  adaptation  components  of   INDCs.    One  participant  pointed  to  the  potential  of   the  2015  agreement  to  encourage  regional  cooperation  and  private  sector  engagement  on  adaptation.    He  added  that  the  GCF  is  focusing  on  both  mitigation  and  adaptation.        Developing  countries  called  for  a  practical  guide  on  adaptation  components  of  INDCs,  and  Mr.  Goldberg  responded   countries   are   in   the  driver’s   seat.    He   said   that,   because  of   the  COP’s   lack  of   specificity   in  paragraph  12  of  the  Lima  decision,  conversations  like  this  that  provide  more  clarity  on  conceptualization  are  useful   for  developing   further   guidance.    One  developing-­‐country  participant   suggested   that  WRI’s  INDC  guidance  provides  good  suggestions  on  the  steps  of  INDC  preparation,  which  can  be  easily  adapted  to  apply  to  adaptation.    He  added  that  African  countries  have  been  focused  on  adaptation  for  years  and  are  now  aligning  policies   to  ensure  efforts   are   sufficient.    He  pointed   to   the  possible   role  of   INDCs   in  identifying   gaps   in   adaptation   planning   that   exist   in   countries.     UNDP   clarified   that   an   adaptation  chapter  of  the  INDC  guidance  is  currently  being  developed  and  a  draft  will  be  circulated  to  countries  by  the  end  of  March  for  comments.    Participants  emphasized  that  the  invitation  to  include  adaptation  was  already  decided,  and  that  what  is  needed  now  is  a  technical  discussion  of  how  to  do  so  (e.g.,  by  submitting  adaptation-­‐related  programs).    One   participant   suggested   that  mitigation   and   adaptation   are   intimately   intertwined   and   that   a   clear  indication  of  where  relevant  linkages  are  is  needed.    He  added  that  there  should  be  global  goals  for  both  mitigation   and   adaptation   (for   adaptation,   this   should   be   looked   at   through   an   aggregation   of  adaptation  components  of  INDCs).      

Session  8:  Breakout  Group  Discussion  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session   was   to   provide   countries  with   an   opportunity   to   discuss   challenges   and  opportunities   for   INDC-­‐related   collaboration   (e.g.,  prioritizing   actions,   securing   high-­‐level   political  endorsement,   addressing   priority   sectors,   dealing   with  data  gaps,  etc.)   in   the  Africa   region.    Participants  were  also   asked   to   identify   specific   types   of   support   that  could  help  facilitate  this  collaboration.    

Reports  Back  from  Groups    Group  1    In  its  report  back,  Group  1  emphasized  the  challenges  of  obtaining  quality  data  (in  particular,  related  to  GHG   inventories)   and   engaging   stakeholders   in   the   INDC   process.     Among   opportunities   for  collaboration,   they  mentioned  the  possibility  of  elaborating  detailed  guidance  that  allows  countries   to  take   into   account   national   experiences.     They   also  mentioned   a   platform/forum   to   share   experiences  

  20  

and  proposed   to  designate   INDC   focal  points   in  each  country   to   facilitate  exchange  within   the   region.    Finally,   the   group   mentioned   the   need   for   expert   consultations   to   respond   to   countries’   need   for  technical  assistance.        Group  2  Among  the  challenges  mentioned  by  Group  2  were  lack  of  capacity  in  countries,  securing  high-­‐level  buy-­‐in,   keeping   climate   change   on   national   agendas,  mainstreaming   climate   in   development,   and   lack   of  data.     The   rapporteur  mentioned   several   priorities   for   collaboration   going   forward,   including   how   to  include  adaptation  in  INDCs  how  to  quantify  adaptation  results.    The  group  also  posed  the  question  of  whether   they   would   receive   international   support   for   adaptation,   as   the   inclusion   of   adaptation   is  voluntary  in  the  Lima  decision.    With  regards  to  support  to  facilitate  collaboration,  Group  2  mentioned  technical   capacity   building,   workshops   or   webinars,   and   dissemination   of   best   practices.     Group  members  elaborated  that  the  sharing  of  best  practices  could  draw  from  developing  countries  from  the  region  that  have  made  significant  progress  on  INDCs,  such  as  South  Africa.    Group  3    Group   3   reported   several   familiar   challenges:   securing   high-­‐level   buy-­‐in,   addressing   data   gaps,  prioritizing  actions,  securing  financial  support,  and  dealing  with  the  short  timeframe  for  submission.    The  group   also  mentioned   the   difficulty   of   explaining   to   and   keeping   the   attention   of   politicians   on   new  concepts   (e.g.,   BURs,   NAMAs,   INDCs,   etc.).     One   concern   that   was   raised   was   how   to   respond   to  questions  about  whether  INDCs  would  become  commitments.    Finally,  the  group  highlighted  the  lack  of  clarity  on  what  should  be  funded  domestically  and  what  could  receive  international  support.    In  terms  of  collaboration,   Group   3   underscored   the   need   for   South-­‐South   cooperation   and   exchange   of   best  practices,  which   could   involve   the   establishment   of   country   databases   or   “climate   change   knowledge  hubs.”     The   group   called   for   financial   resources   and   a   dedicated   team   of   experts   to   travel   between  African   countries   helping   with   INDCs.     Finally,   they  mentioned   that   it   would   be   helpful   to   have   sub-­‐regional  workshops  on  INDCs  that  take  into  account  differences  between  Africa’s  sub-­‐regions.        Group  4  Group  4  echoed   the   challenges  mentioned  by  other  groups,  emphasizing   in  particular   the  uncertainty  involved   in  engaging  and  explaining  the   INDC  concept   to  stakeholders.    With  regards   to  collaboration,  the  group   recognized   the  need   for   regional   interaction  and   tools   that  address   regional   circumstances.  Group   4   underscored   the   need   for   South-­‐South   cooperation,   highlighting   South   Africa’s   kind   offer   of  support.    They  also  requested  that  countries  share  drafts  of  their   INDCs  as  they  become  available  and  suggested  that  media  involvement  could  play  a  role  in  spreading  the  INDC  message.    Discussion    In   discussion   following   the   groups’   reports,   one   participant   declared   that   the   need   to  meet   often   to  compare   INDC-­‐related  activities  has  been  clearly   identified.    Developing  countries   called   for   increased  technical   and   financial   assistance,   as  well   as   tools   for   translating   adaptation   into   INDCs.     Participants  further   discussed   the   idea   of   establishing   a   network   of   INDC   focal   points   (which  may   or  may   not   be  UNFCCC  focal  points)  from  each  country  to  share  experiences.    With  regards  to  sharing  drafts  of  INDCs,  Mr.  Bonduki,  UNDP,  mentioned  the  precedent  of  Chile  sharing  their   INDC  draft.    A  developing-­‐country  participant  added  that  countries  have  been  sharing  their  INDC  processes  and  should  be  willing  to  share  drafts  of  their  INDCs  as  well.        

