UNFCCC secretariat Ruta Bubniene, Programme officer, Reporting and Review unit, Mitigation and Data Analysis programme Overview of the synthesis report on submissions from Parties on the views on the common tabular format SBSTA Workshop on common reporting format for the “UNFCCC biennial reporting guidelines for developed country Parties” Bonn, Germany, October, 2012

Background  Mandate: SBSTA 36 −Invited Parties to submit, their views by 13 August on the common tabular format ; −Requested secretariat: −to compile the submissions from Parties into a miscellaneous document (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/MISC.11, Add.1, Add.2) −to prepare a synthesis report of Parties submissions (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/INF.4); −to organize a workshop in October 2012 (11-12 October, Bonn).

Background  Views were provided by 7 Parties

 Matters addressed in Parties submissions −Information on GHG emissions and trends; −Quantified economy-wide emission reduction target; −Progress in achieving the quantified economy-wide emission reduction target; −Projections of GHG; −Provision of financial, technological and capacity-building support to developing country Parties. Background

 Focus of the synthesis report −Broad principles for the development of a CTF; −Specific Parties proposals under separate paragraphs of the reporting guidelines −Summary of Parties’ views by: −highlighting the common trends −noting areas where these views differ −identifying possible options for a CTF. The options for CTF share many common elements and could be easily combined. Approach

 Principles for development of a common tabular format as emphasized in Parties’ submission −Consistency with the biennial reporting guidelines; −Consistency, where appropriate, with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines on national communications; −The use the information already reported in the annual GHG inventories and national communications; −Enhanced transparency compared with the current reporting requirements; −Clarity and simplicity in the structure of the reporting the CTF information Approach

 Common views on: −The use of GHG inventories as a basis; −Coverage of gasses and sectors;  Different views on: −Timeframe for summary of GHG emissions. GHG emissions and trends

Option A the latest reported year by sub-sector CRF table Summary 2 Option B the entire time series 1990 – 20XX-3 by sub-sector CRF table 10.s.5 Option C entire time series 1990 – 20XX-3 by subsector by gas separately CRF table 10 BR GLS para 2, SP table 1 Common elements

 Common views on inclusion of information on: −Base year; −Gases covered; −Sectors covered; −Accounting approach to emissions/removals from LULUCF; −The use of international market-based mechanisms.  Different views on: −The inclusion of GWP; −The level of detail; −A few specific elements to be included. Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets

Option A GWP values Option B Detail description (Formula to calculate the target; Interim targets) Option C Specific elements to be included (Domestic legal status of the target, the total assigned amount of emission units for the commitment period) BR GLS para 5, SR table 2 Common elements

 Common views on: −Using the UNFCCC national communication reporting guidelines (table 1. Summary of policies and measures by sector): −Name of policy and measure; −Objective and / or activity affected; −GHG effected; −Type of instrument; −Status of policy and measure; −Implementing entity or entities; −Estimate of mitigation impact by gas.  Different views on: −Flexibility for the timeline to report the impacts of policies and measures; −Level of disaggregation of mitigation actions; −Estimate of progress in implementation. Progress: mitigation actions

Option A Parties to identify the appropriate year to report impacts of PaMs Option B 2020&2030 Option C 2010, 20XX-3, 2015, 2020 Disaggregation of energy sector by sub-sectors Progress in implementation (CO 2 kt eq/indicator) BR GLS para 6, SR table 3 Common elements

 Common views: Emissions reductions for the base year: −total GHG emissions, excluding emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector; −emissions and/or removals from the LULUCF sector based on the accounting approach applied taking into consideration any relevant decisions of the COP and the activities and/or lands that will be accounted for; −total GHG emissions, including emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector. Emissions reductions for each reported year: information on the use of units from market-based mechanisms.  Different views on: −The level of detail on the units from market-based mechanisms; −The level of detail on the reporting of the GHG emissions/removals from LULUCF sector; −The years to be reported. Progress: emission reductions

