The private sector acquires and uses data and, in some countries, the private sector and NGOs are active in delivering mitigation actions, such as national biogas programs. Effective arrangements for program implementation and monitoring exist, but data from program monitoring are not always linked to data systems that inform national GHG inventories. In several countries, mitigation actions are meant to be supported through finance delivered via the banking sector. Financial institutions have generally not incorporated GHG accounting into their management information systems. So, linking financial institutions’ management information systems to GHG MRV systems is a new area requiring innovation.
| GHG mitigation benefit calculation and reporting requirements of selected institutions |
|---|
| Global Environment Facility (GEF): Since 2011, full- and medium-size GEF projects have been required to use a climate change mitigation tracking tool to report on the GHG mitigation benefits of GEF projects. Manuals for calculating GHG mitigation benefits of projects in the energy and transport sectors have been issued. In 2014-15, a review was conducted of the GEF’s policies and guidance, which made recommendations for GHG quantification in the AFOLU sector. This review recommended the use of methodologies consistent with the WRI’s GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard but does not require that these methodologies are consistent with national GHG inventories. International Finance Institutions (IFIs): In 2012, nine IFIs committed to engaging in a process of harmonizing their reporting on GHG mitigation benefits. General principles were agreed upon, and guidance notes specific to the energy sector are under development. Specific policies vary, for example: World Bank: The World Bank’s environment strategy, issued in 2012, commits to analyze the GHG emissions of investment projects financed by IDA/IBRD. Ex-ante quantification of emissions and emission reductions for energy and forestry projects began in 2013 and for agriculture in 2014. Internal guidance notes on how to meet calculation and reporting requirements in these sectors have been adopted. Guidance for the agriculture sector mandates the use of the EX-ACT tool for ex-ante estimation. Ongoing experiences with integrating GHG benefit calculation in some livestock projects suggest that other tools that are capable of estimating changes in Tier 2 emission factors (e.g. GLEAM) may be more suitable if an ex-post assessment is required. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD): EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy mandates that clients provide the data necessary for GHG assessment for projects with expected emissions exceeding 100,000 tCO2e per annum. Reportedly, almost all projects are screened for their GHG impact during the project assessment phase. A set of Guidance Notes have been produced to assist consultants and staff in completing these requirements. Some international development institutions have also developed related policies. For example: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Since 2015, the Social and Environmental Standards of UNDP requires screening of all projects above US$ 500,000, and projects with emissions of more than 25,000 tCO2e per annum are deemed ‘high risk’ and may require in-depth social and environmental impact assessment. Emissions must be tracked and reported in accordance with IPCC estimation methodologies. Source: Wilkes et al. (2016) |
The potential for mitigation actions to attract investment from climate finance or other international sources is a common motivation for stakeholders’ interest in GHG mitigation in the agricultural sector. In many developing countries, agricultural mitigation actions are likely implemented with support from multilateral agencies, international development banks and other donors. Different international finance institutions and development agencies have their own GHG quantification policies, procedures and guidelines (see box above). It is increasingly common for these agencies to require ex-ante estimation of a project’s GHG effects.
Integrating GHG emissions in results frameworks and monitoring plans for ex-post estimation is less common. The World Bank has recently begun to do so in some livestock-related ‘climate-smart agriculture’ projects under development in Niger, Kenya, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia. However, project monitoring largely plays a role in accountability functions, and projects are implemented by specially established project management units, so even where projects collect data relevant to quantifying GHG emission reductions, project monitoring and evaluation data may not link with national MRV systems. Either dedicated efforts to make these linkages are made by both donor institutions and national governments or national MRV systems should consider reporting donor project results separately from the national GHG inventory – as is currently done for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in some countries’ UNFCCC submissions.