  21  

Session  9:  Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  (Upfront  Information)  

Objective    The   objective   of   this   session,   which   was   chaired   by   South   Africa,   was   to   discuss   possible   upfront  information  –  elaborating  on  guidance  in  the  Lima  COP  decision  –  that  will  need  to  be  communicated  to  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  in  order  to  facilitate  understanding  of  countries’  (mitigation)  INDCs.      

Presentations    World  Resources  Institute  Kelly  Levin,  WRI,  elaborated  on  the  Lima  COP  decision  in  presenting  possible  upfront  information  to  be  provided   when   communicating   INDCs   to   the   UNFCCC.     She   explained   that   the   Lima   decision   helped  clarify  what  a  transparent  INDC  might  look  like.    Key  messages:  

• Ms.   Levin   recalled   the  Warsaw  COP  decision  and  explained   that  upfront   information  will   help  facilitate  clarity,  transparency,  and  understanding  of  individual  contributions,  and  will  enable  an  assessment   of   whether   countries’   INDCs   are   collectively   sufficient   to   meet   the   global   two-­‐degree   goal.     Upfront   information   can   also   be   useful   for   comparing   across   diverse   INDCs,  facilitating  domestic  implementation,  and  identifying  common  MRV  or  accounting  rules.  

• Categories  of  information,  as  agreed  in  Lima,  include  the  following  (with  suggested  elaboration  from  WRI  following  each  point):  

1) Quantifiable  information  on  reference  point  –  Base  year  emissions,  base  year  emissions  intensity,  or  projected  baseline  scenario  emissions  (as  relevant).  

2) Timeframes/periods   for   implementation  –  Target  year  or  period  and  long-­‐term  target  (if  applicable).  

3) Scope/coverage  –  Sectors,  GHGs,  and  percentage  of  national  emissions  covered.  4) Planning  processes  –  Existing  or  planned  domestic  policies,  actions,  or  targets  that  will  

support  implementation  of  the  mitigation  contribution.  5) Assumptions/methods   –   If   applicable:   assumed   inventory  methodologies;   information  

about   the   use   of   international   market   mechanisms   (e.g.,   quantity   of   transferable  emissions   units,   types/years   of   units);   information   on   accounting   for   the   land   sector  (e.g.,   treatment  of   the  sector,  coverage  of   land-­‐use  activities,  accounting  approach   for  the   sector);   for   GHG-­‐reduction   targets   relative   to   a   projected   baseline   scenario,  information   on   whether   static/dynamic,   cut-­‐off   year   for   included   policies,   projection  method,   emissions   drivers/assumptions,   etc.;   for   GHG-­‐reduction   targets   relative   to  emissions  intensity,  information  on  projected  emissions  intensity  in  target  year/period,  data  sources;  and   for  policies/actions  put   forward  as   INDCs,   information  on  estimated  effect   of   emissions   (ex-­‐ante),   methodologies   used,   uncertainty   of   estimated   effects,  potential  interactions  with  other  policies/measures,  etc.  

6) How   Party   considers   its   INDC   is   fair   and   ambitious   and   contributes   to   objective   of  Convention   –   Comparison   of   INDC   to   multiple   indicators   of   fairness   (e.g.,   emissions  responsibility,  economic  capacity,  relative  costs,  etc.);  comparison  of  INDC  to  multiples  indicators  related  to  ambition  (e.g.,  projected  BAU  emissions,  total  mitigation  potential,  etc.);  and  comparison  of  the  INDC  to  indicators  such  as  anticipated  national  emissions  if  the  contribution   is  achieved,  quantified  GHG   impact  of   the   INDC,   long-­‐term  mitigation  goals,  and  other  factors.  

  22  

7) Other  –  Detailed  description  of  contribution,  additional  mitigation  actions  that  could  be  achieved  with  other  support,  etc.  

• Ms.  Levin  presented  an  example  of  an  INDC  submission  and  invited  participants  to  participate  in  WRI’s  Open  Book  project,  which  seeks  to  promote  transparency  (see  link  to  project  in  Additional  Resources  on  page  3).  

 Central  African  Republic  Jean-­‐Claude  Bomba,  CAR,  presented  that  his  country  has  begun  working  on  upfront  information  for  their  INDC  and  has  come  to  this  dialogue  to  get  more  detail.    The  CAR  intends  to  put  forward  an  INDC  before  the  Paris  COP.    Discussion    During  discussion,  participants  asked  for  clarity  from  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  on  what  happens  after  the  submission  of  INDCs.    Mr.  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,  responded  that  Parties  decided  against  a  complex  process  of  assessing  individual   INDCs  (because  of  political  feasibility)  and  opted  instead  for  a  synthesis  that  would   assess   the   aggregate   impact   of   contributions   in   the   context   of   the  Paris   negotiations.    He  clarified  that  the  COP  may  decide   in  2016  that  an  ex-­‐ante  process   is  required.    Mr.  Goldberg,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,   added   that   paragraph   14   of   the   Lima   decision   leaves   it   up   to   Parties   to   determine   the  parameters  they  will  use  to  facilitate  understanding  of  INDCs,  and  that  discussions  like  these  are  useful  for  sharing  ideas.    One   participant   expressed   concern   that   there   has   not   yet   been   a   decision   on   rules   to   improve  transparency  of  actions   (e.g.,   for  quantifying  emissions  reductions).    Mr.  Forner   reminded  participants  that,  while  we  are  used  to   the   top-­‐down  Kyoto  Protocol  process,   this  model  changed  with   INDCs.    He  asserted   that  Parties  are  determining   from   the  bottom  up   the   rules   for   INDCs  and  what   to   include   in  submissions.     Responding   to   questions   from   participants,   Ms.   Levin   said   that   forestry/REDD+   could  certainly  be  included  in  INDCs,  and  that  some  pieces  of  upfront  information  she  outlined  may  not  fit  for  certain   contribution   types.     Addressing   a   question   on   ambition,   she   suggested   that   broad   goals   of  decarbonization,  for  example,  can  inform  ambition  justifications  for  INDCs.      Mr.  Bonduki,  UNDP,  assured  participants  that  the  requests   for  guidance  on  adaptation  components  of  INDCs  are  clear,  and  that  WRI,  UNDP,  and  the  UNFCCC  Secretariat  will  distribute  draft  guidance  shortly.    He   added   that   UNDP   is   available   to   help   disseminate   information   between   Parties   and   coordinate  discussion  forums.        Mr.  Boubacar  Cisse,  UNCCD,  spoke  to  the  importance  of  the  land  use  sector  as  an  emissions  source/sink  in  African  countries,  as  well  as  the  high  rates  of  desertification.    He  highlighted  the  large  potential  of  the  sector  to  contribute  to  emissions  reductions  through  rehabilitation  of  land.    He  suggested  that  countries  seriously   consider   including   land   improvement   in   their   INDCs  and  offered  UNCCD   support   (see   link   to  UNCCD  presentation  on  Land  Use  INDCs  in  Additional  Resources  on  page  3).        

