PNG s FOCUSED SUBMISSION ON MPGs FOR THE TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND SUPPORT REFFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT

Transcription

1 APA/UNFCCC SUBMISSION PNG s FOCUSED SUBMISSION ON MPGs FOR THE TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND SUPPORT REFFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT 1. The Government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) welcomes the opportunity to submit it s views, inter alia, the possible headings and subheadings including those raised by Parties as referred to in document FCCC/SBSTA/2017/L.2 para. 13(a) Main Principles 2. Flexibility- One of the main features of this Framework will be built-in flexibility. This flexibility will take into account different parties capacities and will be built upon collective experience. Flexibility and collective experience are key to the future of this Transparency Framework, which should not be rigid in it s considerations and requirements, and should not be built using a top-down approach, rather utelize the key experiences of parties to influence it s structure moving forward 3. Experience-Building on collective experience, according to PNG s view may also mean that Parties should be able to use their collective experience from the implementation of the Transparency Framework under the Convention, to influence what should be captured in the framework for action and support. In addition, should the current transparency arrangements under the Convention, provides no space or room for such experience to be reflected in a nonpunitive, and non-intrusive manner, it should be as broad and transparent as possible 3. PNG is also of the view that the Transparency Framework for Action and Support must have two main components; the Reporting Guiding Vision: A robust and sustainable economy for PNG through a low carbon pathway and green economic growth

2 component and the Review component. The reporting component, fully lies within the domestic mandate of parties when it comes to implementation and does not include international interference in it s judgement on how it reflects a party s progress on its domestic actions to address climate change; 4. Further, we decided to separate our views on what we believe could be some future considerations on how to build the Transparency Framework under Article 13 by separating the Reporting and Review components into two parts in this submission and discussing them separately, meanwhile reflecting on PNG s experiences with it s National Communication and BUR processes, in country, and how we envisage the transition into either a new or a modified transparency framework that is relevant to the Paris Agreement. 4. The reporting component of the Transparency Framework must always include; reporting on Action and Support Figure One : Reporting Component for Action and Support (Domestic Process) Transparency Framework (Reporting Component) National GHG Inventory (May include all relevant gases and sources according to a Party's NDCs and Mitigation Priorities Action REPORTS Required under Article National Communications 2. Biennial Update Reports 3. New Reporting Tool (An hybrid of all of the above) and has strong linkage to country driven NDCs Support -Capacity Building -Technology Transfer -Finance Information on Support Provided & Support Recieved Source: CCDA, Papua New Guinea, 2017

3 5. PNG decided to use the example of what would have transpired in how we transit into this new Transparency Framework in the way we report our information. Under the report requirements, there are two areas which PNG believes the reporting could cover, and these are Actions and Support. Under Actions, the report should be able to demonstrate or progressively tell how much a country party like PNG has done in terms of implementing it s sectoral mitigation commitments under it s NDC and also link up to the GHG Inventory to capture the information it has on sectoral emissions. In terms of reporting on Support, the information should capture the type of support received so far by country parties for this case, PNG on what type of support it has received for it s NDC implementation. For developed country parties, it may contain information on the type of support they have provided to developing country parties for NDC implementation Direct link to NDC Implementation : Mitigation Commitments 6. The reporting component of the Transparency Framework for Action and Support must be directly linked to the NDC reports which contains actions to be implemented by parties; in mitigation, and support; and should link the information in the following manner; a) National GHG Inventories For the National GHG Inventories, it must embrace the diversity of mitigation actions reflected by parties in their NDCs, so that the sectors, gases, and sources must be a reflection of that broad diversity; including the baseline that will be used b) National GHG Inventory for REDD+ - Methodological work on REDD+, that also combines with Landsat and Remote Sensing is being comprehensively built in many countries, as such the calculations, will need their own national inventory, and this could be linked under this reporting requirements as well

