A REPORT FOR THE REGIONAL WORKSHOP HELD IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA FROM 28 TH TO 30 TH MAY 2018.

Transcription

1 A REPORT FOR THE REGIONAL WORKSHOP HELD IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA FROM 28 TH TO 30 TH MAY Workshop title: East and Southern Africa Regional Network on MRV, BUR and NC MAY 2018

2 1.0 Overview: The three days workshop was informed by a survey conducted in March 2018 as well as lessons learnt and gaps identified during the National Communications (NCs) and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) processes. The survey and the reporting processes were instrumental in understanding the underlying challenges that contribute, not only to delays in report submission, but also limited transparency of submitted reports. The workshop was co-hosted by UN Environment and UNFCCC secretariat and jointly funded by UNEP/UNDP Global Support Programme (GSP) and the UN Environment Enabling Activities project. 1.1 Participation: Two representatives (a Project coordinator and a finance person working on NC/BUR) from twenty (20) countries of the East and Southern Africa regions, namely Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, South Sudan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Seychelles, Madagascar, Mauritius and the Democratic Republic of Congo were invited to participate in the workshop. A total of 47 participants were present. The selection of project coordinators and finance persons for the workshop was due to their active involvement in the NC and BUR reporting processes. 1.2 Objectives: The main objectives of the workshop were: - Training and discussion on the NC and BUR project processes; - Training and discussion on key elements of practical MRV; - Discussion and consensus building on regional MRV networks (Southern and East Africa) and - Enhancing South-South collaboration. To achieve these objectives, the workshop adopted a delivery approach based on presentations; questions and answers sessions; case studies; breakout group discussions as well as group feedback presentations and panel discussions. 1.3 Expectations: Participants were given an opportunity to share one of their expectations for each of the four workshop objectives. As reasonable or expected, because of different circumstances in each of the represented countries, there were various expectations, perhaps based on the various challenges faced by different countries in meeting their national climate change reporting requirement in a timely, transparent and sustainable manner. A summary of the expectations highlighted based on each of the four workshop objectives is as follows: I. Training and discussion on the NC and BUR project processes: - To learn more on the management of NCs and BURs as well as develop abroad knowledge on NCs and BURs - To share experiences and learn better approaches in preparing NCs and BURs and experience from others on project financial management - To enhance/gain a clear understanding of the key requirements of the NC/BUR and NC/BUR cycle Page 1 of 13

3 - To improve on planning to allow timely submission of NC and BUR - To learn how to institutionalize NC and BUR processes - To learn more on PIF approval process, best practices and lessons learnt after report submission to GEF/UNEP II. Training and discussion on key elements of practical MRV: - To understand why MRV? To understand MRV and learn more about MRV process - To understand MRV elements to better inform development of domestic MRV system and to reinforce existing abilities in MRV system - To get sufficient information for preparation of a report on Measurement and control of project - To have an efficient MRV process that will meet reporting requirement - To lay down continuous MRV training and build a network on MRV - Know the difference between NC and MRV III. Discussion and consensus building on regional MRV networks (Southern and East Africa) - To exchange country experiences and best practices - To understand how linkages will improve country MRV and a clear roadmap for the regional MRV network and necessary support for best benefits - To understand the role of the network and how it will be coordinated to ensure they serve different countries fairly and effectively - To get more information on MRV network and improved MRV networking - Consensus on regional MRV to be built - To understand how the network will benefit implementation of NC - To form a functional network with a platform for exchange, peer review, mentoring and physical meetings at least twice a year IV. Enhancing South-South collaboration. - To a get a better understanding of existing capacity plus gaps where southsouth collaboration will be useful - To develop concrete south-south collaboration working arrangement mode - Enhancing south-south collaboration- more meetings - To know more about south-south collaboration - To develop a close linkage in climate change trends - How to take advantage of south-south collaboration - Develop and outline key resources (Technical) available under south-south collaboration - See which countries are doing what and how for south-south collaboration It was expected that these expectations will be reflected in the evaluation forms administered at the end of the workshop. The administered evaluation forms were analyzed and an evaluation report prepared. Page 2 of 13