  23  

 

Session  10:  Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  provide  participants  with   an   opportunity   to   draw   on   dialogue   sessions   and  think  through  the  preparation  of  an  INDC  by  serving  as  “advisors”  to  a  hypothetical  country.    Participants  were  provided   with   background   information   about   the  country   of   “Candor,”   including   its   emissions   profile,  development   priorities,   and   existing   mitigation  measures.     In   small   groups,   they   came   up   with  recommendations   on   the   type   of   INDC   Candor   should  put   forward   and   sectors   that   should   be   prioritized.    Participants  also  discussed  additional  data  and  analysis  that   would   be   helpful   for   designing   the   details   of  Candor’s   INDC   and   information   that   would   be   needed  to   address   ambition,   fairness,   and   alignment   of   the   INDC   with   Candor’s   development   goals   and   the  ultimate  objective  of  the  Convention.    (The  INDC  Exercise  can  be  found  in  Annex  III  of  this  report.)  

Reports  Back  from  Groups    Group  1  Group  1  reported  that  they  made  assumptions  about  the  hypothetical  country  of  Candor  to  supplement  the   provided   information   and   ultimately   recommended   a   focus   on   the   energy,   agriculture,   and   land  use/forestry  sectors   (with  a  possible   focus  on   industry   in   the   future).    The  group  decided  to   focus  the  mitigation  components  of  Candor’s  INDC  on  energy  and  recommend  adaptation  components  focused  on  agriculture.    Among  data  and  analysis  needs,  Group  1  called   for  data  on   soil   type,  erosion,  mitigation  potential,  cost  estimates,  and  an  assessment  of  what  could  be  done  with  national  resources  and  what  would   require   additional   support.     The   group   summarized   that   Candor   is   taking   ambitious   action   but  requires  international  support  to  go  further.        Group  2  Group   2   reported   that   they   recommended   a   focus   on   energy   and   agriculture,   given   the   level   of  emissions   from   those   sectors.     With   a   profile   resembling   that   of   an   LDC,   Candor   will   have   limited  capacity   to   prepare   a   robust,   transparent,   and   quantifiable   INDC.     However,   the   group   suggested   an  absolute  mitigation  goal  of   -­‐20%  compared   to  a  base  year  of  2010,  backed  by  policies  and  measures.    Further   data   and   analysis   that  would   be  useful,   according   to   the   group,   include  projections   for   2020,  country  population  statistics  (rural  vs.  urban),  and  quantification  of  policies  and  actions  with  or  without  financial  support.    The  group  addressed  the  issue  of  fairness  and  ambition  by  saying  that  Candor  emits  less  then  1%  of  global  emissions  but  wants  to  reduce  its  emissions  by  60%,  very  much  in   line  with  the  objective  of  the  Convention.        Group  3  Similar   to   other   groups,   Group   3’s   report   back   included   a   recommendation   to   focus   on   the   energy,  agriculture,  and  land  use  sectors.    However,  they  mentioned  that  political  sensitivities  may  be  involved  

  24  

in  asking  rural  populations  with  fewer  economic  resources  to  contribute  to  mitigation  efforts.    Regarding  the   type   of   contribution,   the   group   offered   that   a   target   relative   to   BAU   would   not   be   advisable.    Additional   data   and   analysis   that   would   be   helpful   for   designing   Candor’s   INDC   include   reliable  baselines,   an   analysis   of  mitigation  potential,   analyses  of   policies   and   implications,   and   an   analysis   of  means  of  implementation.    The  group  mentioned  that  the  fairness  of  Candor’s  contribution  depends  on  the  resources   that  are  made  available   to   the  country,  and  that   information  on  economic  capacity  and  vulnerability  would  be  useful.    With  respect  to  alignment  with  development  priorities,  Group  3  said  that  information  on  development  pathways  and  analyses  of  mitigation  potential  would  be  helpful.    Discussion    In   discussion,   one   developing-­‐country   participant   acknowledged   that   Candor   represents   a   typical   LDC  and  suggested  that   if  countries  begin  to  think   like  Candor,  Paris  will  be  a  success.    Another  participant  recommended   that   Candor   focus   on   sustainable   development   aspects   of   its   INDC,   including   the  Millennium  Development  Goals.    Participants  discussed  what  is  meant  by  ambition,  and  suggested  that  poverty  level,  past  efforts,  and  a  comparison  to  the  global  arena  should  be  taken  into  account.          Brief  Presentation  by  Cote  d’Ivoire    At   the   end   of   the   session,   Cote   d’Ivoire   gave   a   brief   presentation   on   recent   progress   in   preparing   its  INDC.    The  country  is  building  on  past  work  such  as  national  communications,  BURs,  and  TNAs,  and  has  established   institutional   arrangements   at   the   political   level   (led   by   Minister   of   Environment)   and  technical  level.    The  technical  side  is  led  by  a  project  coordinator  and  includes  two  teams  (one  focused  on  GHG  mitigation  potential  and  institutional  arrangements,  and  the  other  focused  on  capacity  building  and   enhancement   of   participation).     Cote   d’Ivoire   has   received   GEF   funding,   has   prepared   terms   of  reference   for   INDC   consultants,   and   has   started   sectoral   analyses   to   identify   priorities   and   capacity  needs.     Next   steps   include   assessing   funding   requirements   for   different   scenarios   and   considering   a  possible  adaptation  component.        

Session  11:  Panel  Discussion:  Brainstorming  the  Way  Forward  on  INDCs  

Objective    The  objective  of  this  session  was  to  brainstorm  key  issues  for  the  2016-­‐2020  period,  potential  capacity-­‐building  needs  of   developing   countries   in   this   period,   and  possible   areas  where   international   support  from  developed   countries   could   help   fulfill   these   needs.    Mr.   Bonduki,  UNDP,   underscored   that   INDC  work   does   not   end   with   submitting   the   contribution   to   the   UNFCCC   Secretariat.     Instead,   it   is   the  beginning  of  work  to  come  after  the  Paris  COP.      

