Sustainable development impact assessment of policy and actions

UNFCCC NAMA regional workshop for Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe

12-14 June 2015, Derag Livinghotel Kanzler, Adenauralle 148, Bonn, Germany

Outline:

• Introduction to the NAMA Partnership WG-SD• Objectives of the research project ‘Measuring SD in

NAMAs’• Results of literature review – overview of climate

change SD assesment approaches• Results of stakeholder interviews • Framework for SD assessment of NAMAs• NAMA SD tool – example from the Philippines

Objective: To enhance collaboration and complementarity of the activities of multilateral, bilateral and other organizations to accelerate support to developing countries in preparation and implementation of their NAMAs.

The NAMA partnership

Working Group on Sustainable DevelopmentThree areas of work:1. Contribution of NAMAs in meeting defined national mitigation goals and

targets2. Contribution of NAMAs to sustainable development and other national

development goals3. Institutional arrangements for NAMAs

Organization:• Coordinators: UNEP DTU Partnership (lead) with UNDP and IISD • Members: TERI, Carbon Market Watch, ECN, CCAP, WB, FAO, WI and others

interested such as Gold Standard & South Pole

Website & Wiki: www.namapartnership.org & www.namapartnership.wikispaces.com

‘Measuring SD in NAMAs’

- a WG SD collaboration between UNEP DTU, IISD, UNDP and UNFCCC

Objective of the Research Project ‘Measuring SD in NAMAs’, Phase 1

Aim: To improve quantitative and qualitative measurement of the SD outcomes of NAMAs - enhancing understanding of how NAMAs can contribute to meeting national development goals.

Outcomes: Enhanced understanding of the expectations and needs of stakeholders in measuring SD in NAMAs; improved knowledge of early action and lessons learned on measurement of SD in NAMAs through an examination of tools, frameworks and indicators and of how these actions/tools meet the needs of various stakeholders. Outputs: Literature review, interviews, criteria for NAMA SD Framework, final report

Results of literature review

Overview of approaches to measure SD co-benefits – CDM and NAMAs

CDM SD Tool

Source: Approved at CDM EB70: https://www.research.net/s/SD_tool_vers7

Example of SDC report: - air qualityImproved cook stoves programme in India

A co-benefits approach

Source: Dubash et. al. (2013): “Indian Climate Change Policy. Exploring a Co-benefits Based Approach”, Economic & Political Weekly, June 1, 2013

Example of co-benefit assessment

DIA Visual

Source: Cameron et al. (2014): “Visualising Development Impacts: Experiences from country case studies.” Conference Paper, MAPS, January 2014, Cape Town

Gold Standard –valuation of co-benefits

Source: The Gold Standard, (2014): “The real value of robust climate action”. A Net Balance Report for the Gold Standard Foundation

Methods of valuation – benefit transfer & willingness to pay

• Valuation and monetization are assumed to bring interesting perspectives and new angles to assess the merits of mitigation actions and how to manage them

• Non-market valuation techniques remain the only currently widely accepted way to put a value on intangible benefits

• ‘Benefit transfer’ requires a strict control of the similarity between the two environments, where the value is transferred and is based on case by case studies

• “Willingness to pay” for co-benefits is determined as the existing spending within the current public budget or if privately generated through private spending.

Results of stakeholder interviews

Objective, methods & dataObjective: To understand the different stakeholder perspectives of developing country governments, donors, private sector, civil society, investors and technical assistance providers to measure SD in NAMAs. Specifically, the aim is to understand stakeholder needs, learn about current practices, approaches and challenges based on early efforts and explore perspectives, priorities and preferences.

Methods: Survey to a broad group of NAMA stakeholders and In-depth interviews with key experts.

Data: The survey has been circulated to 2056 people in September 2014. The response rate is 16,4 % with 338 answers to the survey. Eight in-depth interviews were conducted with 2 developing country government perspectives, 2 NGO perspectives, 2 private sector perspective and 2 donor perspective.

