Implementation Guide Constance Miller, GBEP Secretariat 16th meeting of TFS, Rome, 28 November 2018 Will present the cross-cutting issues of the implementation guide that we have been developing this year before the sub-group leaders present the details of the indicator guidance later today and tomorrow.

Contents Stepwise approach Flowchart Proxies and best practices Present three separate documents that will eventually form sections of the implementation guide

Practical guidance on the implementation of the GBEP Indicators Stepwise Approach Practical guidance on the implementation of the GBEP Indicators Stepwise approach addresses one of the cross-cutting issues identified, which was improving the practicality of the GSI

Background First draft presented at the 15th meeting of TFS, Nov 2017 Based on FAO experiences in Colombia, Indonesia, Paraguay and Viet Nam, and inputs from Partners and Observers who have carried out national projects Aims to: Enhance practicality of the indicators Provide practical guidance on the steps required in order to carry out a project for the implementation of the GSI We first presented a version of this document last year based on experiences in Colombia and Indonesia And this has since been updated based on the comments we received from P&Os and experiences in Paraguay and Viet Nam The aims of the stepwise approach is to enhance the practicality of the indicators by providing practical guidance on the steps required in order to carry out a project to implement the GSI

Stepwise Approach Nine working packages (WPs) Each WP includes information on: results chain; details of the activities under each WP; and actors involved. Estimated total project time = 24 months It includes 9 working packages, with information on the results chain, the activities and actors involved. The estimated time is 24 months as you can see from the Gantt Chart…

Gantt Chart

Working packages WP4 WP0 WP1 WP3 WP2 WP5 WP6 WP7 WP8 WP9 Project development WP1 Project presentation, country ownership, multi-stakeholder working group creation and identification of most relevant bioenergy pathways WP2 Selection of relevant indicators and identify data sources and gaps, selection of national institutions, and assessment of capacity and need of trainings for the measurement of the GBEP indicators WP3 Data collection strategy definition, primary and secondary data sources and requirements scoping WP5 Indicator measurement for the selected bioenergy pathways WP6 Multi-stakeholder project evaluation, results validation and possible policy implications WP7 Information sharing and dissemination, discussion on lessons learned and partnerships formation WP8 Way-forward agenda for long-term measurement and use of the GBEP indicators WP9 Project conclusion, and final reports publishing and dissemination WP4 Training activities for indicator measurement This gives an overview of the working packages. As you can see we have also added a ‘working package 0’ on the basis of discussions during the meetings last year •Training activities for long-term monitoring

Project development WP0 We have called this working package 0 “project development’

WP0 Preliminary self-assessment of the country’s readiness to apply the GSI, including: actual presence of bioenergy value chain(s) in the country; the importance of bioenergy in the country energy framework; the potential for further development; and the political willingness to develop the sector. Define modern bioenergy and assess the extent to which traditional and modern bioenergy are produced and used in the country And it represents the self-assessment of the country’s readiness to implement a project on the GSI This includes: actual presence of bioenergy value chain(s) in the country; the importance of bioenergy in the country energy framework; the potential for further development; and the political willingness to develop the sector. At this stage, the definition of modern bioenergy should be defined and its extent should be assessed (guidance on this cross-cutting issue is also in the Implementation Guide).

WP1 Project presentation, country ownership, multi-stakeholder working group creation and identification of most relevant bioenergy pathways Then we move on to the working packages with the project, starting with WP1

WP1 Project presentation, country ownership, multi-stakeholder working group (MSWG) creation Public Ministries: Agriculture/Rural development Industry/Commerce Energy Labour Trade Planning Environment/Natural Resources National Universities Private Producer Associations Chambers Research and Development Institutions Cooperatives NGOs Bioenergy Companies Multilateral International Institutions Multinational research centres The first activity is to Identify and engage the relevant experts from national institutions, academia, the private sector and civil society The table shows an example of a stakeholder map that can be used to identify relevant stakeholders and is a starting point for establishing the MSWG The MSWG should then be introduced to the project and roles and responsibilities should be established. Example of a stakeholder map for MSWG

WP1 – cont’d Role of MSWG: Identify the most relevant bioenergy pathways in the country; Evaluate the relevance of each GBEP indicator for the selected bioenergy pathway(s); Provide ongoing evaluation of project activities and preliminary results; Validate the final results of the project; and Identify possible political implications. The MSWG is of integral importance because it will be responsible for Identifying the most relevant bioenergy pathways in the country Evaluating the relevance of each GSI for the selected pathway Providing ongoing evaluation of project activities and results Validating the final results And identifying policy implications

