Ricardo-AEA · 2020-01-15 · Ricardo-AEA © Ricardo-AEA Ltd John Watterson With contributions...

Ricardo-AEA

© Ricardo-AEA Ltd

www.ricardo-aea.com

John Watterson

With contributions from James Harries, Dan Forster, Ross Hunter, Gill Wilkins, Sina Wartman

Information Matters Asian Regional Workshop on GHG and Non GHG Indicators:

Making climate change for sustainable development measurable

Asia Regional Workshop

November 4th and 5th, 2014) at Dusit Thani Hotel, Ayala Center, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines

National policies for emission reduction and GHG

measurement

© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Ricardo-AEA in Confidence 2

• UNFCCC accredited GHG inventory

reviewer (Energy sector)

• Great experience of MRV systems design

• Country lead for the GIZ Information

Matters project

• IPCC lead author of the stationary

combustion chapter of the 2006 guidelines

for national GHG inventories

• Invited contributor to several IPCC

thematic meetings, including the use the

Emissions Trading Data in GHG

inventories, and the extended uses of the

2006 GLs

• Led the UK GHG inventory team.

Currently technical advisor to the team

John Watterson

Thank you for the invitation to

speak at this conference, and

for the opportunity to share my

experience with you


• National policies in the UK for GHG emission reduction

• National policies for GHG measurement

• We will also look at

• “Mapping the causal chain”, because this is fundamental to the setting and review of

baselines, and approaches to avoid double counting of emission savings.

• Defining and using indicators

• The problems of and some solutions to judging the effectiveness of mitigation policies

• Final thoughts

• We may not have time for all elements of the talk – but the additional material will be

provided for your reference

What this talk will cover?


GHG emission reduction

• “no regret options” – they should work; complex ex ante assessments are not always

needed

• Concentrate on key categories – where potential growth in emissions is great

• Set up a “causal chain”, presenting the changes a mitigation action induces

• Identify the changes which seem most relevant (GHG and non-GHG)

• Set-up indicators for these changes, considering that each indicator needs a target, a

baseline and a deadline

What tools do we have to assess the reduction?

• A GHG inventory

• But does the inventory have to be complete – to track mitigation options?

• How accurate does it have to be?

Initial thoughts


What are the national and regional policies for emission

reduction in the UK?

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-

emissions-by-80-by-2050

http://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/climate-change-act-and-

uk-regulations/


Summary of UK policies for emission reduction

UK’s 6th National Communication to the UNFCCC –

summary of mitigation actions are presented

Mitigation

examples

in the

energy

sector

Mitigation

action

Sector

affected


What is the national approach to GHG emission

measurement?

The UK GHG inventory

is used as the primary

source of information to

judge progress towards

the national and

international

commitments


UK and the Climate Change Act – legal basis for reducing

GHG emissions


UK Climate Change Act 2008

• Sets a 2050 emissions target in law

• Requires Government to set 5 year carbon budgets, with first 3 carbon budgets being

set by June 2009, and later carbon budgets being set 11 ½ years before they start

• Requires Government to meet these carbon budgets

• Sets up the Committee on Climate Change (the CCC)

• Requires Government to report annually to Parliament on emissions levels

• Requires CCC to report annually to Parliament on progress in meeting carbon

budgets

Climate Change Committee

• Advising on level of carbon budgets

• Monitoring progress

Government

• Setting carbon budgets

• Meeting carbon budgets


Assessment of progress

10

Examples

of

Indicators


MRV approach to UK Climate Change Act Targets

• Causality not always straightforward – many potential factors influencing to emission

development

• Basic Approach:

- Define indicators based on relevant effects as well as drivers

- Develop indicator trajectories based on expected developments

- Collect indicators values annually

- Compare collected indicator values with trajectories

Report can be found under:

http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2013-

progress-report/

http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2013-progress-report/








Climate Change Committee indicator framework


Monitoring and reporting of implementation - examples

• Reports explain casual assumptions

• made, e.g. GDP, fuel prices

Economic indicators

Average daily temperature Fuel prices


Climate Change Committee - indicator framework

Headline indicators

• Emissions - sectoral breakdown of economy wide emissions

• Emissions intensity and demand - high level indicators of the supply and demand

side factors which drive emissions

Supporting indicators

• Implementation indicators - a set of indicators which track progress in

implementing the measures required to achieve sustainable emissions reduction

• Forward indicators - trajectories for forward indicators that are used to assess

whether the UK is on on track to deliver measures as required

• Policy milestones - In order that measures are successfully implemented, the

appropriate enabling framework will have to be in place. We therefore include in our

framework indicators reflecting key policy milestones and high level aspects of

policy design


Tiered approach to indicators – “Headline” and “Supporting”


Use of indicators

Residential

sector

Number of

efficient boilers

Transport

sector

Biofuels (% by

volume)

http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1585_CCC_Progress%20Rep%202012_Interactive.pdf,

page 61. There is no equivalent table for 2013 report

Table of progress

against measures

http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1585_CCC_Progress Rep 2012_Interactive.pdf





17

Energy efficiency in the industry Sector

• Absolute emission development in line with trajectory

• Key driver energy efficiency far from desired trajectory

• Absolute emissions in line with trajectory mainly

because of economic downturn

Energy efficiency in the Industry (UK level)

“…how little the pure

emission figure can

tells us...“


Power sector indicators

Looked at level

of installed

capacity …

… plus approval

rates for new

capacity


Buildings and transport


Time check!

Transport in more detail (if we have time…)


• The indicator framework reflects “measures that are either cost-effective now, or

are required on the path to deeper decarbonisation in the 2020s”

– So indicators have been selected to reflect progress in relation to specific

measures which have already been assessed and decided as important for the

mitigation strategy

• Some indicators are related to the overall outcomes, the “bigger picture” result, and are

not tied to specific policies

• However, the majority are linked to specific measures (technical or behavioural)

• Again these indicators are not policy specific, but can be more easily linked to policies if

required

– The aim of the indicators (in this context) is not to track policy effectiveness,

necessarily, but more to track the mitigation pathway as a whole

Transport - in more detail


Core indicators

• Surface transport emissions

– Outcome level - Emissions from road transport (MtCO2 relative to base

year, based on inventory data)

– Output level - CO2 intensity of the fleet (gCO2/km, based on vehicle sales

statistics, and data on emissions performance different vehicles)

• Fuel efficiency of vehicles

– Activity level - Market share of electric vehicles (%, based on vehicles

sales statistics)

– Activity level - Sustainable biofuel penetration (%, based on fuel sale

statistics)

• Behaviour change

– Activity level - Implementation of Smarter Choices nationwide

– Activity level - Take up of eco-driving (million drivers)

– Activity level - Speed limit enforcement (no clear measure)


Activity

level

Outcome

and output

level


• For some indicators a forward trajectory is defined i.e. what the indicators needs to look

like in the future for the overall outcome to be achieved

• This allows progress to be monitored against the pathway



• Also some indicators may be further analysed, to explore the underlying reasons

behind the change in the indicator values



• And for other indicators the overall performance can be related to specific policies

(although often in qualitative terms)

• Indicator: Market share of electric vehicles (%)

• Supporting policies

– Price support

• Plug-in Car Grant (PiCG) - In 2012, 2,129 claims were made through the plug-in

car grant (up from 892 in 2011) and 215 through the Plug-in Van Grant.

– Infrastructure investment

• Plugged-In Places - Government offered match-funding to private and public

sector consortia for the installation of EV charging points in eight regional

schemes

• National Offer - Government announced a further £37 million funding package for

charge points



Regional approaches in the UK to policies for emission

reduction and GHG measurement


Example: Carbon budgets in Wales


Indicators divided into three ‘tiers’

Tier

One

Tier

Three

Tier

Two

Sector carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

CO2e emission estimates consistent with the 3% target

Activity Data

Activity data used to compile the greenhouse gas inventory for Wales

Policy – how well is it performing?

