Assessment Framework for Mitigation Actions:
A proposed tool to support development and management
of NAMAs
Marcos Castro
Climate Change Group, World Bank
UNFCCC Regional Workshop on CDM and
NAMAs for Latin America and the Caribbean
31 August – 2 September, Bogota, Colombia
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: why an assessment framework?
2. Objectives, goals and structure of the Assessment Framework
3. Mitigation Action Assessment Modules, Areas and Key Indicators
4. Consultation Process and Next Steps
5. Conclusions
This presentation builds on presentations prepared by DNV,
as part of work commissioned by World Bank..
2
Case 1: Developing Country
Challenge
•
It has implemented different mitigation programs for which the country aims at
securing international finance. The programs are different in nature and scope.
•
It is challenging to prioritize the programs to start first in the absence of an
uniform system
•
Different new carbon regimes have different standards/regulations
•
The country (CE) can scan the different programs based on a set of
preselected assessment criteria. It can analyse how the rating changes for
different programs as the weight for different rating criteria changes.
•
The rating is applicable to a broad number of programs which will obtain
different rating during the assessment.
•
Self assessment tool of different alternatives to prioritize implementation based
on a country level accepted evaluation/rating criteria.
•
Show international investors prioritization process and value of each program
(e.g., based on an agreed weight system for the assessment criteria)
•
Self assessment of programs allows for improvement and a 'race to the top'
which permits wider market access and higher value
•
Broad range of programs are assessed. It is no longer a yes/no process.
Assessment
approach
Value
3
Case 2: Donor Country
Challenge
•
It is presented with multiple investment opportunities. There is a broad
range of cases, from projects to multisectoral policy implementation
programs.
•
Some of these ER could be used for country pledges accounting. It is
required to find an equivalence system among those ER from the
different NAMAs/programs to make sure there is an standardized
equivalence among them.
•
Evaluates programs at the design stage, implementation stage and
execution stage providing an assessment output based on preselected
criteria.
Weight for assessment criteria can be changed based on
cooperation/investment approach.
Assessment
approach
•
Value
•
Prioritize diverse interventions based on pre set range of criteria
•
Self selection of acceptable rating output instead of a yes/no output
•
The rating allows for having an equivalence system among different
regimes.
4
Case 3: Private Investor
•
It is presented with multiple investment opportunities. There is a
broad range of cases, from projects to multisectoral policy
implementation programs.
•
Each opportunity is in a country with different criteria for ER
accounting and it is difficult to compare among them.
•
Evaluates programs at the design stage, implementation stage
and execution stage providing a rating output based on
preselected criteria.
•
Weight for rating criteria can be changed based on investment
approach.
•
Prioritization of investment opportunities.
•
Comparability among different program types.
Challenge
Assessment
approach
Value
5
Objectives of the Assessment Framework
The main objectives of the design of this assessment system are:
Develop a mechanism
for comprehensive
assessment of GHG
mitigation actions
Establish a common
framework to screen,
evaluate and compare
different mitigation
programs
Provide confidence to
donors/investors on
viability and level of
risk of different
mitigation programs
Facilitate
benchmarking and
identify areas for
continuous
improvement
6
Goals and Assessment Structure
Establish framework to enable:
• Program-level assessment of ‘environmental integrity’ (GHG
management) and ‘development benefits’
• Common set of key indicators to promote comparability of mitigation
programs (depending on user needs);
• Use a probabilistic approach to the rating of variables leading to
aggregate risk numbers for each of the (risk) modules
• Allow the user of the assessment framework (jurisdictions, investors,
donors, etc) to make overall rating based on their weighting of the risk
variables;
• As applicable, market participants to assign a value to carbon assets
generated by mitigation programs, based on performance against key
indicators
7
Goals and Assessment Structure
Key Considerations
In order to ensure broad acceptance and use:
• Be independent, transparent, and accountable, with engagement by
key players;
• Provide as much certainty and predictability around
evaluation/ratings, as is practicable;
• Review and apply existing rating methodologies, in order to facilitate
implementation and learn from previous experiences (credit, ESG
and carbon ratings and their relative merits and limitations);
• Clearly define functions and framework for assigning responsibilities
(gathering of information, operation of the rating system, etc.);
• Address legal and regulatory components;
• Address operating components.
Title of Presentation
8
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Assessment modules
The assessment protocol for Mitigation Actions / NAMAs
is formed by six independent modules.
Four modules are applicable to the mitigation action
program itself (program-level assessment), while two
other cover the level of ambition of the executing
jurisdiction, and are only relevant if carbon assets are
intended to be eventually traded internationally.