4 2.0 Background information on workshop Agenda For effective delivery of the agenda, the workshop structure was well thought out. Module A and B of the agenda focused on Enabling Activities (EA) and it took 1 ½ days. The next 1 ½ days focused on Module C and D: Essentials of a national MRV and Transparency Framework as well as Module E: Regional MRV Networks Discussions. This structure ensured that there were no overlaps and the participants could easily link subsequent presentations to previous presentations. 2.1 Enabling Activities (EA) The presentations and discussions on EA covered objective one on training and discussion on the NC and BUR project processes as well as its associated workshop expectations. The areas of discussions were: the status of reporting and capacity assessment; UN Environment and UNDP climate change enabling activities; project internalization and legal agreements; project planning technical processes and budgeting; project implementation and monitoring technical and financial processes; project financial closure procedures; managing the gap between two reporting cycles and experience sharing/success stories on NC and BUR processes. A summary of the deliberations and recommendation/actions on EA discussions include: Information gathered through national reporting processes can be a potential tool in informing country planning policy processes, for instance, information on risk and vulnerability can help in disaster management. The information can also help in improving access to support, capacity building, political buy in and increased awareness through stakeholder consultations. There exists a similar trend in NC reporting across all the regions (Africa, Asia pacific and LAC). Notably, once the first report is submitted going forward is usually possible. For example, the average gap between submission of NC1 and NC2 is 10 years; this gap reduces in NC2-NC3 to 5 years. Moving forward every party will be expected to submit BUR every 2 years and NC every 4 years. The reporting on 4 years and 2 years for NC and BUR respectively is a decision made by Cop, flexibility in this reporting timelines depends on how it is interpreted. However, there is no punitive measure if a country is not able to maintain the year. Parties should address the capacity needs and gaps for their technical experts through their projects, GSP and own budgets. During project implementation countries can use budget lines which can be complemented by GSP to: - Train project management team - Organize in country training workshops - Consultants budget lines or technical assistant (Support engagement of national, regional and international consultants) Countries to provide accurate data during the annual status survey Country project teams to seek help when they experience challenges on project issues. This can be through organizing calls and s always to get clarification on any administrative issue. Country teams need to get more time to read through the contracts (PCAs and MOUs). The PCA is such an important document that involves two entities i.e. the Page 3 of 13

5 country and the UN Environment. There is need for a clear understanding of the various PCA clauses. In case of secondment of a government employee to the project, clear terms of him/her to operate in the project should be in place. Countries need to quantify the co-finance amount and this should be reported within one month after 31 st December. A procurement plan should be presented during inception workshop (Procurement of equipment or consultant) The use of a consultant should be based on the need of a country It is not possible to advance all funds at once to a country since additional funding/cash advances is based on the reports received. Cost variation not exceeding 10% is allowed within component. Countries need to consult UN Environment before exceeding this limit. Countries have two options on how to handle the unspent balance, either to return to UN Environment or consult for any pending activities to use the money. Project reporting requirements: - Technical reports can be reported in any language while financial reports should be in English. All reports, progress and expenditure should be reported. - The reports should be signed by responsible person of the project - Non-expendable equipment report should be on annual basis Criteria for identifying the non-expendable items: - The item must be above USD The item must have a life span of more than 1 year - The item should be covered in the asset register Audit report is required annually. This should be done by an independent government auditor (external). Country teams can also procure an independent recognized firm through the authority from the respective ministry. At the time of final audit, there should be no any other outstanding payments except the audit fee, that is, all payments to the consultant should have been made by the time of final audit. Recommended options of payment of auditors: - Paying through other resources - The auditor to state in his report a payable related to his/her cost The whole process of project planning need to be more consultative, the private sectors should be consulted as well. Some aspects country project teams should consider during project planning: - Provide timelines per quarter in their work plan - Ensure consistency and a clear sequence of activities that should be pulled to the work plan and budget. The activities and the budget in UN Environment format usually guide the technical and finance teams respectively hence the need for clarity in their presentations. Page 4 of 13