Provides an indication of how individual mitigation measures and policies are

performing

Example: Indicator structure (Wales)

e.g. Transport Indicator 1 (TI1): Transport sector GHG emissions

e.g. Transport Indicator 2 (TI2): Total distance travelled by road vehicles

e.g. Transport Indicator 5(TI5): Percentage of people travelling to work whose

mainly cycling or walking

Reveals that

something

has changed,

but not the

reason

Helps explain

the reasons

for the

changes

seen

in the GHG

inventory


Example Wales: Tier 1

Tier One Sector carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

CO2e emission estimates consistent with the 3% target

• One per sector

• GHG emissions in Wales

• Measured against 2006-10

baseline

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2006 2007 2008 2009

Em

iss

ion

s in

Mt

CO

2 e

qu

iva

len

t

Transport sector GHG emissions Baseline (2006-2009 average)

Transport sector GHG emissions

TI1 1 J WT1-

11 All

Policy Indicator Data

e.g. Transport Indicator 1 (TI1)

Transport sector GHG emissions



Tier Two Activity Data

Activity data used to compile the Greenhouse Gas Inventory

for Wales

• Handful per sector

• Activity data

• Measured against

2006-10 baseline

e.g. Transport Indicator 2 (TI2)

Total distance travelled by road vehicles

WT1 Sustainable Travel Centres.

WT2 Smarter Choices.

WT3 Travel planning and provision of personalised travel information.

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

2006 2007 2008 2009

bil

lio

n v

eh

icle

kil

om

etr

es

All motor vehicles Baseline (2006-2009 average)

0

Total distance travelled - Vehicle kms

2 K


More insight

into factors

for the

emission

development

in the sector

e.g. less

kilometres

travelled



Tier Three

Policy

Monitors things Welsh Government is actively doing to reduce

GHG emissions. Provide an indication of how individual

actions and policies are performing

• Many per sector

• Not directly linked to

emission

• Measured against

2006-10 baseline

e.g. Transport Indicator 5(TI5)

Percentage of people travelling to work whose main

mode of travel to work is cycling or walking

WT1 Sustainable Travel Centres.

WT2 Smarter Choices.

WT3 Travel planning and provision of personalised travel information.

WT4 Developing a series of strategic modal interchanges.

WT5 Promotion of eco-driving.

WT6 Promotion and support for walking and cycling.

Percentage of people travelling to work whose main mode of travel to work is cycling or walking

TI5 3 K

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Peo

ple

walk

ing

or

cycli

ng

- %

Total % walking or cycling Baseline (2006-2009 average)


Indicators not

linked to the

GHG inventory.

Provide an

indication of the

“direction of

travel” that the

GHG inventory

would not

detect.


• … (along with the policies implemented prior to the

implementation of the policy being assessed that were

previously included in the baseline scenario).

• The baseline scenario should also be recalculated to

include updates to all non-policy drivers based on

observed values

Estimate ex-post baseline scenario emissions – did the

policy actually work?

• The mechanisms to do this cannot be

covered in a single slide… but

• Determine the GHG effect of the policy or

action ex-post by comparing policy

scenario emissions to baseline scenario

emissions.

• The net GHG effect of the policy or action

is the difference between baseline

emissions and policy scenario emissions

• Baseline emissions should be

recalculated every time an ex-post

assessment is undertaken.

• The baseline scenario should include any

new policies or actions with significant

effects on GHG emissions that were

implemented after the policy/action being

assessed was implemented …


Causal chain


Causal chain and assessment boundary

Mapping the

causal chain

Intended and

unintended effects

In-boundary and out-of-boundary

effects Short- and long-term

effects

Which indicators to

choose for your mitigation

MRV?

• Consider the impact

chain to understand

which indicators will

show it is on track for

its various objectives

• Do not forget about

potentially unwanted

impacts!