Panel  Discussion    Ethiopia  Ms.  Ghrmawit  Haile,  Ethiopia,  explained  that  her  country  is  among  a  small  group  of  nations  with  double-­‐digit   economic   growth   rates   and   is   highly   vulnerable   to   climate   change   (threatening   both   Ethiopia’s  population  and  economic  growth).    The  country  began  designing  a  climate-­‐resilient  green  economy   in  2010   and   is   making   a   conscious   effort   to   develop   mitigation   initiatives   and   green   growth   efforts.    Ethiopia  aspires  to  keep  its  emissions  to  2011  levels  (150  MT  of  CO2e),  at  a  cost  of  approximately  USD7-­‐

  25  

8  billion.    Although  the  country  expects  to  be  a  middle-­‐income  country  by  2025,  Ms.  Haile  explained  that  international  climate  change  resources  must  be  mobilized.        Mozambique  Ms.  Marília  Manjate,  Mozambique,   commented   on   her   country’s   climate   change   strategy,  which  was  developed  in  2012,  and  underscored  Mozambique’s  vulnerability  to  climate  change,  mentioning  recent  flooding.     The   country   has   begun   engaging   stakeholders   (particularly   around   NAMAs)   and   defining  elements  for  its  INDC.    However,  it  is  facing  challenges  such  as  data  gaps  (e.g.,  in  its  GHG  inventory)  and  the   need   to   raise   awareness   on   INDCs.    Ms.  Manjate   expressed   interest   in   regional   collaboration   on  INDCs  and  said   that  Mozambique   intends   to  contribute   in  particular   in  areas   that  will   reduce  poverty,  given  the  country’s  level  of  development.        Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  Mr.  Tosi  Mpanu-­‐Mpanu,  D.R.  Congo,   cautioned   that  a  holistic  approach   should  be   taken  on   INDCs,  as  opposed   to   past   experiences   that   were   handled   in   silos.     An   inclusive   approach   that   engages   all  stakeholders,  he  suggested,  allows  for  better  understanding  of  tradeoffs.    Mr.  Mpanu-­‐Mpanu  suggested  that   expectations   be   managed   responsibly   and   that   INDCs   be   clearly   explained   to   stakeholders  (including  their  genesis  and  the  fact  that  INDCs  will  be  a  “mid-­‐  to  long-­‐term  voyage”).    The  D.R.  Congo  intends  to  submit  its  INDC  by  1  October  and  requests  funding  for  both  preparation  and  implementation.    He   mentioned   the   importance   of   regional   collaboration   and   knowledge-­‐sharing   sessions   like   this  dialogue,  as  well  as  the  need  for  economic  assessment  tools.    Mr.  Mpanu-­‐Mpanu  offered  that  countries  can  approach  bilateral  donors  in  the  near  term  followed  by  the  GCF  in  the  longer  term.        Chad  Ms.  Saglar  Djerang,  Chad,  commented  that  her  country   is  behind   in  terms  of   its   INDC  and  has  not  yet  prepared  INDC-­‐related  documents.    She  predicted  that  the  2016-­‐2020  period  will  be  a  major  task  for  her  country  and  will  include,  among  other  things,  developing  renewable  energy  potential  building  on  Chad’s  plan  for  solar  energy.    She  expressed  the  importance  of  training  people  to  build  their  capacity  to  work  in  this  process.      Norway    Mr.   Gard   Lindseth,   Norway,   spoke   to   his   country’s   national   experiences   in   developing   a   high-­‐quality  national  inventory  (saying  that  data  collection  requires  a  strong  legal  basis),  improving  data  quality,  and  developing  policies  based  on  the  inventory.    He  expressed  that  countries  should  recognize  the  context  of  commitments  and  mentioned  the  goal  of  mobilizing  USD  100  billion  per  year  from  various  sources.    Mr.  Lindseth  predicted   that  countries  will   continue  on  current   trajectories  and  asserted   that   INDCs  are  an  opportunity  to  consolidate  what  countries  are  already  doing.    He  reiterated  Norway’s  intention  to  step  up   international   support   in   light   of   ambitious   INDCs   and   mentioned   other   support   (e.g.,   GCF,   GGGI,  UNDP,  UNEP,  bilateral  donors,  the  private  sector,  etc.).    Discussion  In  discussion,  one  developing-­‐country  participant  said  that  she  received  a  lot  of  information  during  the  dialogue   and   all   countries   will   take   this   home   to   work   on   their   respective   INDCs.     She   expressed,  however,   that   she  has  not  heard   strong   commitments   from  donors   to  provide   support,   and  needs   to  return  to  her  home  countries  showing  that  donors  are  committed.    Mr.  Bonduki  mentioned  a  mapping  of   support   that   UNDP   and   several   developed   countries   are  working   on   in   order  mobilize   support   for  countries  that  have  not  yet  received  it.    One  developed  country  explained  that  INDCs  are  a  top  priority  

  26  

for  his  country’s  presidency.    The  UNCCD  also  offered  technical  support  for  African  countries  wishing  to  include  the  land  use  sector  in  their  INDCs.        Responding  to  a  question  about  the  possibility  of  submitting  an  INDC  jointly  with  another  country,  Mr.  Forner,   UNFCCC   Secretariat,   said   he   would   need   to   seek   legal   guidance   on   whether   country   groups  besides  the  EU  could  do  so.    One  participant  predicted  that  African  countries  would  be  unlikely  to  give  up   sovereign   rights   in   the   same  way   the   EU   has.     He   also  mentioned   the   possibility   of   INDCs   losing  political  support  through  changes  in  government.    

Closing  Remarks    Ms.  Ghrmawit  Haile,  Ethiopia,  thanked  participants  for  coming  to  Ethiopia  and  told  them  “Addis  is  your  African  city.”    She  said  she  hoped  the   interactions  had  been  productive.    Mr.  Claudio  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat,   expressed   his   hope   that   the   dialogue  was   useful   to   participants   and   announced   that   the  UNFCCC   Secretariat   is   available   to   serve   countries   in   the   INDC   process.     Mr.   Stephen   Gold,   UNDP,  expressed   his   thanks   to  meeting   participants,   the   host   government,   the  UNFCCC   Secretariat,   and   the  UNDP  Ethiopia  country  office.    He  also  reiterated  UNDP’s  readiness  to  support  countries  with  their  INDC  preparations.    