4 c) A new or modified Reporting tool that will serve both the Convention and Paris Agreement - Adopt some best practices in the guidelines used by National Communications, Biennial Reports (BRs), and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) to inform this new reporting tool, should parties agree to it 3.1 : Reporting on Support (Tabular Format) The information reported on support should be reflected in this new or modified reporting tool, and it should be consistent with the type of information reported in NDCs as well on support, so there is consistency and coherence in the information reported 7. PNG is of the view that for all National GHG Inventories, parties must have the inbuilt flexibilities to report on all sources, gases and pools and those from mitigation co-benefit actions as well. For parties, who have been implementing REDD+, due to the complexities of the technology required for REDD+ and it s inventory issues; a party depending on it s capacity can choose to build a separate national GHG inventory for REDD+ alone 9. For those wishing to undertake mitigation in the other specific LULUCF sectors, other than REDD+, may choose to include that in the GHG inventory. 10. The National GHG Inventory/ies must be as broad as possible so it fully reflects the principles of Article 13.1 in providing flexibility for all parties to report on their relevant and appropriate mitigation actions prescribed in their NDCs. Reporting on Support prescribed in NDCs (Tabular Format) 11. In this component, PNG is of the view that this should take into consideration a progressive report of how much parties have received in terms of technology transfer, finance and capacity building support, in quantified value. For example if Party X has reported an amount of USD 100 million allocated by it s government to support climate change; in it s NDCs under Article 4, it may not be necessary to prescribe where this USD 100 million has gone to. Under

5 reporting on support, under Article 13; Party X can make reference to it s report on finance in it s NDC, and further elaborate where the USD 100 million has gone to, or has been disbursed to, example; USD 50 million to GCF, USD 20 million to AF, USD 30 million to others? 12. Party Y on the receiving end, in quantified information can report by referencing similar content to it s NDC, and outline how much it has been receiving in quantified support for technology transfer, capacity building and finance for climate change. Party Y must be specific on where it s climate financial flows are coming from; again whether they are from GCF, AF or other sources 13. Again, going back to PNG s Mitigation submission; we did outline the need to quantify information on support needed for technology transfer, capacity building, and general climate change finance; but we were not at the liberty to prescribe what was required of those from developed country parties New Reporting Tool : NDC Implementation Stock-Take Reports 14. PNG is of the view that the new reporting tool to be developed under the Transparency Framework, could branch out into two new reporting tools and should have strong complementary links to the NDC reports. This is to maintain transparency and clarity of information provided, which can be easily comparable to the NDC submissions, and or updated submissions 15. The second aspect of this supposed to be new reporting tool is it s relationship with the global stock take process under Article 14 of the Paris Agreement. In order to maintain consistency with Article 13.4 whereby National Communications, BRs and BURs experiences will assist inform the development of a Transparency Framework starting with the reports, PNG believes that it would be valuable to consider a short term and a long-term

6 reporting tool; and the naming of the report should have relevance to the NDC and the Global Stocktake Figure 2 : Illustration of the two complementary Reports REPORT 1 : NDCs (APA 3) Report One : Nationally Determined Contributions NDC Implementation at the domestic front REPORT 2 : Transparency Framework (APA 5) Report Two : NDC Stock Take Reports a) Long Term Reports (Replace NCs) b) Short Term Reports (Replace BURs-midterm) Source: CCDA, 2017, Papua New Guinea NDC Implementation Stock-Take Reports (Long Term) : Every Five Years 16. PNG is of the view that this Reporting tool, should complement Article 4.9 on the communication of updated NDCs. In addition, this long-term report is the one at least for PNG s case may includes the following non-exhaustive list; 1 so it could be consistent with our NDC aspirations should it sets itself to replace the National Communications, communicated every four years; and below we include an example of how PNG may wish to report in consistent with our NDCs a) Mitigation Section 2 All sectors, Gases (up to parties) Unaccounted Sectors and Gases Sectors used in ITMOs b) Support Received / Support Provided (Tabular Format) 3 c) Annex One of the Report : Summary of Adaptation Implementation Progress 1 PNG wishes to be consistently aligned with our Mitigation submission under the agenda Item 3 2 This section should emulate the type of information provided in BRs and BURs with the flexibility allowed to parties to report according to the information provided in their NDCs on mitigation, and also the information they have in their National GHG Inventories/Inventories but could be packaged in the above manner 3 And this we expect it would be of this nature, given in our Mitigation submission, we stressed the need to quantify the information provided in NDCs