WP1 – cont’d Identification and selection of relevant bioenergy pathways Relevance, i.e. economic value or share in energy mix Development priorities Strategic national importance, i.e. for renewable energy targets such as biofuel mandates Sustainability concerns, i.e. in terms of the impact of the pathway on the environment or on social equality and human development Bioenergy pathways for comparison, i.e. to compare bioenergy production from different feedstocks The MSWG will then identify and select the relevant bioenergy pathways on the basis of a number of criteria: Relevance, i.e. economic value or share in energy mix Development priorities Strategic national importance, i.e. for renewable energy targets such as biofuel mandates Sustainability concerns, i.e. in terms of the impact of the pathway on the environment or on social equality and human development Bioenergy pathways for comparison, i.e. to compare bioenergy production from different feedstocks

WP1 – cont’d Describing bioenergy pathways and relevant institutional context A detailed description of the bioenergy pathways, including: the main feedstocks and technologies utilised; the volume of production and use of the different types of bioenergy/biofuels considered; the scale of use (i.e. industrial, household, etc.); the steps in the value chain; the system boundaries of the value chain; and the roles of the different actors along the value chain. The baseline situation, such as fossil fuels or traditional biomass, that the modern bioenergy value chain is replacing should also be described as this will determine which indicators are relevant to be measured, and will be used for defining the baseline situation for comparison. Consideration of institutional context – the national regulatory framework in agriculture, forestry, energy, environment/climate change, etc.; and international instruments and agreements. The final activity in this WP is to describe the bioenergy pathway and relevant institutional context. It will be started by the MSWG in this WP and potentially built upon during indicator measurement. However, it is important that it is initiated at this stage to ensure consistency across the measurement of the indicators.

WP2 Selection of relevant indicators, selection of national institutions, and assessment of capacity and need of trainings for the measurement of the GBEP indicators

Choosing national experts and institutions WP2 Determine which GBEP indicators are relevant and feasible for the selected bioenergy pathways Formally engage and contract relevant national experts and researchers for the measurement campaign Identify priority areas for human and institutional capacity development Choosing national experts and institutions The selection of national institutions is of particular importance because they will receive the capacity development and know-how to monitor the indicators in the future. These institutions will become the leaders for the continuous monitoring of the indicators in the country so it is important to prioritize public institutions that have a greater time and space horizons and could act as trainers for other implementers (for knowledge transfer). The selection should therefore be as standardised and transparent as possible. Criteria for the choice of national institutions could include: Ranking by the number and impact of relevant papers published in international journals; Interviews with scientists/researchers; and Auto-evaluation of capacity to measure the GSI. For WP2, there are three main activities. To begin, the MSWG should determine which indicators are relevant for measurement given the pathways to be investigated. Then the national institutions for the measurement of the these indicators can be selected. This should be done in a standardized way, taking into consideration that these institutions are those that will become the leaders for the continuous monitoring of the indicators in the future. Then, areas where capacity development is required should be identified.

WP5: Indicator measurement for the selected bioenergy pathways WP3, WP4 and WP5 WP3: Data collection strategy definition, primary and secondary data sources and requirements scoping WP4: Training activities for indicator measurement and long term monitoring WP5: Indicator measurement for the selected bioenergy pathways WP3, 4 and 5 form an iterative process. WP3 involves identifying existing data sources and data gaps, screening of these data sources, and a definition of a strategy for data collection This, as well as being necessary for indicator measurement in WP5, it is also important for understanding the need for training. The training in WP4 runs in parallel to other activities, whilst also feeding into the indicator measurement. The measurement may also feed back into WP3, as new data sources may be discovered or new gaps may become apparent. WP3 may then need to be adapted.

WP5: Indicator measurement for the selected bioenergy pathways WP3, WP4, WP5 and WP6 WP3: Data collection strategy definition, primary and secondary data sources and requirements scoping WP4: Training activities for indicator measurement and long term monitoring WP5: Indicator measurement for the selected bioenergy pathways WP6 is the ongoing evaluation of the project, as well as the final validation of the results carried out by the MSWG WP6: Multi-stakeholder project evaluation, results validation and possible policy implications

WP7, 8 & 9 WP7: Information sharing and dissemination, discussion on lessons learned and partnerships formation WP8: Way-forward agenda for long-term measurement and use of the GBEP indicators WP9: Project conclusion, final reports publishing and dissemination WP7 is the Information sharing and dissemination, discussion on lessons learned and partnerships formation, which includes national and regional dissemination, through workshops or webinars. WP8: Way-forward agenda for long-term measurement and use of the GBEP indicators – and includes identifying objectives for the next 5-10 years and policies that might help meet these objectives WP9: Project conclusion, final reports publishing and dissemination

