Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Corfee-Morlot, Jan ♦ Guay, Bruno ♦ Larsen, Kate
Source OECD iLibrary
Content type Text
Publisher OECD Publishing
Language English
Subject Domain (in DDC) Social sciences ♦ Economics ♦ Economics of land & energy ♦ Technology ♦ Engineering & allied operations ♦ Applied physics
Subject Keyword Energy ♦ Environment
Abstract The current monitoring, reporting and review framework under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has a number of strengths and weaknesses. Weaknesses include inconsistent and/or incomplete self reporting of financial support; infrequent reporting; limited and incomplete information on multilateral development banks and other non-UNFCCC funds; lack of primary data on financial flows under KP mechanisms (CDM); and lack of verification procedures. This paper aims to facilitate a discussion about a possible framework to measure, report and verify (MRV) mitigation support. It considers the main pathways through which mitigation support to developing countries may flow as well as the availability and suitability of information in this area to provide a basis to measure, report and verify mitigation support. A strengthened framework for reporting could be developed and layered into the existing system, e.g. via National Communications. Data gaps and reporting frequency could be corrected through improvements in National Communication guidelines and the development of a common reporting format. The UNFCCC could also collaborate with other institutions to develop and draw on more standardised data from other sources and to assure that information across sources is comparable and publicly available. A key aspect would be to provide a monitoring system that covers not just public but also private finance in mitigation specific as well as mitigation relevant areas. The absence of verification procedures in the current UNFCCC monitoring and review system for mitigation support should also be addressed. The Convention does not lay out specific guidelines for the review of mitigation support reported in National Communications and reported information is not formally cross checked with alternative information sources. Parties could agree to the elaboration of guidelines for review and verification to help determine whether Parties have employed agreed methods for self assessment and reporting on technology transfer, capacity building and financing, and whether reporting is conducted in a transparent manner. In addition, standardised reporting by recipient countries about funds received, use and usefulness of funds could also be an important addition to provide information for verification with information on contributions to mitigation support.
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2009-10-01


Source: OECD iLibrary