Interview results – needs, priorities and challengesSD goals Needs for SD

assessmentApproaches/MRV Challenges

Public ‘Co-benefits’ shall reflect dev. goals for SD – nat. or sub-nat.- and incl. negative impacts

Development first - to align mitigation activities. A national certification scheme to ensure goals are reached

Ex-ante assessment most important. Ex-post also needed with independent review, e.g. a common registry. Stakeholders involved at all stages.

An international NAMA SD Tool - similar to the CDM SD tool - may be useful but more flexibility is needed. No obligations

Private SD co-benefits are the ‘social goods’ of investments. NAMAs are driven by the value of the social goods/co-benefits.

The monetary benefit of the social good - unit based measurement (X per unit) - is needed to identify the willingness to pay for mitigation actions

A rigorous M&E process is needed . Clear, measurable indicators –for planning and investment/funding. Accreditation useful.

The key challenge is to establish government support for quantification

Civil society

In NAMAs GHG reduction is a co-benefit. A need for coordination of SD goals between different levels and activities.

Also measure negative impacts. The key needs is a safeguard system - anything that does not harm is good. Standardized (UNFCCC) guidelines with flexibility to certify SD impacts.

Public participation is a key element of SD assessment and may be a goal in itself. Qualitative and quantitative assessments are both needed to prioritize and show a social returns.

Ensuring public participation is a major challenge. The key need is a structured way to assess SD in NAMAs – this is currently lacking

Internat. agency

Development benefits are the driver. Climate change abatement is the co-benefit.

SD assessment is important to governments to justify public spending. Certification of SD is a good idea for visibility.

M&E should not be a burden to countries.

There is no need for a tool that forces indicators on activities.

NAMA SD framework

Guiding principles• Not prescriptive – focus on what to do, not how to do it, e.g. definitions of

sustainable vs. unsustainable are nationally determined• Transparent – all assessments whether qualitative, quantitative or

monetary shall be publicly available for review at any • Consistent - indicator based to deliver comparable and structured

information about SD co-benefits and negative impacts for all NAMAs across all sectors

• Credible – independent review shall ensure that methods are valid and results are reliable

• Stakeholder participation – is a right and facilitates good climate governance

• Easy to use - the framework should not require much extra effort than is currently practiced for M&E of development outcomes unless required for particular needs to sustainable development

NAMA Sustainable Development Taxonomy

AirSOx, NOx, GHGOdor, Dust, SPM, Fly ashNoise

LandCompost Manure nutrient and other fertilizerSoil erosion, Salinization, AcidificationMinimum tillageEnd of life pollutionChange access/lost access to landOther

WaterWaste waterLeaks & diesel dumping Drinking water qualityWater extraction rateConservationSupply, water accessEcological statePurificationOther

Natural ResourcesMineralsSpecies diversityPlant lifeLand cover change Other

JobsLong term jobsShort term jobsSources of incomeOther

Health and SafetyAccidentsCrimeDiseasesNumber of hospital visits SanitationFood safetyIndoor air pollutionNo child labourOther

EducationGreen development related trainingEducational services for different groupsProject related knowledge circulationOther

WelfareTraffic congestionCommuting timesIncome/asset distributionWomen empowermentMunicipal revenueRural upliftmentEnergy securityOther

GrowthInvestmentIndustrial/commercial activitiesEconomic growth/higher incomeQuality of lifeIncreased tax base InfrastructureProduction costProductivity Other

EnergyCoverage/availability of supplyAccessReliability, affordabilityOther

TechnologyImported technologyLocal technologyAdaptation and viability in local areaOther

Balance of paymentsDependency on foreign sources of energyAmount of energy produced from clean renewable sourcesDecrease in risk of political conflictsEconomic savings for the governmentReduction in energy subsidiesOther