7 (Replacing V&A of National Communications) d) Annex Two of the Report : Voluntary Quantified Information on domestic mitigation measures to address emissions from international bunker-fuels NDC Implementation Stock-Take Reports (Mid-Term Reports): Same reporting period as BRs and BURs 17. For the short mid-term reports, PNG is of the view that we use the same guidance currently being adopted for the BRs and BURs, but the information provided should consistently reflect a party s capacity to flexibility report on what they have committed under their NDCs and may replace the BURs we currently are required to use. The information contained should also reflect the information they have gathered within the National GHG Inventories, against their priority mitigation actions scribed in their NDCs 18. Furthermore, PNG is of the view that it would be useful if this short-term reports be restricted to reporting only on mitigation actions, and should adopt the same report on aspects of mitigation outlined above; or contain the Mitigation Section with the following sub-sections only; All sectors, Gases (up to parties) Relevant and Priority Mitigation Sector/s Unaccounted Sectors and Gases Mitigation actions used in ITMOs 19. The reporting period for the long-term reports, in PNG s view if it replaces, National Communications, should be every five years, consistent with NDC periodic updates. The fiver year reporting period should be mandatory for developed country parties, and for developing country parties, the five year period is the also compulsory, but where they have challenges, they can submit after the five year period where resource and capacity allows.

8 20. The mid-term reports, for PNG, if it were to replace the Biennial Update Reports, should be submitted every 2 and half years; and again be compulsory for developed country parties, and mandatory in it s period for developing country parties, SIDs and LDCs, but where capacity challenges constraint them, they can be able to submit anytime after that. Again the short term reports, should be restricted to mitigation only. Figure 2: Possible Review Component for Action and Support (Non-Domestic Process) Transparency Framework (Review Component) NDC Implementation Stock-Take Reports Submission of Reports (Long-term and Mid-Term Reports) From IAR & ICA Process to a "Facilitative Review Dialogue Process" Source : CCDA, Papua New Guinea, The review process, in PNG s view is one that is intended to support the transparency and clarity of the information reported in what PNG believes to be future NDC Implementation Stock-Take Reports ; that may feeds into Facilitative Dialogue Process. It will be similar to a IAR & ICA but may apply to all parties, as a round-table dialogue, avoiding potentially the judge and jury vibe experienced in the other existing process From IAR and ICA to a Facilitative Review Dialogue Process 22. The Transparency Framework on Action and Support which includes the review aspect, is not a domestic process, and PNG is of the view that this

9 process, should be arranged in a manner where it builds off from Article 13.4 and eventually presents itself as a process, which can easily assist the global stock-take in Article 14 as well or be linked eventually to the global stock take at some point. 23. The review referred to in Article 13 paragraph 11 and 12 does, not specify the nature of reviewing GHG inventories, or how a party has met it s emissions reductions target. The review process prescribed here refers to a broader package of understanding how far a party has progressed it s implementation, and that should be the basis for establishing a future Facilitative Review Dialogue Process; that will allow parties to understand clarity, comparability and transparency in the information provided, not directed at auditing GHG accounting information provided by parties 24. PNG is also of the view that this Review process, should be facilitative and non-intrusive. This means, reviewers and domestic experts must be able to share views and ideas on the progress of parties, without experts imposing ideas and views, contradicting and undermining the good judgement of a party who has it s own experts on what is relevant and feasible; rather the review should be a dialogue amongst all, because even the reviewers reviewing reports may also benefit from the knowledge and wisdom of national specialists and experts 25. This concludes PNG s views contained in this targeted submissions; bearing in mind that PNG s ratification law doesn t recognise the provisions of the CP/21; our views were guided by Article It was also for this reason that we decided to discuss reporting separate from the review process. 26. We also wanted to additionally flag the importance of the final review

10 component to the Global Stock-take and the role of the future compliance committee below; Linkages with the Global Stock-take (Article 14) and the Compliance Mechanism (Article 15) 27. The review process, subjected to reporting under the Transparency Framework should be the platform setter for the Global stock take, which PNG is of the view that it will guide the role of the Compliance Mechanism and it s members. PNG is of the view that the Compliance mechanism, should not be made up of members with the judge & jury role over parties, rather members who shall through the guidance sought from the maturity of the Transparency Framework and the Global Stock take shall be able to promote an implementation and compliance environment that addresses the implementation of each party s NDC, guided by the principles of mutual trust and confidence. 28. PNG is of the view that the Compliance Committee, will only have a transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive manner of guiding implementation through a friendly compliance process, if they appreciate the depth and extent of the much needed flexibility in; NDC implementation, NDC reporting and NDC facilitative reviews. That mutually encompasses an understanding that all parties are different and will always strive to enhance their climate change implementation efforts beyond the boundaries of what they can offer, and according to their ratification aspirations, and not forgetting their own realistic domestic capacity The government of Papua New Guinea, avails itself it s highest consideration and continued support to the APA co-chairs in progressing and moving forward the development of this agenda item

11