CBIT Support in the framework of the MPGs Presentation title CBIT Support in the framework of the MPGs Technical Workshop on the Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Copenhagen, Denmark, 19 April 2017 Toby Hedger, Programme Officer, Transparency Implementation Support Unit Mitigation, Data and Analysis Programme, UNFCCC

Presentation title Article 13 has 3 key elements– reporting, technical review, and Multilateral facilitative consideration Reporting: there is nothing new or fundamentally different than the reporting that we have been working on under the Convention process for a long time. Political and legal characteristics have gone through an evolution. On the inventory, this is one reporting element that has become mandatory under the Paris Agreement. The clarity that we have is that all parties (well, SIDS and LDCs have flexibility) are expected to report inventories. What exactly that means is still under negotiation and is being sorted out. The other mandatory reporting element is reporting information on progress of implementing and achieving NDCs. These are two reporting elements that apply as mandatory for all parties. In addition, there is one more reporting element, but just for a subset of parties– developed countries and other parties that have provided support– these parties will be reporting on the support provided. Developing countries should report on support needed and received. There are also information to be reported on adaptation as well but it’s also should item– the difference between shall and should is from the political and legal perspective. Shall is generally seen as something mandatory and should is something that is up for interpretation– some see it as a softer mandatory element, and others don’t see it as a requirement at all, and rather as a recommendation. In short, there are four baskets of information to report: inventory, implementation of NDCs, support provided, support needed/received, and climate change impacts and adaptation. Next, we move into consideration of these reports– the technical expert review which will occur for all parties. Finally, there is the MFC process, and looking at the submission of views that have come from parties, it seems that parties are interested in a process that isn’t very different than what we have now, which is Multilateral Assessment for developed countries and FSV for developing countries. It remains to be seen what will be the final form, but that seems to be the direction we are heading.

CBIT and the transparency framework Presentation title CBIT and the transparency framework Building Capacity Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency Reporting Institutional arrangements Technical expert review Strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national priorities Provide relevant tools, training and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in Article 13 of the Agreement Assist in the improvement of transparency over time; Tools and methodologies Facilitative multilateral consideration Data and information So how does CBIT feature in this schema? As I mentioned, when you look at this MRV transparency framework, you see three layers (green blocks). Since the modalities, procedures and guidelines that define exactly what each of these three green boxes will encompass are still being established, we cannot say for certain exactly how a country will need respond, and exactly what support CBIT should provide. But, there are a lot of things that we can do to prepare, without the MPGs, to create the foundation necessary to respond to the rulebook. In order for a country to effectively participate in the TF processes, they will need to have strong/robust and functional Institutional Arrangements that is able to churn out reports every two years, and also support the process of expert review. They will also need to have in place appropriate tools and methodologies, and finally, the data and information to support the reporting requirements. On the latter, for a number of countries this seems to be a big challenge. Breaking this down by element, we can see the variety of support that can be provided to establish a foundation that will be required regardless of the outcome of the MPGs. The first type of support is on scientific and technical work that you need to do in order to generate information/data to report as per the guidelines that will come out of the negotiations. For example, for Inventories, whether the final decision is 1996 vs 2006, the pre-work, scientific and technical work to put in place the IA and start to establish a process to collect and compile an inventory, will feed into whatever the final decision is under MPGs. Yes, some things will differ, but they wont be show stoppers. Same thing for NDCs. We’re talking about the need to have a process to start tracking in a systematic and scientific manner. This is starting from inventories, mitigation potential, prioritizing actions, etc. Regardless of what the exact requirement is for reporting, a country will need to have a solid universal foundation that will be relevant regardless of the final MPGs. In addition to the more technical work, we know that there will be reporting on support received and support needs. While the format is still yet to be determined, countries can start working now to create the foundation for tracking this information now. The final question is how will CBIT evolve after the MPGs are finalized? To reiterate what I said before, I don’t think that there will be a significant change in CBIT after the rulebook is published, as fundamentally, the type of support that countries need is largely already known.

Presentation title Article 13 has 3 key elements– reporting, technical review, and Multilateral facilitative consideration Reporting: there is nothing new or fundamentally different than the reporting that we have been working on under the Convention process for a long time. Political and legal characteristics have gone through an evolution. On the inventory, this is one reporting element that has become mandatory under the Paris Agreement. The clarity that we have is that all parties (well, SIDS and LDCs have flexibility) are expected to report inventories. What exactly that means is still under negotiation and is being sorted out. The other mandatory reporting element is reporting information on progress of implementing and achieving NDCs. These are two reporting elements that apply as mandatory for all parties. In addition, there is one more reporting element, but just for a subset of parties– developed countries and other parties that have provided support– these parties will be reporting on the support provided. Developing countries should report on support needed and received. There are also information to be reported on adaptation as well but it’s also should item– the difference between shall and should is from the political and legal perspective. Shall is generally seen as something mandatory and should is something that is up for interpretation– some see it as a softer mandatory element, and others don’t see it as a requirement at all, and rather as a recommendation. In short, there are four baskets of information to report: inventory, implementation of NDCs, support provided, support needed/received, and climate change impacts and adaptation. Next, we move into consideration of these reports– the technical expert review which will occur for all parties. Finally, there is the MFC process, and looking at the submission of views that have come from parties, it seems that parties are interested in a process that isn’t very different than what we have now, which is Multilateral Assessment for developed countries and FSV for developing countries. It remains to be seen what will be the final form, but that seems to be the direction we are heading.

Thank you thedger@unfccc.int Presentation title Thank you thedger@unfccc.int 5