Capacity BuildingLand titling processesMapping of natural resources and renewable energy potentialDevelopment of competitive proceduresWorkshops and trainingsA technical help desk for project developers and other stakeholdersOther

Policy & PlanningPolicy Framework for Sustainable, Low carbon ‐Urban TransportComprehensive Urban Low carbon Mobility PlansOther

Domestic MRV SystemSub national reference levels and MRV systems ‐Platform for the Generation and Trading of Forest Carbon CreditsOther

Laws & RegulationTariff reformCompliance with laws and regulation onPromoting and regulating production, sale and use of biofuels and biomassDecrees for tax benefits for renewable energy projectsConditions for competitive process for incorporation of new plantsOther

Institutional

Laws & Regulation

Domestic MRV System

Capacity Building

Policy & Planning

Economic

Balance of Payment

Growth Energy

Technology

Social

Health & SafetyJobs

Education Welfare

Environmental

Air Land

WaterNatural

Resources

Elements of SD assessment framework in NAMA Cycle

CB

Design of NAMA & support programme

Means of support

Finance TT

Registry

Implementation of NAMA

National Coordination

MRV

Process ActorsSD assessment

National Stakeholders

National Coordinating Body

International Support Agencies

National/UNFCCC Registry

NAMA Developer & Partners

National Entities

SD criteria & indicators

Transformational change

Quantification & Monetization

Monitoring & Reporting

Independent review

National Int. Nat.

Ex-ante Assessment

Ex-post Assessment

Alignment with SD goals

Public Participation

Certification

Procedural Steps

No-Harm Safeguards

Steps Element Description

Ex-Ante Assessment

1. SD criteria & indicators Identify and describe SD impacts – using the CDM SD taxonomy with one new dimension

2. Transformational change Indicators of the processes of change for a paradigm shift to low carbon and sustainable development

3. Quantification & Monetization

Units of measurement to track SD impacts towards SD goals are identified and methods to estimate their monetary value are applied

Procedural

steps

4. Alignment with SD goals SD impact analysis and contribution to SD goals at global, national, and other relevant levels

5. Stakeholder Participation Guidelines for stakeholder involvement throughout NAMA design and implementation

6. No-Harm Safeguards Compliance with no-harm safeguards to avoid or mitigate negative impacts

Ex-post Assessment

7. Monitoring & Reporting Develop a monitoring plan; How are indicators monitored, by whom, how often? Describe quality assurance procedures. Report the monitoring data to relevant stakeholders at regular intervals.

8. Verification Independent review of methods and data shall be provided when needed to ensure SD impacts are credible and transparent

9. Certification Public, private or civil society players may want to define standards for certification of units of GHG reductions with SD impacts

NAMA SD Tool - the case of the Philippines

25

NAMA Sustainable Development (SD) Tool

• The SD tool has been designed to evaluate the SD performance indicators for NAMAs and to evaluate the SD results achieved over the lifetime of the NAMA;

• Nationally Appropriate Improvements (NAIs) determine the ambition and success of the NAMA;

• NAIs are calculated for each intervention, the mean value is determined for each domain, and the overall ambition and success of the NAMA calculated as the mean value over all domains;

• The SD tool is currently applied in 7 NAMAs, e.g. ‘Adaptation and Mitigation Initiatives in Philippines Rice Cultivation’.

 

26

NAMA SD Tool – Domains, Indicators, Parameters

• The SD tool is divided into 4 domains:(i) Environment,(ii) Economic,(iii) Social,(iv) Growth & Development;

• Each Domain consists of different indicators but in order to keep maximum flexibility, only those indicators that are relevant and applicable for a specific NAMA are selected;

• Each selected indicator is defined through parameters relevant for the specific NAMA;

• The parameters are described qualitatively and/or quantitatively;• Quantitative parameters are subject to robust monitoring through the

definition of the baseline value, ex-ante estimated intervention target value and ex-post monitored intervention value;