6 - Consider budget ceilings where there is flexibility or fixed i.e. project management and monitoring have fixed budget lines that should not be exceeded. The figure is set by the GEF. Any consultants payment for the personnel/technical work such as engaging institution will go to subcontract budget line series. Every project individual e.g. Project assistant and finance assistant should be placed in separate budge lines. The GHG inventory report should not be more than 4 years prior to submission, a requirement under BUR submission. Country teams should work towards enhancing their existing institutional framework. Agreements should be in place. The project coordinator and accountant have the responsibility of accounting for the performance of project activities. The EA midterm review is not mandatory, can only be initiated in isolated situations Countries seeking to extend their projects should provide a request letter alongside a revised budget and work plan. The project cannot be closed without the procedures of handling the remaining funds if any, this is based on expenditure reports and statements Under the umbrella projects, final evaluation is done through sampling. Countries are sampled in regions and a rigorous evaluation is then done. Many countries must have completed their projects Terminal evaluation is undertaken by UN Environment In managing the gaps between two reporting cycles project teams should note that: - The experience in first reporting period is very important. The project team should analyze their previous reporting experience, this can help to draw lessons in readiness for subsequent reporting cycle. - End of project evaluation enhances communication with the project team or ministry and can also be used to draw lessons learnt in preparation for subsequent reporting - Introduction of the 3 rd component in NC/BUR will ensure seamless transition to the next project by: Facilitating continuous engagement with the existing stakeholders The 3 rd component allows for early planning for subsequent report It will also enable the team to come up with a preliminary list of stakeholders to engage in the next report/project It will also enable the country to sustain the institution - It is also important to look at the ongoing business and administrative practices as well as the aspect of planning. For example, the special funding window for CBIT is running and around 20 countries have submitted proposals. Page 5 of 13

7 Some of the success stories or country experiences in NC/BUR reporting processes include; - Legal team (Attorney general) should be involved in the project activities because they are critical in facilitating the signing of project agreements - Companies need to be encouraged to keep data in the format that is accessible to project team - Countries should consider GHG inventory planning for every year- This will ensure availability of GHG inventory every year - Ministry in charge of climate change keeps moving from one ministry to another. To address this, there is need to be specific on the institution/entity that will handle climate change reporting and state that the institution in charge of climate change reporting, so that when the ministry moves, this function can also move to the specific/respective ministry - The reporting templates provided by UN Environment have been useful in terms of reporting - The continuous interactions can help improve the reporting - Inception workshops have ensured UN Environment familiarize the project teams with the reporting templates - The NC/BUR have been important in informing policy for example the national climate change response policy in South Africa. - The Intergovernmental committee on climate change has also improved reporting in South Africa - By publishing the NC/BUR reports, country teams have been able to get comments that help check on actions. 2.2 Essentials of a national MRV and Transparency framework Presentations and discussions on MRV focused on key elements of practical MRV arrangements, identifying barriers that exist and advantages that can be achieved as well as discussions and consensus building on regional MRV networks, including possible structure, areas of regional collaboration and regional network coordination framework among others. A summary of the deliberations and recommendations/actions on MRV discussions include: The enhanced transparency framework will not be different from the current practice, it will be more on what needs to be reported under the Paris agreement. GSP implemented jointly by UN environment and UNDP support technical skills of country project teams on reporting. This support is not extended to equipping the projects with materials; it is specific to technical skills support to help countries in dealing with technical issues. The support (GSP) can be in GHG inventory, mitigation such as integration with NAMAs and costing of mitigation. GSP also support development of institutional arrangements for climate change activities as well as enhancing knowledge management, best practices, communication and outreach Page 6 of 13

8 GSP technical support is provided to all countries that approach the GSP team. Countries can get in touch with GSP team through s. Country teams get to know about GSP through side events, GSP is always mentioned in cop meetings by UNFCCC and through workshops (several workshops have been done, last year GSP team invited all countries in the region for a workshop) Support to developing countries on future reporting obligations under the PA is one of the considered areas of GSP future support as well as enhancing capacity and skills for countries to be able to mainstream climate change into development plans. Planning and coordination is key to successful participation in the international consultation and analysis (ICA) process. Annex I of technical analysis summary reports (TASRs) provides specific details of the technical Analysis of the team of technical experts (TTE). It is important to check if Party agrees with TTE and provide clarifications/further information if necessary. Technical Analysis process under BUR provides opportunities: - To analyse where the country is in terms of their climate change policy and actions - To interact with technical experts within a neutral setting to clarify or provide more information for the TASR - For learning and continual improvement of the national BUR preparation process (e.g. fine tune planning and coordination process and improve stakeholder interaction). Best practices in institutional arrangements include; - Establishing national legal/formal arrangements as appropriate, this can help enhance the coordination and supervisory role - Choosing and maintaining appropriate coordinating body, this can help avoid the loss of experience, skills, institutional memory and information given the enhanced frequency of reporting. - Stakeholder involvement, which provides access to information and raises awareness of reporting activities - In-country institutional and technical capacity-building which can help in enhancing the country ownership of the process of the preparation of NCs and BURs. IPCC 2006 guidelines was developed from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines, GPG2000, GPG-LULUCF and input from GHG inventory experts Under the IPCC 2006 the two previous approaches for KCA (KCA without LULUCF and KCA with LULUCF) are now integrated into one general approach Usually the NFC prepares TORs for consultant on GHG inventories. In some cases, consultants are asked to prepare their own TORs and in most cases, they do not give impressions that they were developed in accordance with the guidelines requirements. This pose a challenge in GHG inventories preparation. Planning is underway to prepare guidelines for TORs. Despite significant effort and resources on capacity building provided by UNFCCC, CGE, IPCC-TSU, GSP, FAO and others on use of 2006 IPCC guidelines, a number of countries are still using or plan to use 1996 IPCC Guidelines which could have Page 7 of 13