  27  

Annexes  

Annex  I:  Participant  List    

Country/ Organization

Ministry/Institution Name E-mail

Algeria Abderahim Talhi Ministry of Energy Abderahim.Talhi@arh.mem.gov.dz

Algeria Malik Mechhoud Ministry of Energy mechhoud.malik@gmail.com Algeria Rédha Bouarioua Ministère de L'Habitat de

L'Urbanisme et de la Ville r.bouarioua@mhuv.gov.dz

Algeria Redouane Yahiaoui Ministry of Foreign Affairs ryahiaoui@gmail.com Angola Cecília Silva Bernardo Ministry of Environment silva_cec@yahoo.com.br Benin Theodore Cossi

Domingo Direction Générale des Changements Climatiques

dthodorecossi@yahoo.fr

Botswana Janet Selato Department of Meteorological Services

jselato@gov.bw

Burundi Diomede Yengayenge Ministry of Water, Land Management, Environment and Urban Plan

dionyeng2@rocketmail.com; dionyeng2@gmail.com

Cape Verde Nuno Ribeiro National Directorate of Environment

nuno.ribeiro@mahot.gov.cv

Climate and Development Knowledge Network

Karen Sutherland karen.sutherland@cdkn.org

Central African Republic

Jean-Claude Bomba Ministère de L’Environnement, de L’Ecologie et du Développement Durable

jcbomba@hotmail.com

Chad Saglar Djerang Ministry of Agriculture and Environment

dsniolla@yahoo.fr

ClimaSouth Faouzi Senhaji fasen007@gmail.com Comoros Msoili Anfani Ministère de la Production,

de L’Environnement, de L’Energie

amsoili@yahoo.fr

Côte d'Ivoire Agre Mathieu Richemond Assie

Ministry of Environment, Urban Sanitation and Sustainable Development

richemond.assie@egouv.ci; richeassie@gmail.com

Côte d'Ivoire Kouadio Desire N’goran Ministry of Environment, Urban Sanitation and Sustainable Development

ngorandesire@gmail.com

Democratic Republic of Congo

Tosi Mpanu Mpanu Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

tosi.mpanu@gmail.com

Djibouti Dini Abdallah Omar Ministry of Housing and Environment

dini.omar12@gmail.com

Djibouti Idriss Ismael Nour distri_play@yahoo.fr Egypt Wael Keshk Environmental Affairs

Agency wael-ccu@hotmail.com

Equatorial Guinea Nicanor Ona Nze Anguan

Minister of Fishery and Environment

nicanorona@gmail.com

Ethiopia Ato Getnet Worku Ministry of Environment and Forests

worku_getnet@yahoo.com

Ethiopia Belaynesh Biru Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy

yulbel_2008@yahoo.com

Ethiopia Berhanu Asefa Ministry of Agriculture

  28  

Ethiopia Ghrmawit Haile Ministry of Environment and Forest

ghrma_h@yahoo.com

Ethiopia H.E. Ato Kare Chawicha State Minister, Ministry of Environment and Forests

Ethiopia Henok Gizachew henokgizachew223@yahoo.com

Ethiopia Maru Yissa Ethiopia Selamawit Desta Ministry of Environment

and Forest selamawit86@gmail.com

Ethiopia Shimeles Aragaw Ministry of Urban Housing and Construction

shimelesarag@gmail.com

Ethiopia Yonas Tekelemichael Ministry of Environment and Forest

yonastekelemichael4@gmail.com

EU Delegation to the AU

Cristina Vicente Ruiz cristina.vicente-ruiz@eeas.europa.eu

EU Energy Initiative Crispen Zana Partnership Dialogue Facility

crispen.zana@euei-pdf.org

European Commission Martin Kaspar Martin.Kaspar@ec.europa.eu Food and Agriculture Organization

Didier Habimana FAO Sub Regional Office in Addis

Didier.Habimana@fao.org

France Emilie Brückmann Embassy of France in Ethiopia

emilie.bruckmann@diplomatie.gouv.fr

France Nicolas Dasnois Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development

nicolas.dasnois@diplomatie.gouv.fr

France Ranie Rambaud French Development Agency

rambaudr@afd.fr

Gabon Georges Bayonne Mboumba

Ministry of Forest, Environment and Natural Resources Conservancy

gbayonne@hotmail.fr

Gambia Alpha Jallow Department of Water Resources

a_jallow2010@yahoo.com

Germany GIZ Inga Zachow Inga.zachow@giz.de Ghana Kyekyeku Yaw Oppong-

Boadi Environmental Protection Agency

koppongboadi@gmail.com

Ghana Mark Fynn Germany GIZ - Ghana mark.fynn@giz.de Global Environment Facility

Milena Gonzalez Vasquez

mgonzalezvasquez@thegef.org

Global Green Growth Initiative

Gebru Jember Endalew gebru.jember@gggi.org

Guinea-Bissau João Raimundo Lopes State Secretary of Environment

jraylopes@yahoo.com

Kenya Charles Mutai Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

drcmutai@gmail.com

Kenya Enock Kanyanya USAID - Kenya ekanyanya@usaid.gov LEDS Global Partnership

Edward Awafo Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

awafoe@hotmail.com

Lesotho Mosuoe Letuma Lesotho Meteorological Services

Emletuma35@gmail.com

Libya Almezughi Nuri Environment General Authority

Libya Mohamed Mustafa Elabbar

Ministry of Electricity & Renewable Energy

ms.elabbar@yahoo.com

Madagascar Lantonirina Ratovonjanahary

Ministry of Environment, Ecology and Forest

mariefrance_ni@yahoo.fr

Malawi Michael Makonombera Environmental Affairs Department

makonombera@yahoo.com

  29  

Mali Awa Anoune Macalou Agency for Environment & Sustainable Development

awamare_coumba@yahoo.fr

Mauritius Jacques Rudy Oh-Seng Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

Joh-seng@govmu.org

Mozambique Marília Manjate Ministerio para Coordenação da Acção Ambiental

Telma.manjate12@gmail.com

Namibia Jonathan Mutau Kamwi Ministry of Environment and Tourism

Mutauk@yahoo.co.uk

NewClimate Institute Markus Hagemann m.hagemann@newclimate.org Niger Gousmane Moussa SS/CNEDD imgousmane@yahoo.fr Niger Maguette Kaire Regional Centre

AGRHYMET maguettekaire@yahoo.fr

Nigeria Cordelia Chioma Ndukwe

Federal Ministry of Environment

Chiomandus@yahoo.com

Nigeria Yerima Peter Tarfa Federal Ministry of Environment

petertarfa@hotmail.com

Norway Gard Lindseth Ministry of Climate and Environment

Gard.Lindseth@kld.dep.no

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Sara Moarif Sara.moarif@oecd.org

