Next Steps to Refine Proposals for Improvements to the Adaptation and Mitigation Markers

NEXT STEPS TO REFINE PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ADAPTATION AND

MITIGATION MARKERS

OECD Task Team on Rio markers, 18 September 2014

Next steps to refine proposals for improvement to the climate markers

1. Mitigation: additional examples

2. Mitigation: greater specification in the eligibility criteria

3. Adaptation: develop further typical examples of adaptation activities

4. Adaptation: introduce the three steps outlined in the MDB methodology into the criteria for eligibility

5. FAQs on significant versus principal

6. Ruling to ensure the Environment marker is systematically screened for Rio marked


1. Mitigation: additional examples • Drawing from the MDB and IDFC methodologies• Examples mentioned in members’ replies

energy transmission projects integrated multisectoral projects involving strong

capacity development components, social forestry projects. “thermal power plant retrofit to fuel switch from a more

GHG-intensive fuel to a different, less GHG-intensive fuel type”: does this qualify under the mitigation Rio marker?


2. Mitigation: greater specification in the eligibility criteria GHG savings could be used to demonstrate the eligibility of

large-scale, ambiguous cases such as climate-friendly transport infrastructure or large hydro power plants.

MDB principles for brownfield and greenfield energy could be considered for implementation.

Should minimum threshold of energy efficiency be defined for score significant/principal?


3. Adaptation: develop further typical examples of adaptation activities Study examples individually, and more specifically those that

aim at making infrastructure more resilient and enabling private sector investment in adaptation.


4. Adaptation: use the three steps outlined in the MDB methodology in the criteria for eligibility Good practice rather than eligibility criterion. Should a minimum threshold of adaptation relevance

in a project be defined for application of score significant or principal?


5. FAQs on significant versus principal

• Add examples;

• Add a note that an expected indirect side effect with regard to the objective is not sufficient to justify the “significant” score.

• No consensus on the use of thresholds for determining scoring

6. Rule to ensure the Environment marker is systematically screened for Rio marked


Next step: Secretariat to work with a group of interested members to develop the revised set of guidelines:

• Examples• FAQs• Three-step approach