9 implications in terms of technical support for such countries, including issues of REDD. To avoid this all countries, need to start using the 2006 IPCC guidelines Non-Annex I Parties wishing to report on aggregated GHG emissions and removals expressed in CO2 equivalents should use the global warming potentials (GWP) provided by the IPCC in its Second Assessment Report ( 1995 IPCC GWP Values ) based on the effects of GHGs over a 100-year time horizon. Countries have still been unable to realize the need to harmonize their reporting between GHG inventories, NC and BUR. For example, while BUR has clear requirements on vintage of at most 4 years, a significant number of countries are not updating their GHG inventories to commensurate with these requirements, showing a disconnect between various reports prepared by the parties. There is need to sensitize UN Environment and UNDP Enabling Activities programs on this requirement. Countries should consider the following when nominating participants for trainings among others; - The person nominated should be dealing with the mentioned activity and should be able to help the country to undertake the mentioned activity - Look at how roles are distributed in the project, that is, how will the nominated person transfer the skills when they come back from the training - Identify the nominee based on the challenges and needs of the project - In cases where there two people such as project coordinators for BUR and NC, the workshop organizing team will fund one project coordinator and the country to fund the other using their funds. The training organizing team will always stipulate the qualifications for the relevant trainings to help countries in nominating participants to attend the trainings. Communication on online training to countries will be done in due course through . Some of the highlighted success stories from countries on MRV set up include: - Political buy in has supported MRV set up in Namibia - How to engage consultants in the project is very important - NC is coordinated from the climate change unit in Namibia and this has ensured smooth flow of the project activities - Establishment of working groups for GHG inventory for each sector, has been a success practice in Namibia - MRV set up coordination mechanism is being led by the ministry of Environment and forestry in South Sudan. Consultations already done by nine ministries - Importance of data- it is very difficult to access very old data, this being a case example of Tanzania - Countries should rely more on national experts Regional MRV Networks objectives include: - To facilitate exchange of knowledge on general MRV issues Page 8 of 13

10 - To create a platform for support by GSP and other partners for capacity development activities - Creating awareness within national institutions responsible for MRV - To facilitate peer review of NC, BURs and their components - Generally meant for South-South collaboration There is need to establish Terms of Reference for the Network. The basic contents of the TOR to include mission and goals; network participants; collaboration principles; network activities; network outcomes; governance and communication and network funding Network collaboration will be generally on MRV and institutional arrangement issues GSP team to provide a TOR draft document on establishing a regional MRV network. A copy for the East Africa and Southern Africa Network. A soft copy to be send to participants. Key highlights about West Africa Regional MRV network and lessons learnt: Its goals include, - To facilitate knowledge exchange and sharing in the Energy and AFOLU sectors; - To support capacity development activities and - To create awareness within national institutions responsible for data collection, inventory compiling and inventory archiving. The West Africa Regional MRV network held its first meeting in October 2016 and so far, 14 countries in the ECOWAS region have joined the network Some of its first achievements are the official engagement of 2 national focal points per countries member; regular newsletter; strengthening capacity building and knowledge sharing best practices workshops on MRV and transparency. Challenges of the network include: - The need to set up the necessary institutional arrangements - Lack of technical capacities - There is need to raise Awareness within the institutions responsible for the data collection / archiving Solutions to these challenges include; - To identify 2 focal points per engaged country - Sharing data (e.g. emission factors); - Reinforcing technical capacities; - Technical, logistical backstopping and financial support. The success of MRV in Senegal as a case study in West Africa region has been informed by: - Political endorsement, it has received the Council s approval from the ministry; - Strong leadership, coordination and support from the Ministry in charge of Environment (MEDD, DEEC/DCC) and the National Comity of Climate Change (COMNACC); - Broad based support / inclusive and participative- 4 levels of stakeholders consultation. Page 9 of 13