Flowchart Annex to the Stepwise Approach – guidance on indicator flow and data consistency At the 15th TFS, it was decided that the stepwise approach would benefit from extra guidance on the flow of indicator measurement, i.e. which indicators to tackle first when implementing a project, and on how to ensure data consistency across indicators. We called this a type of ‘flowchart’ As the GBEP Secretariat and FAO we have developed a version of this flowchart based on experiences in Indonesia, Colombia, Viet Nam and Paraguay (thanks to inputs from Marco and Tiziana) The document also shows another suggestion for this flowchart from Germany based on their experience of the measurement of the indicators. I will first present the GBEP/FAO flowchart and then will ask one of our German colleagues to briefly explain the German version.

Flowchart An indicative rational sequencing of indicator measurement based on previous experience of GSI implementation a potential way to order their measurement and signals the flow of information it does not provide an exhaustive overview of all potential linkages between the indicators User-friendly diagram that represents a starting point in countries where there is no conceptual scheme for the GSI implementation The diagram shows an indicative rational sequencing of indicator measurement based on previous experience of GSI implementation So it provides guidance on a potential way to order their measurement and signals the flow of information It should be noted that it does not provide an exhaustive overview of all potential linkages between the indicators This flowchart can represent a starting point in situations where there is no prior strong conceptual scheme for the GSI implementation

13 21 3 12 16 22 14 15 18 1 4 23 11 20 17 5 2 19 6 10 8 The flowchart flows from left to right and is split into six conceptual steps that represent the sequence of indicator measurement and are not a reflection of the importance of any one indicator over another. The indicators can be measured following the flowchart from left to right, whilst those indicators in the same ‘step’ can be measured concurrently. Arrows between indicators signal where it is preferable to measure one indicator before another, either because an output value from first indicator is then used as an input for the following indicator or because input values collected primarily for the first indicator are also used for the following indicator. It should be noted that the exact data requirements for an indicator might depend on the bioenergy pathway under analysis, and scale and depth of measurement. Not all indicators are always relevant for certain pathways or contexts. For instance, if there is no traditional use of biomass in the country at household level, some social indicators (e.g. 13, 15 and 20.2) will not be required for the sustainability assessment. In this case, the indicators not to be measured are skipped but the flow remains. 7 24 9

German contribution 5 8 2 7 3 1 4 9 10 14 13 12 16 15 11 17 24 23 19 20 21 22 18 6 Information flow enviro-economic enviro-social enviro-/socio-economic

Data consistency Where data are common between indicators, the same data source should be used to ensure consistency Particularly important when the implementation of the GSI is developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts Table on next slide shows an overview of the common data required for the implementation of the indicators Where data are common between indicators, the same data source should be used to ensure consistency Particularly important when the implementation of the GSI is developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts Table on next slide shows an overview of the common data required for the implementation of the indicators Some data in the table are calculated as an output of one indicator and then used as inputs in one or more other indicators, these are represented in red.

Data consistency Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Data Feedstock yield x Product processing yield Land area for agriculture Harvested area for bioenergy Bioenergy per hectare Bioenergy production costs Land Use Land use change % of bioenergy from yield increases, residues and wastes Fertiliser and agrochemical use Net Energy Ratios (NERs) Installed bioenergy capacity Capacity for distribution Harvest levels of wood resources for bioenergy Number of workers in bioenergy sector Number of households using traditional biomass Number of households using modern energy services to replace traditional biomass Primary Energy Supply from each energy source

Proxies and Best Practices

Proxies and Best Practices In situations where there is lack of data or capacity to fully evaluate the indicators through the agreed methodology, practical proxies for the indicators might help countries to implement the GSIs and to propose bioenergy actions that would likely prove sustainable – “no regrets” approaches

Proxies and Best Practices Some possible no-regret strategies or agreed good practices might be endorsed: better use of farm and forest residues; boosting yields of food crops; sustainable intensification of pastureland, provided it enhances biodiversity; reducing waste and losses in the food chain; and restoring degraded land pursuant to the Bonn Initiative and associated Africa Forest Restoration initiative (AFR-100).

Proxies and Best Practices The document presents some relevant studies in these areas collated by the GBEP Secretariat in collaboration with IRENA It will be used as a basis for a section for the Implementation Guide

Next steps Inputs are invited by Partners and Observers on the Stepwise approach, flowchart and proxies and best practices These three components will all form sections of the Implementation Guide, once finalised

Thank you!