• The Nationally Appropriate Improvements (NAIs) are estimated ex-ante, determined ex-post and allow for a transparent evaluation of the sustainable development impacts of the NAMA;

27

NAMA SD Tool – Domain Environment & Social

Domain IndicatorRelevance to SDGs and Targets

Selected (Yes/No) Identified Impacts Explanation of Chosen Indicator

Effect on Indicator

Monitoring done (Yes/No)

Air pollution/quality Goal 11, Target 11.6 Positive Yes

Water pollution/quality

Goal 6, Target 6.6Goal 11, Target 11.6Goal 12, Target 12.4 Yes Increased water savings AWD leads to sognificant water savings as a result of improved irrigation Positive No

Soil pollution/quality

Goal 2, Target 2.4Goal 11, Target 11.6Goal 12, Target 12.4 Yes Improved soil quality

AWD involves periodic aeration of the soil which results in higher zinc availability, as well as increased plant root anchorage and lodging resistance. Positive No

Others (Noise/visibility) Goal 11, Target 11.6Biodiversity and ecosystem balance

Goal 14, All TargetsGoal 15, All Targets

Environment

Health Goal 3, All Targets

Livelihood of poor, poverty alleviation, peace

Goal 1, All TargetsGoal 2, Target 2.1Goal 16, Target 16.1 Yes

Provide livelihood for poor/poverty alleviation.Decrease conflicts among farmers

Water savings from the implementation of AWD results in increased total irrigated land area. As a result, more farmers and farm helpers are required, providing additional livelihood for the poor farming communities;Because of the availability of more irrigation water for downstream farmers due to AWD, irrigation conflicts between upstream-downstream farming communities are decreased. Positive No

Affordability of electricity Goal 7, Targets 7.1Access to sanitation and clean drinking water

Goal 6, Tagets 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5

Food security (Access to land and sustainable agriculture)

Goal 2, All TargetsGoal 12, Target 12.3 Yes

Increase in rice production.Increase in irrigated land

Water savings from the implementation of AWD results in increased total irrigated land area. Proportionately, increase in total number of rice fields results in the increase in rice yield. Positive Yes

Quality of employmentGoal 8, Targets 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8

Time savings/time availability due to project Goal 1No child labour Goal 8, Target 8.6

Provides vulnerable groups access to local resources and services

Goal 6, Targets 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.a, 6.b Yes

Increase access to water resources

AWD is a water management practice in rice cultivation promoting the efficient use of water resources. This provides vulnerable groups access to water resources and services which were not previously available to them, resulting in increased total irrigated land area. Positive Yes

Social

28

NAMA SD Tool – Domain Growth & Economic

Domain IndicatorRelevance to SDGs and Targets

Selected (Yes/No) Identified Impacts Explanation of Chosen Indicator

Effect on Indicator

Monitoring done (Yes/No)

Access to clean and sustainable energy

Goal 7, Targets 7.1, 7.2, 7.3

Education Goal 4, All TargetsIncreased capacity for growing alternative crops

The AMIA will allow a large number of farmers to gain the necessary skills for growing alternative crops and practice alternative cropping. Positive Yes

Empowerment of womenGoal 4, Targets 4.3, 4.6Goal 5, All Targets

Access to sustainable technology

Goal 4, Target 4.3Goal 7, Targets 7a, 7bGoal 9, Target 9b Yes

Access to sustainable technology

The AMIA implementer will be providing the required capacity-building for the implementation of the AWD nationwide through direct interaction with the farmers and IAs. Being the country's authority on rice research, participating farmers and IAs will have the opprotunity to access other available sustainable technologies from PhilRice, such as variety development, pest and nutrient management, devising decision support tools, water harvesting and conservation, diversified/integrated farming, area mapping, and vulnerability studies. Positive Yes