A worked example of a causal chain in the

transport sector …

Desired impacts

Unwanted impacts

Sta

rt


Challenges and lessons learnt


Lessons learned from the UK Carbon Budget MRV

approach

• Finding the right level of detail in indicators is key

• Indicators related to factors influencing emissions provide good insight into

effectiveness of measures

• Getting acceptance and support from “policy owners“ takes time

• Policy owners might lack necessary expertise to provide the indicator data

required

• GHG inventory cannot provide all indicator data (and likely never will)

• Accept system is not perfect at first and improve over time

• Independent evaluation by non-government organisation (Climate Change

Committee)

– lends credibility to the result

– can hinder open discussion on evaluation results

37


Challenges to MRV of mitigation activities

38

• Change of emission levels, jobs, health, etc. can have many influencing factors.

• An MRVed change might stem from a specific NAMA (or mitigation action), but

potentially also from the interaction of several NAMAs or factors external to mitigation

actions, e.g. economic or social developments

• It is not easy to understand whether a specific NAMA has caused an MRVed change

and to what extent.

• What can be done?

– Accept these limitations and adjust expectations!

• Move away from a CDM-like MRV focussing on highly accurate emission reduction values

• Aim to understand, whether your NAMA does contribute to achieving desired impacts and

whether it has a relevant impact or not

– MRV systems can be set up to at least help understanding causality

– Package NAMAs targeting the same impacts

and assess their combined impacts

– Assess potential impacts in detail a forehand

and design MRV accordingly


• Good information and communication are of vital importance. Gathering and

keeping a record of information for reporting relies on good communication and

coordination between all entities involved in the monitoring process.

• Define clear roles and responsibilities and give transparent guidance to each

organisation involved in developing and implementing the NAMA MRV-plan. This will

ensure the reliability and consistency of the measured information, as well as its timely

reporting and verification.

• Calculate emission mitigation and mitigation costs based on proven or credible

methods and using the best available data.

• Monitoring quality and reliability of data and an open and transparent access to

information increases the efficiency of the MRV process. Emission mitigation and

mitigation costs should be calculated based on proven or credible methods using the

best available data.

• Examine existing MRV best practice to ensure the MRV plan is designed according

to national requirements.

• Perform continuous review and improvement of the MRV plan. Organisations with

different expertise should be involved, in order to maximise technical capabilities.

Good practices for mitigation activity / NAMA MRV


• Use and build on indicators they already have wherever possible. This should make

monitoring easier and also make the indicators more relevant and linked to what they

are already focussed on achieving for their country.

• Wherever possible the existing development plan indicators and/or Climate Change

Action plan indicators should be looked at to see if they can be used for NAMA

indicators

• Only where there are no relevant indicators should new indicators be selected

• Thinking about the level of indicators being developed from “Input level” up to “Outcome

level

• The higher up the hierarchy, the more joined up the indicators should be

– there should be few high strategic level indicators common to many actions

(NAMAS, Development plan activities, climate change action Plan activities)

– the lower down, the more individual and numerous the indicators become, these may

be specific only to activities in a specific action or project

Build on what you have – minimise the need for new

indicators and institutions


• GHG mitigation policies do no exist in isolation

• Avoid double counting and omissions

• This can be difficult

• Important to consider other policies that may affect the same variables (AD and EF)

that the policy in question would be affecting

• So an assessment of what other interventions are leading to reinforcing or

counteracting trends

• This is because there may still be activity even in a ‘do nothing’ scenario, because other

policies are having the same effect

• To do consider other policies, carry out a mapping exercise. What are the possible

policies that are targeting the same emissions source(s) and will they be neutral/

independent, counteracting or reinforcing?

Taking account of policy interactions

© Ricardo-AEA Ltd

www.ricardo-aea.com

T:

E:

W:

Ricardo-AEA Ltd

The Gemini Building

Fermi Avenue

Harwell, Didcot,

OX11 0QR

John Watterson

+44 (0)1235 75 3595

[email protected]

www.ricardo-aea.com

(Additional material if time…)

Thank you for your

attention!

Ricardo-AEA · 2020-01-15 · Ricardo-AEA © Ricardo-AEA Ltd John Watterson With contributions...

Documents

Transcript of Ricardo-AEA · 2020-01-15 · Ricardo-AEA © Ricardo-AEA Ltd John Watterson With contributions...