Republic of Congo Gervais Ludovic Itsoua Madzous

Ministere du Tourisme et de L’Environnement

imadzous@yahoo.fr

Sao Tome and Principe

Darnel Helio de Sousa Baia

General Directorate of Environment

darnelbaia@sapo.pt

Senegal El Hadji Mbaye Madiene Diagne

Comité National Changement Climatique

emdiagne@hotmail.com

Senegal Madeleine Rose Diouf Sarr

Direction de L’Environnement et des Etablissements Classés

madodioufsarr@yahoo.fr; rosemadiouf@gmail.com

Somalia Faisal Said Mussa National Environmental Management Office

Ludacad11@gmail.com

South Africa Maesela John Kekana Department of Environmental Affairs

mjkekana@environment.gov.za

South Africa Rabelani Phillip Tshikalanke

Department of Environmental Affairs

rtshikalanke@environment.gov.za

Swaziland Khetsiw Khumalo Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs

theregoesthecat@yahoo.co.uk; climatechange@swazimet.gov.sz

Tanzania Richard Muyungi tanzania37@gmail.com

Togo Komi Tomyeba Ministry of Environment and Forestry Resources

tomyebaki@gmail.com

Togo Komlan Edou Ministry Of Environment and Foresty Resources

Komkayi80@yahoo.fr

Uganda Henry Bbosa Ministry of Water and Environment

henrybbossa@gmail.com; henrybbossa@yahoo.com

UNCCD Boubacar Gisse UNDP Allison Towle allison.towle@undp.org UNDP Michael Comstock michael.comstock@undp.org UNDP Stephen Gold stephen.gold@undp.org UNDP Yamil Bonduki yamil.bonduki@undp.org UNDP Regional Center Aliou Dia Aliou.dia@undp.org UNDP Regional Center Daisy Mukarakate Daisy.mukarakate@undp.org UNDP Regional Center Excellent Hachileka excellent.hachileka@undp.org UNDP Regional Center Gerd Trogemann gerd.trogemann@undp.org UNDP Regional Center Monica Bonfanti monica.bonfanti@undp.org

  30  

UNEP Suzanne Lekoyiet UNEP Kenya Suzanne.lekoyiet@unep.org UNEP Yoonhee Kim Yoonee.kim@unep.org UNEP DTU Partnership

Emmanuel Ackom emac@dtu.dk

UNEP DTU Partnership

Joergen Fenhann jqfe@dtu.dk

UNFCCC Secretariat Claudio Forner cforner@unfccc.int UNFCCC Secretariat Donald Cooper dcooper@unfccc.int UNFCCC Secretariat Matti Goldberg mgoldberg@unfccc.int United Kingdom David Potter Department for

International Development D-Potter@dfid.gov.uk

United States Reed Schuler Department of State SchulerRM@state.gov World Resources Institute

David Rich DRich@wri.org

World Resources Institute

Kelly Levin KLevin@wri.org

Zambia Esther Mulekwa Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

Emulekwa84@yahoo.com

Zimbabwe Elisha Nyikadzino Moyo Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate

enmoyo@gmail.com; moyo_elisha_n@yahoo.co.uk

       

  31  

Annex  II:  Agenda    

SECOND  AFRICAN  REGIONAL  TECHNICAL  DIALOGUE  ON    INTENDED  NATIONALLY  DETERMINED  CONTRIBUTIONS  (INDCs)  

 Addis  Ababa,  Ethiopia  27-­‐29  January  2015  

(Optional  WRI  workshop  on  30  January  2015)    

Venue:  United  Nations  Conference  Center    (Conference  Room  3,  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Africa,  Addis  Ababa)  

Website:  http://www.uneca.org/uncc-­‐0/pages/contact-­‐us  Telephone:  (+251)  115  44  32  52    

 AGENDA  

 Participants:  Country  representatives  from  the  Africa  region,  developed  countries,  multilateral  and  bilateral  agencies,  regional  organizations,  and  resource  experts.      Objectives:  

• Share  country  experiences  with  the  design  and  preparation  of  their  Intended  Nationally  Determined  Contributions  (INDCs)  

• Share  information  on  challenges  being  faced  and  identify  lessons  learned  and  best  practices  to  address  these  challenges  

• Address  issues  related  to  the  underlying  technical  basis  required  to  prepare  robust,  realistic,  and  achievable  contributions  

• Identify  support  needed  to  reach  domestic  agreement  on  contributions  and  follow-­‐up  actions    • Provide  an  update  on  the  process  of  preparing  INDCs  and  share  newly  identified  challenges  

 TUESDAY,  27  JANUARY    8.30-­‐9.00am   Registration  9.00-­‐10.00am   Opening  Remarks  

• H.E.  Ato  Kare  Chawicha,  State  Minister,  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests,  Ethiopia    

• Donald  Cooper,  Coordinator  of  the  Mitigation,  Data  and  Analysis  Programme,  UNFCCC  Secretariat  

• Gerd  Trogemann,  Deputy  Director,  UNDP  Regional  Service  Center  for  Africa    Participant  Introductions    

10.00-­‐10.45am   Brief  Update  on  ADP  Process  • Claudio  Forner,  UNFCCC  Secretariat    Objectives  of  Dialogue;  Takeaways  from  Previous  INDC  Dialogues  • Yamil  Bonduki,  UNDP  

  32  

 Brief  Update  on  Global  Environment  Facility  (GEF)  Support  for  INDCs  • Milena  Gonzalez,  GEF    

10.45-­‐11.15am   Coffee  break  11.15-­‐1.00pm   Country  Progress  on  INDC  Preparation  since  Ghana  Dialogue  

 Country  Case  Studies  • Maesela  John  Kekana,  South  Africa  • Michael  Makonombera,  Malawi  • Martin  Kaspar,  European  Union    

-­‐ Country  updates  on  recent  progress  in  preparing  INDCs  -­‐ Challenges  being  faced  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

1.00-­‐2.00pm   Lunch    2.00-­‐3.30pm   National  Processes  to  Inform  INDCs  

• Michael  Comstock,  UNDP  -­‐ Brief  introduction  

 Country  Case  Studies  • Kyekyeku  Yaw  Oppong-­‐Boadi,  Ghana  • Elisha  Nyikadzino  Moyo,  Zimbabwe    

-­‐ Country  updates  on  organizing  national  processes  to  prepare  INDCs  -­‐ Institutional  arrangements,  securing  a  ministerial  mandate,  engaging  

stakeholders,  etc.  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

3.30-­‐4.00pm   Coffee  break  4.00-­‐6.00pm   Design  Options  for  INDCs    

• David  Rich,  WRI  -­‐ Different  ways  to  express  contributions  (economy-­‐wide  emissions-­‐reduction  

targets,  deviation  from  business  as  usual,  packages  of  policies,  etc.)  -­‐ Considering  a  required-­‐by-­‐science  scenario  