11 For an effective MRV system, parties can consider the following key success factors learnt from the West Africa region; - Political leadership is important for the success of MRV system; - Alignment between NDCs and National Development Plan; - Progressive Sectoral Approach; - Ownership & Accountability; - Principles and Guidelines; - Simplification and integration of processes; - Performance indicators and continuous improvements; - Fund Management; - Do not lose the GHG Emissions Reductions. MRV essentially involves actions undertaken and their impacts. The impacts come in terms of emissions. It is important to look at the information and see whether it adheres to a pipeline/system in place. On value preposition, the outcomes of the deliberations were; Areas of collaboration; - Regional Standard Baseline - Implementation of Adaptation (Policy of Action, plans and Strategies) - Development of Emission factors - Areas of development in Marine Sector - Technical information sharing and support Next Steps; - Feedback by 1 st week of July - GSP/RCC to send for nomination of focal points. Formal letter will be required requesting for nomination of technical expert - Letter of communication to GSP/RCC with 2 Focal Point nominees Expected Regional Network Impacts/Outcomes; - Comparability of emissions and potential reduction - Reporting of emissions (NDC, reporting and Impacts) - MRV database - Share information from the MRV Network with EA Alliance of carbon market and climate finance - Resource mobilization - Support to low carbon economy and green growth - Sharing information on carbon reduction strategies (NAMA etc) - Technical capacity improvement - Exchange of data within the network - Exchange of technical experts within the region - Information through the network will be provided for low carbon strategies in the country - Alignment of the MRV with other obligations in the country (National, Regional, International) - International climate change programme integration with national programmes Page 10 of 13

12 On the regional network framework by southern African region team, the outcomes of the discussions were; The need/added value of MRV Network; - Being united to do something good - There are currently different methodologies in countries- There is need to find common methodologies - Value to share experiences and to do reviews on common challenges in the region - The network will enhance the capacity of those countries with less capacity - Countries can learn from each other considering that there exist different levels of MRV in the region Common challenges; - Progressing from 1996 to 2006 IPCCC guidelines, some countries are still using the 1996 IPCCC guidelines. Opportunities/Areas of collaboration; - Standardized baseline - Sustainable institutional arrangements - Opportunity to use regional/institutions such as center for climate services and national institutions and universities - UNEP/UNDP can help in strengthening regional negotiation position - Sensitize National Focal Points on network yearly, gather the NFPs together to justify their need or for them to feel engaged Framework; - To borrow from the West Africa MRV network and to improve it with time - Mobilize regional institutions that could be part of it FPs, Technical/regional institutions: South-South-North SAPP SAWRE SACREEE RCC Kampala UNDP UNEP UN office south-south collaboration COMESA (has a regional MRV project) Conservational international GIZ PATPA NDC partnership (Kampala) Expectations; - To share experiences - Mechanisms for peer review activities Page 11 of 13

13 - Enhance institutional arrangements - Learn (GHG inventory data archiving) - Standardized baselines - Strengthened capacity building aspects on GHG inventory methodologies - Strengthen capacity to comply with convention/ Paris agreement - Support on operationalization of Monitoring and Evaluation System - Political masters (awareness)- messaging access/ mobilize climate finance to support mitigation/adaptation - Strengthen regional cooperation on MRV Lessons learnt from the workshop - On presentations, there is need to increase time- a proposal of 30 minutes, to allocate more time for interactive sessions. The questions time should as well be increased (proposal) - Follow ups to ensure we know when the money will be delivered to the venue for payments of DSAs to avoid inconveniences. - Depending on circumstance, it will be good to release the person handling workshop logistics in good time - The organizing team will need to ask UNDP to visit and confirm the venue, ask room measurements to determine if the venue has adequate space and facilities. - We need to be informed early on opportunities for training so that we can relay to our partners in time. 3.0 Conclusion: The workshop on East and Southern Africa Regional Network on MRV, BUR and NC revealed the numerous ways in which country teams (project coordinators and finance assistants) can improve on national climate change reporting processes as well as possible areas of regional collaboration and regional network coordination framework. The break out groups were very useful, they provided opportunities to learn from each other. It was also observed that MRV can facilitate implementation and has a lot of potential. These contributions have been highlighted in different sections above. Generally, there was a high degree of interest to implement and address climate change and teams are looking forward for the two-regional network to be operational in a couple of months. Page 12 of 13