20090930-IEA-Reporting_and_Recording_Post_2012_GHG_Mitigation_Commitments,_Actions_and_Support_45页_400kb

Summary of "REPORTING AND RECORDING POST-2012 GHG MITIGATION COMMITMENTS, ACTIONS AND SUPPORT"

This paper analyzes the design of a potential reporting/recording mechanism for GHG mitigation commitments, actions, and support as a key element of the post-2012 climate framework, driven by the Bali Action Plan's emphasis on MRV (Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable).

1. Key Aspects of the Reporting/Recording Mechanism

• Purpose: To enhance transparency, track global emission pathways, identify action opportunities, and facilitate matching actions with support. Could function by reporting implemented/planned actions OR recording commitments ex ante (e.g., via National Schedules).
• Forms: Two main options proposed are:
  • Registry: A centralized electronic database where countries submit information, enabling ex post reporting.
  • National Schedules: An integral part of a post-2012 agreement outlining planned commitments and actions ex ante. Can be legally binding.
• Coverage: Purposes dictate the information range:
  • Ex post/Historical: Report implemented actions, planned actions, associated low-emission strategies, support received/provided.
  • Ex ante/Possible: Record possible future actions contingent on support. Includes both unilateral, supported, and credited actions (e.g., CDM). The distinction isn't always clear, complicating standardization.
• Balance: Focus should be on the environmental outcome (mitigation) rather than just MRV. Support reporting complements mitigation but has broader definitions.
• Timings: Mechanisms like National Schedules require upfront reporting and are harder to change, posing a political challenge. Registries are more flexible but may delay feedback crucial for rapid agreement negotiation.

2. Institutional and Functional Implications

• Information Template: Details are vital (scope, source, type, method, verification). Mix qualitative and quantitative data. Decision type determines depth.
• Verification Requirements: Especially higher for credited actions and support (donations/transfers) to ensure quality and prevent double-counting/misreporting.
• National Level: Requires designating an authority ("focal point") to collect, verify, and submit information.
• International Level: May require new structures (Executive Board-like bodies) to manage registries, oversee verification/validation, approve schedules/changes, and publicly verify information. Support matching requires good data on supply and need.
• Inclusion/Differentiation: The mechanism's coverage determines where countries (AI or NAI) reporting differs.

3. Forward Look

• Such a mechanism is part of overall MRV, alongside inventories, LEDS, and communications.
• It aims to meet evolving GHG targets but doesn't replace inventory reporting.
• Reporting/recording vs. Verification: This paper focuses on the reportable component of MRV, less so on verification.
• Stakeholders: Modifications should be developed through a combination of transparency and risk-sensitive institutions and procedures at both national and international levels.
• Including reporting of support will depend on agreement on definitions and implementation modalities.

In essence, a post-2012 mechanism must carefully balance reporting specific details for environmental integrity with broad coverage data for transparency, all managed through agreed institutions, and ensuring alignment with the ultimate goal of international climate cooperation.