• Markus  Hagemann,  NewClimate  Institute  -­‐ Examples  of  possible  INDCs  based  on  options  for  expressing  contributions  

 Country  Case  Study  • Faouzi  Senhaji,  ClimaSouth  (Tunisia  case  study)    

-­‐ Countries’  experiences  in  beginning  to  think  through  how  to  express  INDCs    -­‐ Building  from  on-­‐going  mitigation  efforts  to  a  national  contribution    

  33  

   WEDNESDAY,  28  JANUARY    9.00-­‐10.45am   Data  and  Analysis    

• David  Rich,  WRI  -­‐ Starting  with  existing  data  (using  GHG  inventories,  etc.)  -­‐ Quantifying  GHG  impacts  and  addressing  data  gaps  -­‐ Top-­‐down,  bottom-­‐up,  and  combined  approaches  

• Joergen  Fenhann,  UNEP  DTU  Partnership  -­‐ The  GACMO  model  as  a  tool  to  calculate  the  mitigation  contribution  of  

INDCs    Country  Case  Studies    • Charles  Mutai,  Kenya  • Madeleine  Diouf  Sarr,  Senegal      

-­‐ Using  GHG  inventories  and  other  existing  information  to  inform  INDC  preparations  (including  past  experiences  with  national  communications)  

-­‐ Reconciling  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  approaches  to  preparing  INDCs  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  and  lessons  learned  

 Plenary  Discussion    

10.45-­‐11.15am   Coffee  break  11.15-­‐12.45pm   Monitoring,  Reporting  and  Verification  (MRV)  Systems;  Quantification  of  Co-­‐

Benefits  • Yamil  Bonduki,  UNDP  

-­‐ UNDP  support  for  MRV  in  developing  countries      • Kelly  Levin,  WRI  

-­‐ MRV  systems  in  the  context  of  INDCs  • Sara  Moarif,  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  

(OECD)  -­‐ Quantification  of  non-­‐GHG  benefits  of  climate  actions  to  advance  national  

development  priorities    Plenary  Discussion    

12.45-­‐1.45pm   Lunch    1.45-­‐3.30pm   Putting  Forward  Adaptation  Action  

• Matti  Goldberg,  UNFCCC  Secretariat  -­‐ Overview  of  adaptation  issues  in  the  context  of  INDCs  

-­‐ Possible  inclusion  of  adaptation  components  in  countries’  INDCs  -­‐ Newly  identified  challenges  

 Plenary  Discussion    

  34  

 Country  Case  Study  • Jonathan  Mutau  Kamwi,  Namibia    

-­‐ National  adaptation  actions  in  the  context  of  INDCs  -­‐ Whether/how  countries  intend  to  include  adaptation  in  their  INDCs  in  a  

meaningful  way    Plenary  Discussion    

3.30-­‐4.00pm   Coffee  break  4.00-­‐6.00pm   Breakout  Group  Discussion  

• Participants  will  break  into  smaller  groups  to  discuss  opportunities  for  and  challenges  of  bringing  mitigation  and  adaptation  components  into  INDCs  

• Participants  will  identify  opportunities  for  regional  collaboration  on  adaptation  and  mitigation  issues  and  possible  support  needs  to  facilitate  collaboration  

 Reports  Back  from  Breakout  Groups  

     THURSDAY,  29  JANUARY    9.00-­‐10.30am   Communicating  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC  (Upfront  Information)  

• Kelly  Levin,  WRI  -­‐ Importance  of  upfront  information  in  building  trust,  assessing  aggregate  

emissions  reductions,  etc.  -­‐ Upfront  information  to  be  included  in  INDCs  to  promote  understanding  of  

contributions    Country  Case  Study    • Jean-­‐Claude  Bomba,  Central  African  Republic      

-­‐ Countries’  experiences  in  beginning  to  prepare  upfront  information  to  communicate  INDCs  to  the  UNFCCC    

-­‐ Drawing  on  past  experiences  with  national  communications  -­‐ Information  that  could  be  particularly  challenging  for  countries  to  provide    

Plenary  Discussion    

10.30-­‐11.00am   Coffee  break  11.00-­‐12.30pm   Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation  

• Participants  will  break  into  small  groups  and  have  a  hands-­‐on  opportunity  to  carry  out  a  practical  exercise  on  the  key  issues  to  be  considered  when  preparing  INDCs    

 

  35  

12.30-­‐1.30pm   Lunch  1.30-­‐2.30pm   Reports  Back  from  Breakout  Group  Exercise;  Plenary  Discussion  

 2.30-­‐3.45pm   Panel  Discussion:  Brainstorming  the  Way  Forward  on  INDCs  

 Panelists  • Ghrmawit  Haile,  Ethiopia  • Marília  Manjate,  Mozambique  • Tosi  Mpanu-­‐Mpanu,  D.R.  Congo  • Saglar  Djerang,  Chad  • Gard  Lindseth,  Norway    

-­‐ Panelists  to  brainstorm  potential  capacity-­‐building  needs  of  developing  countries  between  2015  and  2020  and  possible  areas  where  international  support  could  help  fulfill  these  needs  

 3.45-­‐4.00pm   Closing  Remarks    

 4.00pm   Adjourn          

  36  

Annex  III:  Breakout  Group  Exercise  on  INDC  Preparation    You  are  an  advisor  to  a  fictitious  country  called  Candor.  Below  you  will  find  relevant  information  for  the  country  of  Candor.  Based  on  the  profile  provided  here,  please  discuss  with  your  group  the  questions  at  the  end  of  this  exercise.    Country  profile:  Candor  is  a  developing  country  with  a  GDP  of  USD  14.54  billion  in  2013,  representing  a  fraction  of  the  world’s  economy.  It  faces  numerous  developmental  challenges  related  to  poverty  and  inequality,  health,  education,  energy  access  and  economic  growth.  A  quarter  of  the  population  is  undernourished  and  has  poor  access  to  health  services.  The  majority  of  Candor’s  people  are  living  in  rural  areas  with  unreliable  energy  access.      Candor  does  not  contribute  a  significant  share  to  global  GHG  emissions,  accounting  for  less  than  1%  of  total  global  annual  emissions.  Its  per  capita  emissions  are  3.9  tons  CO2  per  inhabitant  compared  to  the  global  average  of  4.23  tons  CO2  per  person.      However,  its  GHG  emissions  are  increasing  at  a  rapid  rate  and  have  more  than  doubled  over  the  last  two  decades  (1990-­‐2010).  The  energy  sector  is  responsible  for  the  biggest  share  of  emissions,  with  agriculture  in  the  second  place  (Table  1).  Its  emissions  are  expected  to  continue  to  grow  over  the  next  two  decades.  Despite  the  projected  growth,  the  country  will  continue  to  have  a  below  average  per  capita  emissions  rate.  Table  1  also  provides  the  projected  emissions  in  2030  taking  into  account  currently  planned  mitigation  measures.      Table  1:  Emissions  profile  of  the  country  in  2010  and  2030    Source   GHG  emissions  (Gg  CO2eq)    