9
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Modules and module areas
Environmental Integrity
Mitigation Action
Program
Mitigation Action
Management Entity
Investment
Environment
Ambition Index
(jurisdiction level)
Development
Benefits
Definition &
Scope
Objectives &
Targets
Management
Framework
Planning
Roles,
Responsibilities
& Authorities
Barriers
Emissions
reduction from
Intervention
Monitoring and
Reporting
Economic and
political
environment
Level of
ambition
Financial and
Investment
Capacity
Framework
Climate Change
Programs
Management
Sustainable
Development
Objectives &
Targets
Planning &
Participation
Climate
Change
Capacity
Alignment and
focus
Monitoring of
Sustainable
Development
10
Mitigation Value
Assessment Structure
Module > Module Areas > Key Indicators
Module’s rating
Module area
weighting
Key indicators
weighting average
Relative importance of each
risk area within a module
Higher weight will assign a
larger impact
Key Indicators score
 Score range for each level of
development
- Default
- Override score
 Level of confidence
11
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Example: Weighting of Rating Areas
Definition & Scope
14%
# Key
Indicators
5
Objectives & Targets
Planning
20%
22%
4
7
Roles, Responsibilities & Authorities
7%
5
Barriers
7%
1
7
Monitoring & Reporting
20%
10%
Management Framework
30%
2
Climate Change Program Management
33%
37%
3
3
Internationally Recognized Country Ratings
45%
4
Climate change infrastructure: program level
Sustainable Dev. Objectives & Targets
Planning and Participation
Monitoring of Sustainable Development
55%
35%
45%
20%
4
7
8
6
Module
1. Mitigation Action
Program
Rating Area
Emissions Reductions from Interventions
2. Mitigation Action
Management Entity Financial & Investment Capacity Framework
3. Investment
Environment
4. Development
Benefits
Weight
3
12
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Example: Module – Area – Key indicators
Module
Area
Module Area Weighting
Key Indicator
Scope of the NAMA
and its contributions
to Sustainable
Development.
Program Design
Alignment with
National priorities.
Definition and
scope of the
NAMA
20%
NAMA approval by
relevant authorities
Starting date,
milestones and
length duration of
the Program
Boundaries for the
Program in terms of
a geographical area
of implementation
OverKI Score ride Level of
Score Range Range Score Confidence
KI
Weighting
The scope of the NAMA is clearly defined and documented.
20%
The scope of the NAMA is defined but it is not consistent along the documentation of the program.
The scope of the NAMA is neither clearly defined nor documented.
20%
10%
20%
The scope of the NAMA is aligned itself with the country climate change mitigation priorities as defined by
the Government
The NAMA contributes to climate change mitigation but does not outline how it aligns itself with the
National priorities on climate change mitigation as defined by the Government
The NAMA does not demonstrate how the scope is aligned with the country climate change mitigation
priorities as defined by the Government
The NAMAs have been developed and implemented with the approval of the relevant national authorities.
(Approver in the UNFCCC NAMA Registry)
The approval of the relevant national authorities has been requested but is still pending
There is no evidence of the approval of the relevant national authorities.
The starting date of the NAMA is clearly defined and justified in terms of when the emissions reduction can
be attributed to the NAMA. Milestones are included to allow progress and effectiveness to be reviewed.
The starting date is defined but it is not possible to conclude that the starting date is linked to the
accounting of ER due to the NAMA implementation.
The starting date is not clearly defined, is unjustified or is inconsistent across the NAMA documentation.
30%
The geographical boundary of the Program is defined in accordance to the jurisdiction authority of the
NAMA Implementation Entity (NIE). The boundaries analysis includes the evaluation of possible double
counting risk with other ongoing programs and jurisdictions.
The geographical boundary of the Program is defined but there is no justification of how it can interact with
the jurisdiction authority of the NAMA Implementation Entity (NIE) and do not take into account possible
double counting risk with other ongoing programs and jurisdictions.
The geographical boundary of the Program is not clearly defined.
Over-ride Justification
KI Score
60-100
40-60
40-60
high
10.00
0-40
60-100
40-60
0-40
30
low
0-40
even when the NAMA addresses cc
mitigation and other benefits, it is
taking place in a sector that is not a
focus sector for the country as outlined
in the National Climate Change
Program
6.00
60-100
40-60
0-40
60-100
high
8.00
0-40
high
4.00
60-100
40-60
0-40
60-100
40-60
0-40
40-60
40.00
high
the geographical boundaries are
defined. For the proposed
interventions, the NAMA identifies
other possible jurisdiction that can be
impacted. Nevertheless, the NAMA
13
does not adress how those cross
effects in ER can be quantified.
12.00
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Example: Module – Evaluation Areas
14
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Example: Module – Evaluation Areas
Mitigation Action Program Module
Definition & Scope
25
20
Monitoring and
Reporting
15
Objectives and
Targets
10
5
max score
0
score
Emissions
Reductions from
Interventions
Planning
Barriers
Roles,
Responsibilities and
Authorities
15
Mitigation Actions Assessment Protocol
Example: Evaluation Area – Key Indicators
16
Development of framework: Consultation Process
Stakeholder
consultations
• Carbon Expo
May 2013
• Latin America
Carbon Forum
(Rio de Janeiro),
FICCI (New
Delhi), Asian
Carbon Forum
(Bangkok) – Fall
2013
Working Group Globally
Networked Carbon
Markets
• WB Internal
Meeting – June
2013
• Paris Working
Group meeting 1
– Sept. 2013
• Webinar Update
– Dec. 2013
• Paris Working
Group meeting
2-February 2014
Peer review
• Comments
invited from the
Working Group,
selected
individuals and
organizations
• 3 technical peer
reviewers
17
Development of framework: Next Steps
Road-testing of draft assessment framework:
• …Individual NAMA proposals
• … Portfolios of Mitigation Actions/NAMA proposals
Development of online assessment tool, allowing for
customization by users for, e.g.,:
• …scanning and priorization of portfolios;
• … ex ante evaluation of NAMA proposals.
Excel-based draft version readily available, can be shared
with interested stakeholders.
18
Evolution of the system
Exchangeability…
Comparability…
Prioritization…
…of NAMAs
(nationally, regionally,
best in class)
…of NAMA carbon assets in
carbon markets
…of a NAMA
portfolio
19
20
Thank you!
Marcos Castro R.
Climate Change Specialist
mcastrorodriguez@worldbank.org
Climate Change Group, World Bank