GCF Working Group 2: Coordination & Accounting
description
Transcript of GCF Working Group 2: Coordination & Accounting
GCF Working Group 2: Coordination &
Accounting
Governors’ Climate & Forests Task Force
Aceh Meeting – May 18-19, 2010
Tony Brunello California Department of Natural ResourcesWilliam Boyd GCF Secretariat & University of Colorado Law School
Overview
Update on WG 3 status and activities Key issues Update on 2010 activities
Report from Sacramento technical workshop on REDD regulatory design
GCF action items for 2010-2011
Working Group 2 - Update
Mato Grosso was lead in 2009; California is current lead; GCF secretariat has been supporting – need additional support
Sacramento Technical Workshop on REDD Regulatory Design generated options paper and recommendations for WG 2 consideration
Beginning work on nesting & reconciliation of projects-level activities with state/province performance – need more private sector input
Exploring models for multi-stakeholder processes and safeguards
Working Group 2 – Key issues
Crediting pathways State-level accounting Nesting & reconciliation
of project activities with state/province accounting
Monitoring, reporting & verification (MRV) State-level performance Nested project
performance
Safeguards Environmental Protection of interests Benefit sharing
Multi-stakeholder processes
Enforceability Linkage agreements
CREDITING PATHWAYSTWO POTENTIAL PATHWAYS
Credits issued by approved state/province REDD programs based on performance relative to crediting baseline and accepted into compliance systems
Direct crediting by compliance system to nested projects that are reconciled with state-level accounting – need more clarity on nesting architecture and reconciliation
STATE/PROVINCE BASELINES
Emissions reference level – starting point based on historical data (5 to 10 years) with adjustments for stocks to account for different circumstances
Crediting baselines – X% reductions from emissions reference level by 2020 with additional requirement to maintain a certain percentage of stocks
MONITORING, REPORTING, VERIFICATION (MRV)
Regulations should not be too prescriptive
Regulations should articulate key principles/criteria for MRV (and baseline determination) Consistent with IPCC guidance and guidelines Use of spatially explicit remote sensing Quantification of uncertainty + conservative approach
that uses bottom of uncertainty range
Nested project MRV handled through approved third-party methodologies - Regulations establish some high-level criteria for nested REDD projects
Accounting for leakage at both state/province and nested project levels
SAFEGUARDS: PRINCIPLES & CRITERIA
Need to take account of principles & criteria already under development via stakeholder processes in states/provinces
Environmental: Maintain flexibility to deal with other REDD+ activities if/when
they become eligible
Protection of interests: Focus on ensuring due regard for rights/interests and
full/effective participation in activity design and implementation
Look to ongoing efforts under REDD+/CCBA; UN REDD; FCPF; etc.
Benefit sharing: Benefits not limited to credits/revenues from REDD activities Focus on generating direct benefits; participation;
transparency on how REDD flows are managed; institutional mechanisms as part of state/province REDD programs
Safeguards: Operational
Regulations require MRV for all safeguards; MRV also on the revenue flows (public and private)
Need certainty on review process – too much uncertainty will inhibit investment
Regulations identify safeguards that satisfy regulatory principles and criteria and invite third-party standards organizations to submit standards for approval
Regulations then require independent third-party certification of nested projects and/or programs against the approved standards
Enforceability
Focus on reversal risk
Temporary crediting problematic
Liability on covered entities problematic
For sector-based crediting require credit buffers as part of linkage agreements + residual liability rules (liability on state/province issuing credits?), insurance, etc.
For nested projects – potential reversals could be managed under project accounting standard or under sectoral accounting framework
WG 2 – Key Objectives for 2010-2011
Further elaboration of design of subnational REDD programs
Developing recommendations on nesting and reconciliation of project-level activities with state/province performance
Developing model linkage agreement to link state/province REDD programs with compliance markets
Further elaboration of safeguards and benefit sharing frameworks
Enhancing stakeholder input and participation; developing models for multi-stakeholder processes that can be adapted to different jurisdictions
Working Group 2Recommended Action Items for Aceh Meeting
Compile design recommendations for subnational REDD programs in report for review and approval at GCF September 2010 meeting to be finalized as GCF Report for COP 16
Initiate private sector sub-working group on nesting and reconciliation of project-level activities with state/province performance with report ready for September 2010 GCF meeting
Initiate process to develop model linkage agreement (2010-2011)
Initiate process to develop lessons and recommendations from multi-stakeholder processes