Current approaches to MRV in South Africa: a scoping study

Abstract

It is shown that there are MRV-related activities underway in South Africa, particularly focusing on measuring electricity consumption and monitoring GHG emissions. Yet currently many of these activities happen in parallel systems within multi-polar governance structures. A bottom-up perspective of MRV in South Africa, informed by interviews, workshops, desktop research, and stakeholder consultations, is provided and the systems, data, methodologies, and the institutional environment relevant to a South African MRV system are examined. The development of the local monitoring and evaluation system, and its relevance within the international MRV context, is also discussed. Some recommendations are made: most importantly, there is a need for a coherent approach to be developed, one that is coordinated by government and built on existing MRV systems. Policy relevanceThis study contributes to a small, though emerging, body of literature on the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of emissions reductions, which has become a key issue in the international climate change negotiations. How to measure, report, and verify the impacts of so-called mitigation actions is a key question for decision makers, because access to financial support for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions partially depends on the ability to prove emissions reductions. In 2011, the South African government committed to establishing a domestic monitoring and evaluation system in its first national climate policy in the form of a White Paper. This system builds on existing institutional structures and databases. Some insights into the process of establishing a domestic MRV system are provided based on interviews, stakeholder workshops, and document studies. It is hoped that these insights will be useful to decision makers in developing countries, who face similar challenges in institutionalizing structures for the MRV of emissions reductions.

Towards Enhanced Transparency in Non-Annex 1 Countries? Challenges and Options for Measurement and Reporting in Georgia

“…In addition to emphasizing a lack of available funding [7,[16][17][18], the literature points to at least three main types of interrelated challenges for M&R in non-Annex 1 countries. We refer to these as technical challenges, coordination challenges, and motivation challenges.…”

Enhancing mitigation and finance reporting

“…information would then be reported, using the reporting guidelines. 7 Accounting would include information relevant to use of international transfers under Article 6. A Party's NDC and its decision to use international transfers under Article 6 may impact how a Party prioritises data collection and sophisticated emissions estimations in sectors important to its NDC, or as needed to participate in cooperative approaches under Article 6.…”

“…BUR guidelines cross-reference national communication guidelines dating from 2001, and hence currently refer to the previous 1996 IPCC guidelines. Nevertheless, most Parties are using or planning to shift to using the 2006 IPCC guidelines (Borgogno, 2016 [7] ), which provide different approaches for countries to estimate their GHG emissions, depending on how much data they have available and the level of methodological complexity they can use. 10 While current experience with inventory reporting and the use of guidance is 32. concentrated in Annex I countries, there has been increasing experience with communicating NIRs in several non-Annex I countries as well.…”

“…Supported by a formal political mandate, an integrated climate change monitoring system has allowed South Africa's Department of Environmental Affairs to consolidate and centrally manage data from multiple agencies since 2009, feeding into its BUR and second NC. South Africa's system also benefits from the existence of the national statistics authority (Stats SA) in consolidating climate finance data provided by different institutions (Boyd et al, 2014 [52] ) (McNicoll et al, 2017 [37] ). Box 1 explains how South Africa's monitoring system and research collaboration support the country's efforts to track private climate finance.…”

Experience with LEDS and NAMA Low Carbon Strategies: The Case of Georgia

“…Countries on which studies have reported include: South Africa [23][24][25], Israel [26], Indonesia [27], Thailand [15], Brazil [28], Colombia [29], Peru [30] and Chile [31]. Moreover, numerous comparative studies have been conducted to explore barriers, enabling factors and effects [5][6][7][8].…”