Option A … Total transfer and acquisitions of units from market based mechanisms 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012 Option B Optional disaggregation by LULUCF sub- categories Optional disaggregation of total transfers and acquisitions of the units from market based mechanisms by type The base year and on an annual basis, starting from 2010 Option C Disaggregation by LULUCF sub- categories and by gas Disaggregation by types of units from market-based mechanisms Two last reporting years BR GLS para 9 & 10, SR table 4 Common elements

 Common views on reporting: −Similarly to table 2 of the National communication guidelines: −Variables (i.e. GDP growth, world oil prices); −Historic and projected in 5 year intervals.  Single option based on National communication guidelines with updated timeline for historic (1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2010, 2011) and projected emissions (2015, 2020, 2025, 2030).  Some Parties highlighted possibility to select variables relevant to the modelling tools used. Projections: variables and assumptions BR GLS para 11, SR table 5

 Common views on reporting: −“With measures” scenario; −The latest reported year; −Projected years: 2020, 2030; −Disaggregation by sector (pre-defined/not pre-defined).  Different views on: −the number of the scenarios to be reported on a mandatory basis (only “with measures” or also “without measures” and “with additional measures”); −the time frame for GHG projections; −whether disaggregation by gas should be reported. Projections: scenarios

Option A “With measures scenario” only in 5 years period Sectors not predefined Option B 3 scenarios Base year Sector defined Option C 3 scenarios in 5 years period Disaggregation by pre-defined sectors and by gas BR GLS para 11, SR table 6 Common elements

 Common views on: Currency: USD/international currency; Reported years: the two previous calendar or financial years without overlap with the previous reporting period; Status of financial contributions and/or accounting for the financial information provided: provided, committed or pledged; Institutions/channels: a)The financial mechanism of the Convention and funds under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol: b)Other multilateral climate change funds; c)Multilateral financial institutions, including regional development banks, d)Specialized United Nations bodies, e)Contributions through bilateral, regional and other channels; f)Total. Provision of support: finance

 Different views on: −Whether to include a description of “new and additional” financial resources −Whether to report a summary of bilateral financial support in a table for the multilateral support −How to disaggregate the support (to adaptation and mitigation, or to adaptation, mitigation and other support) Provision of support: finance

Provision of financial support: multilateral Option A Multilateral channels Status of financial contribution (committed/pledge d/provided) Option B … Multilateral channels and total of support through bilateral Option to split into two tables: (1) Funds; (2) Institutions/ Organizations/ UN bodies Currency: domestic /USD Option C … Multilateral channels General vs climate change specific support Currency: original /USD BR GLS para 17, 18, SR table 7 Common elements

Provision of financial support: bilateral Option A Sectors pre-defined Mitigation/adaptation/mitigation and adaptation Option B Sectors not pre-defined Mitigation/adaptation Description of “new and additional” resources BR GLS para 17, 18, SR table 8 Common elements

 Common views on reporting of: −Recipient country/region; −Targeted area (mitigation/adaptation); −Sector; −Contribution in USD/international currency; −The source of funding (private/public).  Different views on: −The level of detail of the description to be provided: −the status (implemented, adopted or planned); −summary of actions and the co-financing arrangements. Provision of technology development and transfer support

Option A Option B Total programme/project contribution in USD/ international currency Status (implemented/ adopted/ planned) Short description of the action, co-financing arrangements, etc.) BR GLS para 22, SR table 9 Provision of technology development and transfer support Common elements

 Common views on the need to report description of capacity building support.  Different views on: −The level of detail of the description to be provided: −the target area (mitigation, adaptation and technology development and transfer) −the programme’s status (implemented, adopted or planned) −total programme/project contribution USD/international currency, −a description of the action, the co-financing arrangements, connections to technology development and transfer, etc. Provision of capacity building support

Option A Description not specified Option B The targeted area (mitigation, adaptation and tech dev&transfer) Status of programme (implemented, adopted or planned Option C Recipient country; Targeted area (mitigation, adaptation, tech dev&transfer) Total contribution in USD Private/public sources Add info on co- financing arrangements, tech dev&transfer BR GLS para 23, SR table 10 Common elements

THANK YOU VERY MUCH HAVE A PRODUCTIVE WORKSHOP