Energy security Goal 7, Target 7.1, 7.2, 7.3

Capacity-buildingGoal 4, Target 4.3, 4.5Goal 6, Target 6.a Yes Knowhow transfer

The AMIA implementer will provide proper training and knowhow transfer of AWD implementation to the irrigation officers, irrigators associations and individual farmers. Positive Yes

Equality (quality of jobs given, job conditions for men/women)

Goal 4, Targets 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7Goal 5, All TargetsGoal 10, Target 10.4

Growth and Development

Income generation/expenditure reduction/Balance of payments

Goal 8, Targets 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 Goal 10, Target 10.1 Yes

Increased income for farmers.Increased collection of ISF

Increased income for the farmers as a result of the lower rice production cost (ISF);Increased income for the NIA and IAs as a result of increased collection rate of the ISF. It is expected that more farmers would be willing to pay the ISF because of better satisfaction with irrigation services. Positive Yes

Asset accumulation and investments

Goal 7, Targets 7a, 7bGoal 9, All TargetsGoal 17

Job Creation (number of men and women employed) Goal 8, All Targets Yes New jobs created

Water savings from the implementation of AWD results in increased total irrigated land area. As a result, more farmers and farm helpers are required, providing more jobs. Positive No"" ""

Economic

29

NAMA SD Tool – Intervention AWD

Target value estimated (ex-ante)

National values Indirect 18,032,525 18,702,349 18,702,349 tons 4% 4% 100%National values Indirect 4,690,061 4,915,061 4,915,061 ha 5% 5% 100%

National values Indirect 4,690,061 4,915,061 4,915,061 ha 5% 5% 100%

4% 4% 100%

Area over which alternative cropping is practiced Direct 0 750,000 750,000 Persons 100% 100% 100%

Number of IAs and individual farmers to whom additional services have been provided Direct 0 750,000 750,000 ha 100% 100% 100%

Number of Irrigation Officers, IAs and individual farmers who have been trained Direct 0 150 150 Persons 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100%ISF cost per hectare Direct 4,250 3,400 3,400 ₧/ha/season 20% 20% 100%

Percentage of ISF collection Direct 70 100 100 Percentage 43% 43% 100%

31% 31% 100%

TOTAL AVERAGE

45% 45% 100%

Domain Average

Domain Average

Domain Average

Baseline ValueNAIs estimated

(ex-ante) Intervention Value

monitored (ex-post)Unit

NAIs monitored (ex-post)

Evaluation of Project Success

Measurement type

Measurement value

30

NAMA SD Tool – Monitoring

Serial number 1Indicator NameDomainParameter NameBaseline ValueUnit tWay of monitoring How Obtained from national rice statistics values

Frequency 3 yearsBy whom NAMA Implementer

Project ValueQA/QC procedures

QC check done NAMA Implementer

#REF!SocialRice Production18,032,525

18,702,349

Serial number 4Indicator NameDomainParameter NameBaseline ValueUnit haWay of monitoring How Obtained from national rice statistics values

Frequency 3 yearsBy whom NAMA Implementer

Project ValueQA/QC procedures

QC check done NAMA Implementer

Growth and DevelopmentNumber of IAs and individual farmers to whom additional services have been provided0

750,000

#REF!

31

NAMA SD Tool – Monitoring Sheet

Parameter Unit Pre-Project

Baseline value Year1Intervention value

monitored Year2Intervention

value monitored Year31 Rice Production tons 18,032,5252 Harvested Land Area ha 4,690,0613 Additional Services ha 04 Trainings Persons 05 ISF cost ₧/ha/season 2,0006 ISF collection percentage Percentage 707 Area over which alternative cropping is practiced ha 089

1011121314

Project

Questions & Discussion

For more information, please contact:

Karen Holm OlsenUNEP DTU

kaol@dtu.dk

Melissa HarrisInternational Institute for Sustainable Development

(IISD)mharris@iisd.ca

Alexandra SoezerUNDP

alexandra.soezer@undp.org