MITIGATION ACTION ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL (MAAP) World Bank Networked Carbon Markets Initiative Miguel Rescalvo Zurich, 9 March 2016
Objectives • Rationale and objectives of the Mitigation Action Assessment Protocol (MAAP). • Development process. • Lessons Learned from pilots. 2
New Carbon Markets Landscape • from a single internationally accepted mechanism based on projects to a diversity of initiatives: • More diverse in nature - projects/policies • Regional, National and Sub National actions • Have different timeframes- short vs very long • One sector or multi sectorial • Under different regimes or based on self imposed targets • No global governance - bottom up approach • Multiple market instruments Heterogeneous carbon markets Negotiate differences away OR Networked approach 3
Underlying assumptions A linked international carbon market is desirable Governments and market participants need information about the schemes that they link with and the carbon assets that are imported Governments should have the sovereignty to act responsibly on the information about the schemes that they link with and the carbon assets that are imported 4
Value of Carbon Assets Mitigation Value Compliance Value Financial Value 5
Compliance Value Compliance Value - Set by regulator. - The regulator decides • What assets to accept • The compliance value of a unit under its jurisdiction 6
Mitigation Value POLICY LEVEL: Risk relating to the CONTRIBUTION TO characteristics of a A GLOBAL TARGET PROGRAM LEVEL: jurisdiction’s Risk relating to the collective low- Risk relating to the characteristics of a carbon policies characteristics of a specific program jurisdiction’s contribution to addressing global climate change Mitigation value 7
Mitigation Value as input to Compliance Value Mechanics – How to translate rating into rates? Governance – Who sets the rates? – What is the role of Compliance Value? – What is the role of regulators versus market participants? Frequency: – What is the frequency at which they should be set? 8
Mitigation Value Assessment POLICY LEVEL: Risk relating to the CONTRIBUTION TO characteristics of a A GLOBAL TARGET PROGRAM LEVEL: jurisdiction’s Risk relating to the collective low- Risk relating to the characteristics of a carbon policies characteristics of a specific program jurisdiction’s contribution to addressing global climate change Mitigation Action Assessment Protocol • Developed by DNV GL • Expert Reviewed by IISD and New Climate Mitigation Institute. value 9
Goals and MAAP Structure Module’s assessment Module area result weighting relative importance of Key indicators each risk area within a weighting average module Higher weight will assign a larger impact Key Indicators score Score range for each level of development - Default - Override score Level of confidence 10
MAAP- Assessment Modules and Areas Emissions Integrity Mitigation Action Mitigation Action Investment Development Level of Ambition Program Mngt Entity Environment Benefits Definition & Scope Sustainable Dev. Management Objectives & Objectives & Targets Framework Targets Economic and political Level of ambition Planning environment Roles, Responsibilities & Authorities Financial and Planning & Investment Capacity Participation Framework Barriers Emissions reduction from Climate Change Alignment and focus Intervention Capacity Monitoring of Sust. Climate Change Dev. Programs Management Monitoring and Reporting Mitigation Value 11
MAAP- Assessment Modules and Areas Mitigation Action Program Definition & Scope Objectives & Targets Planning Roles, Responsibilities & Authorities Barriers Emissions reduction from Intervention Monitoring and Reporting 12
MAAP- Assessment Modules and Areas Mitigation Action Management Entity Management Framework Financial and Investment Capacity Framework Climate Change Programs Management 13
MAAP- Assessment Modules and Areas Investment Environment Economic and political environment Climate Change Capacity 14
MAAP- Assessment Modules and Areas Other Development Benefits Sustainable Dev. Objectives & Targets Planning & Participation Monitoring of Sust. Dev. 15
