sustainable development indicators for mitigation actions · sustainable development indicators for...

Sustainable Development Indicators for Mitigation Actions:

Progress and State of the Art

Jason Dion, IISD

www.iisd.org ©2014 The International Institute for Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development Indicators for Mitigation Actions: Progress and State of the Art

Presentation outline

• IISD and Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI)

• IISD/UNEP DTU project: Measuring SD in NAMAs

• SD indicator systems - aspects to consider

• Relevant tools (CC mitigation specific)

• Relevant approaches (SD in general)

• Results and main take-away’s

• Appendix: Specific co-benefits and indicators being used in different approaches


IISD and Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI)

• Long history of work in sustainable development strategies and indicators

• Recent work includes:

– Development Impact Assessment (DIA) visualization tool (IISD, ECN, GIZ, NREL)

– Innovative Actions and Strategy Assessment (IASA) to promote sustainable dev.(Bizikova, Pinter, & Swanson)


IISD/UNEP DTU project: Measuring SD in NAMAs

• Undertaken by IISD and UNEP DTU, with support from UNFCCC

• Funded by UNDP through the NAMA Partnership’s Working Group on Sustainable Development

• Phase 1: review existing SD assessment tools to assess their applicability to the context of NAMAs; establish criteria for a NAMAs SDI framework

• Phase 2: develop and pilot a NAMAs SDI framework


IISD/UNEP DTU project: Measuring SD in NAMAs

Phase 1 methodology:

• Literature Review

– SD Tools: NAMA SD Evaluation tool, Indian Co-benefits Approach, Gold Standard, CDM SD tool, DIA

– SD Approaches: SAFA, PPM, MCA, IASA, SIA

– Also: NAMA Facility, NAMA database and registry

• Stakeholder interviews

– Survey circulated to 2056 people, 338 answered

– Six in-depth interviews conducted(2 developing country government perspectives, 2 NGO perspectives, 1 private sector perspective and 1 donor perspective; 2 more planned)


SD indicator systems - aspects to consider

• Participation, transparency; governance

• Ex-ante, ex-post

• Indicator choice facilitation

• Qualitative, quantitative; monetization

• Aggregation and weighting

• Baselines and causality

• Scale (regional, national, sub-national, sectoral)

• Needs of different audiences (gov’t, sector stakeholders, funders)

• Links with SDGs and national targets

• Links with UNFCCC (NAMAs, INDCs)

• Links with existing MRV systems


Relevant tools

5 tools that focus on the SD impacts of mitigation options were reviewed:

• NAMA SD Evaluation Tool (South Pole and MDG Carbon)

• Indian Co-benefits Approach

• Gold Standard

• CDM SD tool

• Development Impact Assessment (DIA) visualization tool (IISD, ECN, NREL, GIZ)


Relevant tools: NAMA SD Evaluation Tool

• New, excel-based tool with eight work sheets:



• Provides high-level methodological framework on SD co-benefit analysis for NAMAs

• Offers process guidance; links with SDGs

• Functions as a tracking system thatcountries can apply



• Makes indicator suggestions, but usually kept very high-level

• The details of what to track and how to track are mostly left up to the user to determine


Relevant tools: Indian Co-benefits Approach

• Methodology for operationalizing a co-benefits approach to climate policy formulation (adds clarity)

• Focuses on energy, but could be applied to other sectors

• Decision-making tool



• Qualitative; employs multi-criteria analysis

• Considers economic growth, inclusion, env., and GHG mit.

• Rooted in achieving national development priorities, incorporates implementation costs

• Steps:1. Set the context for the decision

2. Identify options to be appraised

3. Lay out criteria for assessing consequences

4. Score options against the criteria

5. Apply any weights to be used

6. Determine options scores

7. Examine results; sensitivity analysis


Relevant tools: Gold Standard

• Certification standard for mitigation projects

• Verifies that projects:

– reduce greenhouse gas emissions

– consult with local stakeholders

– improve the environment and people’s lives

• Monetizes impacts beyond GHG mitigation



• Powerful tool but monetization can be complex, and may miss part of the story


Relevant tools: CDM SD tool

• Voluntary tool from the CDM Board for assessing SD impacts of CDM projects; output goes to PDD

• Qualitative, web-based platform that walks user through consideration of various SD impacts


Relevant tools: CDM SD tool

• Uses following breakdown of SD impacts:


Relevant tools: Development Impact Assessment (DIA) visualization tool

• Discussion facilitation, decision-making tool

• Links mitigation with SD co-benefits (+/-), provides a view that can fit in one page; sector-specific

• Inputs can be qualitative or quantitative

• Steps:1. Determine scope, select options

2. Identify indicators (with stakeholder input)

3. Research/model GHG mitigation and costs (MACC)

4. Research SD impacts

5. Validate findings in workshop, rank options



• Application: evaluation of NAMAs in Kenya’s electricity sector


Relevant Approaches Reviewed (won’t go into detail here)

• Relevant approaches not specific to CC mitigation but important for providing broader perspective:– Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA)

• Helps ensure sustainability along the length of food and agriculture value chains

– Pressure Policy Matrix (PPM)• Tool for checking that new initiatives align with SD, other strategies/goals

– Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA)• Addresses problems with conflicting evaluations, deals with diverse values/units

– Innovative Actions and Strategy Assessment (IASA) to Promote SD• Aids in assessment and development of strategies, national priority alignment

– Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA)• Evaluates individual initiatives with respect to their sustainability impacts


Results: Interview and Survey

Survey (338 responses) 6 in-depth interviews:

• 2 developing country government perspectives

• 2 NGO perspectives• 1 private sector

perspective• 1 donor perspective


Different perspectives, different priorities

SD goals Needs for SDassessment

Approaches/MRV Challenges

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

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

Ex-ante assessment mostimportant. 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 beuseful 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 burdento countries.

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


Take-away’s from literature review, survey and interviews:

1. Holistic view - SD co-benefits assessments should have strong ties to allaspects of SD so that SD contributions end up being ambitions

2. Importance of participatory processes e.g. stakeholders’ view are indeed taken into account to inform/modify the strategy/assessment and the stakeholders are aware of the planned participation process (instead of ad-hoc consultations … consulting rather than informing)

3. Qualitative assessments of different SD co-benefits is critical to form a basis for more detailed quantifications, as well as guide the trade-off assessment between different NAMA choices


Take-away’s from literature review, survey and interviews:

4. Key to have specific quantified indicators that measure contributions to allaspects of SD – as the overview of current projects and proposals showed a very brief and generic indication of benefits, strongly centered on economic

5. Need to articulate and compare different options that maximize mitigationbenefits but also takes into account other aspects of SD and provide transparent comparison of the trade-offs and thus a justification for the chosen NAMA actions and projects … merge different measures

6. Need for both ex-ante and ex-post assessment – ex-ante to inform the LCDS climate policy process and the design of individual NAMAs; ex-post to track progress towards the SD goals after implementation


Appendix:

Specific co-benefits and indicators being used in different approaches


Specific Co-benefits: From CDM SD Tool


Specific Co-benefits: Mitigation analysis completed for Kenya’s National Climate Change Action Plan


Co-benefits: Those seen in NAMA projects under development


Specific Indicators:

NAMA: Improvement of Road-based Freight Sector in Columbia


Very specific Indicators:

Center for Clean Air Policy

MRV of NAMAs: Guidance for Selecting Sustainable Development Indicators

(Sectors included transport, renewable power generation, building EE, industrial EE and waste management.

The indicators highlighted in light grey have been suggested for at least three sectors from the five.)

sustainable development indicators for mitigation actions · sustainable development indicators for...

Documents