What do the M, R, and V stand for?
M is for Measurement or M is for Monitoring
Depending on who you ask, the M stands for Measurable or for Monitoring.
While the word “measurable” was originally used in the
Bali Action Plan, it has since been replaced in some circles
by the term “monitoring” since in a strict sense the aim is to
monitor, rather than to measure.
Either way, the intent of the “M” is to keep track of two
things: 1) greenhouse gases – both those emitted and those
reduced or avoided through mitigation actions, and 2) the
support provided in the form of financing, capacity building
and technologies for carrying out the mitigation actions.
The bottom line is that the “M” should collect information
about whether the world is on track to stay below the 2-degree
warming target.
R is for Reporting
The R represents a commitment by parties
to the climate convention to report progress and planned activities
under the convention. Reporting under the convention
happens via national communications; however, current
reporting does not capture uniformly information about
such things as mitigation actions, emissions projections and
GHG inventories, particularly from developing countries.
Given the growing share of GHG emissions from these parties,
more frequent and more robust reporting is necessary to
create greater transparency and comparable information. The
Cancun Agreements state that developing country parties
should submit national communications every four years, as
well as biennial reports containing key mitigation information,
assuming that adequate support is provided.
V is for Verification: The purpose of verification is to ensure
that reported information is correct and comparable and that
confirmed methodologies for monitoring mitigation progress
have been applied. The verification process might entail independent
experts reviewing national communications, conducting
visits to the reporting country and gaining access to
facilities where mitigation actions and emissions took place.
Verification could also result in improvements in the quality
of reported information by generating recommendations
and facilitating collegial exchange between the reviewers and
the reporters.
Why MRV?
Currently there are gaps with regard to gathering and
sharing information about GHG emissions, mitigation
commitments and support. The purpose of MRV is not to
enforce or judge the actions of parties but rather to:
»» facilitate decision-making by serving as a tool for national
planning,
»» support implementation of mitigation actions,
»» promote coordination and communication between
emitting sectors,
»» generate comparable information across countries,
»» generate feedback for policymakers on the effectiveness
of adopted policies and measures,
»» build trust through the production of transparent information,
»» signal whether a country is on track to meeting climate
change-related goals,
»» highlight lessons learned and good practices,
»» increase the likelihood of gaining international support
for mitigation actions.
What are current gaps?
Given the often irregular and infrequent preparation of national
communications by non-Annex 1 countries, it is difficult to
gauge progress under the climate convention. No global “snapshot”
of GHG emissions or actions to mitigate exists.
The gaps can be attributed to a variety of institutional, technical,
political and financial problems, which are frequently cited
by parties as hindering the production of high quality reports.
For example, availability and access to emissions data, expertise
in preparing national GHG inventories, and / or high turnover
of experts are just some of the problems contributing to
the gaps.
Within developed countries, information gaps also exist regarding
available support, where the support is going, what the
sources are, and how the support is being used.
MRV is needed in three key areas to generate a complete picture
of global progress towards halting global warming:
1. National GHG Emissions: the sources of GHGs, as well as
the methodologies used to monitor emissions.
2. Mitigation Actions or NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions): information about GHG emissions reductions
that are taking place within a country as a result of
specific actions, policies, strategies or plans.
3. Support information about the provision and receipt of finance,
technology and capacity building targeting climaterelated
priorities.
Who should undertake MRV?
All parties to the climate convention have agreed to enhance
national MRV systems to capture and communicate progress
towards meeting the convention goals, taking into account
common but differentiated responsibilities of developed and
developing countries.
A tiered approach to MRV is being discussed as an option that
would permit developing countries to gradually phase in more
detailed and rigorous MRV systems over time.
What are some challenges to developing an internationally
agreed upon MRV framework?
Mitigation pathways are country-specific and vary widely,
which means that any internationally agreed upon MRV system
must be rigorous and transparent to make information accurate
and comparable, as well as flexible to capture a range of
mitigation actions.
MRV requirements for a NAMA that is implemented domestically
(unilaterally) may be less rigorous than the MRV requirements for a NAMA that receives international support, or a
NAMA that generates carbon credits.
Another type of challenge is related to the capacities of many
developing countries to fulfill the enhanced reporting requirements
(See examples related to gaps above.)
Developed countries also face challenges with disaggregating
information about support provided. For example, investment
information from the private sector for climate-related purposes
is not readily available.
What is the timeline for operationalising such a framework?
Work is already underway to operationalise an international
MRV framework, with parallel discussions happening on monitoring
methodologies, guidelines for biennial reports, and the
scope of verification, which is actually referred to as international
consultation and analysis (ICA) in the climate negotiation
jargon.
While no clear deadlines have been set for finalizing these discussions,
many parties are eager to have improved reporting in
place in time for the 2013-2015 Review, when the conference of
parties will take stock of progress towards reducing GHG emissions
under the climate convention.
How can German International Cooperation contribute to enhancing MRV?
Progress on MRV is expected and happening outside of the climate
negotiations, as lessons learned and best practices emerge
from individual countries, whose MRV systems are taking shape.
German International Cooperation is already playing an important
role in supporting its partners with regard to:
»» improving monitoring and reporting systems,
»» designing and implementing national and sectoral MRV systems,
»» developing mitigation actions (NAMAs) with MRV requirements
in mind,
»» providing support to institutions involved in reporting,
»» building capacity within reporting institutions,
»» strengthening cooperation between relevant sectors and governmental
entities,
»» facilitating the sharing of experiences between countries,
»» helping partners gain MRV experience before an international
system is in place.
GIZ is actively involved in supporting partners in South Africa,
Indonesia and Mexico in the establishment of national
MRV systems, with the expectation that these and other practical
applications of MRV can inform the climate negotiations,
thereby contributing to the broader goal of developing an internationally-
agreed-upon MRV system.
See also