Mitigation Actions Rating Protocol- Example Over- Area KI KI Score ride Level of Module Module Area Weighting Key Indicator Weighting Score Range Range Score Confidence Over-ride Justification KI Score The scope of the NAMA is clearly defined and documented. 60-100 Scope of the NAMA The scope of the NAMA is defined but it is not consistent along the documentation of the program. and its contributions 40-60 20% 40-60 high 10.00 to Sustainable The scope of the NAMA is neither clearly defined nor documented. Development. 0-40 The scope of the NAMA is aligned itself with the country climate change mitigation priorities as defined by even when the NAMA addresses cc 60-100 the Government mitigation and other benefits, it is Alignment with The NAMA contributes to climate change mitigation but does not outline how it aligns itself with the taking place in a sector that is not a 20% 0-40 30 low 6.00 40-60 National priorities. National priorities on climate change mitigation as defined by the Government focus sector for the country as outlined The NAMA does not demonstrate how the scope is aligned with the country climate change mitigation in the National Climate Change 0-40 priorities as defined by the Government Program The NAMAs have been developed and implemented with the approval of the relevant national authorities. Program Design 60-100 NAMA approval by (Approver in the UNFCCC NAMA Registry) 10% 60-100 high 8.00 Definition and relevant authorities The approval of the relevant national authorities has been requested but is still pending 40-60 scope of the 20% There is no evidence of the approval of the relevant national authorities. 0-40 NAMA The starting date of the NAMA is clearly defined and justified in terms of when the emissions reduction can 60-100 Starting date, be attributed to the NAMA. Milestones are included to allow progress and effectiveness to be reviewed. milestones and The starting date is defined but it is not possible to conclude that the starting date is linked to the 20% 0-40 high 4.00 40-60 length duration of accounting of ER due to the NAMA implementation. the Program The starting date is not clearly defined, is unjustified or is inconsistent across the NAMA documentation. 0-40 The geographical boundary of the Program is defined in accordance to the jurisdiction authority of the the geographical boundaries are 60-100 NAMA Implementation Entity (NIE). The boundaries analysis includes the evaluation of possible double defined. For the proposed Boundaries for the counting risk with other ongoing programs and jurisdictions. interventions, the NAMA identifies The geographical boundary of the Program is defined but there is no justification of how it can interact with Program in terms of 30% 40-60 40.00 high other possible jurisdiction that can be 12.00 the jurisdiction authority of the NAMA Implementation Entity (NIE) and do not take into account possible 40-60 a geographical area impacted. Nevertheless, the NAMA double counting risk with other ongoing programs and jurisdictions. of implementation does not adress how those cross The geographical boundary of the Program is not clearly defined. effects in ER can be quantified. 0-40 16
MAAP- Example 17
MAAP- Example Mitigation Action Program Module Definition & Scope 25 20 Monitoring and Objectives and Reporting 15 Targets 10 5 max score 0 Emissions score Reductions Planning from Interventions Roles, Barriers Responsibilities and Authorities 18
MAAP-Example 19
Objectives of the MAAP 1. Level of confidence to governments and 2. Tool to compare different investors: viability and assets and their mitigation level of risk ensuring value emissions integrity. 3. Establish a framework to 4. Facilitate benchmark evaluate exchangeability of and improvement different carbon assets. 20
Key Considerations Applicable to a range of environmental assets. Initial focus on carbon assets and mitigation programs. Learns from experiences in ratings, validation and certification processes. Transparent methodology. User decides risk categories weight. Applicable at different stages of development and implementation. Results in a range of outputs reflecting a level of risk for a group of assessment attributes. Validation/verification is a yes/no process. 21
Development Process Stakeholders Working group - Peer review Testing and Pilots engagement Globally Networked Carbon Markets • NAMAs- Ecuador, • Comments invited from Peru the Working Group, • Carbon Expo May 2013 Low Carbon City selected individuals and • Latin America Carbon • WB Internal Meeting – Programs Phitsanulok organizations Forum (Rio de Janeiro), June 2013 and Pakkret, Thailand. • Technical peer reviewrs FICCI (New Delhi), Asian • Paris Working Group 2014 - (IdeaCarbon, Carbon Forum (Bangkok) meeting 1 – Sept. 2013 C2B2) – Fall 2013 • Webinar Update – Dec. 2015- IISD, New Climate • GHG verifiers. Thailand 2013 Institute Feb 2016 • Paris Working Group meeting 2-February 2014 22
Evolution and Benefits of the MAAP 23
Recommend
More recommend