(2010)  Projected  GHG  emissions  (Gg  CO2eq)  (2030)  

Energy   41,235   74,223  Industrial  Processes   210   630  Agriculture   24,691   44,197  Land  use  change  and  forestry   -­‐3,500   -­‐4,025  Waste   650   1,170  Total   63,286   116,195    Under  the  new  government,  in  2011,  Candor  has  pledged  to  follow  an  inclusive  model  of  growth  and  sustainable  development.  Some  highlights  include:    

• Prioritize  access  to  affordable  and  sustainable  energy  for  basic  needs,  as  well  as  for  national  economic  development.  The  current  economic  model  is  heavily  reliant  on  fossil  fuel-­‐driven,  centralized  energy  infrastructure.    

• Reduce  poverty  levels  by  20%  by  2030  • Improve  food  security  and  drinking  water  access  

 Candor  has  also  committed  to  building  a  low  carbon  economy  and  has  adopted  a  mitigation  goal  of  limiting  its  2030  emissions  to  no  more  than  a  20%  increase  compared  to  a  2010  base  year.  The  business-­‐as-­‐usual  trajectory  shows  over  80%  growth  in  emissions  in  2030  compared  to  2010.  The  country  has  also  developed  a  mitigation  strategy,  with  sector-­‐specific  measures  to  meet  its  2030  goal:    

  37  

Energy  sector:  • By  2030,  increase  the  share  of  renewable  energy  (solar  and  wind)  to  10%  in  the  national  energy  

mix  • Establish  energy  efficiency  standards  for  residential  construction,  domestic  appliances  and  

vehicle  fleets  • Undertake  demand  side  efficiency  measures,  e.g.,  promotion  of  more  efficient  appliances  • Increase  investment  in  public  transport  

 Industrial  processes:  

• Estimate  the  mitigation  potential  in  key  industrial  sectors  (cement  and  fertilizers)    • Adopt  a  mitigation  goal  and  mitigation  strategy  for  each  sector    

 Agriculture  sector:    

• Promote  post-­‐harvest  management  to  avoid  the  burning  of  farm  waste  and  the  preservation  of  farm  soil  

• Adopt  measures  for  erosion,  sedimentation  and  runoff  control  • Encourage  more  appropriate  and  rational  use  of  fertilizers  

 Land  use  change  and  forestry  sector:  

• Improve  forest  management,  e.g.,  adopt  practices  to  reduce  unnatural  forest  fires,  decrease  soil  degradation  

• Reduce  deforestation  by  5%  by  2030      Waste  sector:    

• Implement  selective  collection  and  treatment  of  urban  solid  waste  • Promote  creation  of  landfills  

 The  country  is  also  keen  to  undertake  steps  that  will  help  provide  reliable  information  for  mitigation-­‐related  decision-­‐making.  To  this  end,  the  government  will  work  towards:  

• Strengthening  capacities  related  to  the  country’s  emissions  inventories  through  the  implementation  of  a  national  GHG  Inventory  Office    

• Integration  of  sector-­‐specific  efforts  to  prepare  emission  projections  for  the  coming  years,  to  establish  a  Government-­‐sanctioned  national  baseline  that  will  enable  ministries  to  conduct  their  emission  projection  exercises  in  a  complementary  fashion  and  from  a  common  foundation  

 Candor  will  need  significant  financial  and  technological  resources  to  realize  some  of  these  goals  and  exploit  the  mitigation  potential  in  each  sector.      Questions:  

1. Would  you  recommend  Candor  cover  all  sectors  or  focus  on  particular  sectors  in  its  contribution?  Which  ones?  Why?  (Recommended  time:  10  min)  

2. What  type  of  contribution  would  you  advise  Candor  put  forward  (e.g.,  a  set  of  policies/actions,  a  mitigation  goal  (base  year  intensity  goal,  base  year  emissions  goal,  baseline  scenario  goal,  fixed  level  goal),  or  a  combination  of  types  of  contributions)?  Why?  (Recommended  time:  20  min)  

3. What  further  data  and  analysis  would  be  helpful  for  designing  the  details  of  Candor’s  proposed  INDC  (e.g.,  goal  level  (if  applicable),  which  specific  actions/policies  (if  applicable),  timeframe,  etc.)?  (Recommended  time:  20  min)  

  38  

4. What  information  from  the  case  study  will  be  critical  for  determining  the  following?    What  additional  information  would  be  needed  for  each?  (Recommended  time:  40  min)  

o a)  Whether  Candor’s  proposed  contribution  is  aligned  with  the  country’s  development  goals  

o b)  Whether  the  contribution  is  equitable/fair  o c)  Whether  Candor’s  contribution  is  ambitious  o d)  Whether  the  contribution  is  aligned  with  the  ultimate  objective  of  the  Convention  

     

  39  

Annex  IV:  Dialogue  Evaluation  Results    A  total  of  47  participants  completed  evaluations  of  the  Ethiopia  dialogue.    Below  is  a  summary  of  their  responses.    

     

       

To  what  extent  have  your  expectajons  been  met?  

Fully  51%  

(n  =  24)  

Parually  49%  

(n  =  23)    

Not  at  all  0%  

(n  =  0)  

Very  useful  57%    

(n  =  27)  

Useful  40%    

(n  =  19)  

Somewhat  useful  2%    

(n  =  1)  Not  useful  at  all    

0%  (n  =  0)  

How  would  you  describe  the  overall  usefulness  of  the  workshop?  

  40  

What  could  have  been  done  differently  to  improve  the    usefulness  of  the  workshop?  

 

     

For  government  representatives:  Speaking  from  your  personal  perspective,  when  do  you  expect  that  your  country  is  likely  to  submit  your  INDC  to  the  

UNFCCC?    

 

8  12  

8  

15  12  

22  

7  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

2  4  

13  

7  6  

0  

2  

4  

6  

8  

10  

12  

14