Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Developing countries, especially Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), often lack the technical capacity, tools and robust institutional frameworks to enable regular reporting on the implementation progress of the Paris Agreement (PA) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Reporting is crucial for creating both a national and global overview of the state of mitigation efforts, adaptation plans and support needed and received towards enhanced ambition of all Parties’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to meet the global goal of staying well below 2 °C of global warming above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 °C. The Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) of the Paris Agreement (PA) is established to build mutual trust and confidence, allow comparability and ensure accountability among Parties, and to promote effective implementation. The framework is designed with built-in flexibility, taking into account developing countries' limited capacities, especially the LDCs and SIDS, who can report at their discretion. Appendix 2 includes a map of where the LDC and SIDS are located, globally.

The Nordic countries have actively worked on strong and ambitious international climate agreements and warmly welcomed the adoption of the Paris Agreement. With the Nordic Declaration on Carbon Neutrality in January 2019, the Nordic Prime Ministers agreed that the Nordic countries would reinforce their climate goals by 2020 and work together to become carbon neutral, while committing to intensifying the focus on climate change in development cooperation. Against this backdrop the Nordic Climate and Air Pollution group (NKL) selected a consortium by UNEP DTU Partnership and NIRAS to implement the project 'Nordic Capacity-Building Support to LDCs and SIDS for the Implementation of the Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement' from October 2019 to March 2020.

The objectives of the project are to:

1. Provide the Nordic countries with an overview of ongoing capacity-building efforts to support developing countries to establish monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and national transparency systems to implement the ETF of the PA, especially in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Identify gaps in ongoing capacity-building support initiatives and identify the needs in developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDS, for further capacity-building support by the Nordic countries. The expert support aims to recommend further capacity-building (CB) efforts by the Nordic countries to enhance the capacity of LDCs and SIDS in order to fulfil their reporting requirements under the ETF, either by new initiatives or additional support to ongoing initiatives, on the basis of the overview and in-depth needs and gap analysis of ongoing efforts.

This Final Report addresses both objectives. The report is structured in seven chapters and refers to information and analysis of data presented in seven appendices. Chapter 1 describes the rules, modalities and procedures (MPGs) of the ETF, as they apply to developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDS. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the main international support initiatives for CB to the ETF and types of CB support provided to LDCs and SIDS. Chapter 3 maps where the Nordic countries are financing climate-related ODA projects (LDCs and SIDS). Chapter 4 identifies LDC and SIDS target countries to be considered for further CB support by the Nordic countries, based on a comparison of the findings in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 5 presents a synthesis of categories and types of CB gaps and needs by LDCs and SIDS based on a brief overview of literature on the topic, complemented by an analysis of original data on CB self-assessments and requests for support to implement the ETF. Chapter 6 recommends high priority areas and types of CB support to be considered for Nordic support of transparency, based on findings in Chapter 5. Finally, Chapter 7 concludes with recommendations for Nordic support to build capacity for transparency in LDCs and SIDS.

1. REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY LDCS AND SIDS, TO IMPLEMENT THE ETF OF THE PA

1.1 The Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement

Article 13 of the PA established an ETF for action and support. The ETF is established to build mutual trust and confidence among Parties, allow comparability and ensure accountability, and to promote an effective implementation of the PA (UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.21, 2016). Its purpose is twofold:

1. The purpose related to transparency of action is meant to provide a clear understanding of action taken to achieve the global mitigation objectives of the PA, namely to limit global warming at well below 2 °C and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 °C. It includes tracking the progress towards achieving Parties' NDCs, and Parties' adaptation actions, to inform the global stocktake (GST).
2. The purpose related to transparency of support is meant to provide clarity on support provided and received by individual Parties in the context of actions to achieve NDCs. It includes adaptation actions, financial support, technology development and transfer, capacity building and, to the extent possible, a full overview of aggregate financial support provided to inform the GST.

By demonstrating that all countries contribute to the implementation of the PA through their NDCs, and that developed countries provide support for action in developing countries, the ETF will ultimately lead to a rise in the ambition to meet the PA and build trust between Parties. An overview of the ETF is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overview of the ETF of the PA

Source: ICAT Introductory Guide, 2019

In December 2018 the Parties adopted the “Katowice Climate Package” at the Conference of Parties (COP) 24 in Katowice, which provides operational details for the PA, including modalities, procedures and guidelines (MPGs) for the ETF. The MPGs describe what information to report, reporting format, timing and processes of the ETF.

The MPGs provide a clear overview of the information to report in the Biennial Transparency Reports (BTR) -- the new reporting instrument under the PA. Countries now have clear guidance on what information to report on the following aspects:

• The National Inventory Report (NIR),
• Information to track progress in implementing and achieving their NDCs,
• Information on climate change impacts and adaptation, and
• Information on support needed and received.

Figure 2, below, illustrates the changes in the process of reporting and reviewing once the ETF enters into force, by 31 December 2024 at the latest.

Figure 2: Timeline for ETF implementation

Source: UNEP DTU Partnership, 2019

The NIR is a mandatory deliverable and a component of the BTR, but it can also be submitted as a stand-alone document. The reporting of information on climate change impacts and adaptation, and information on support received is voluntary. Countries can also choose to submit an Adaptation Communication (AC) as part of their BTR, or through other reporting vehicles, such as the NDC, National Communication (NC), or National Adaptation Plan.

Countries are required to submit the NC and Biennial Update Reports (BUR), including NIR, in the period up to 2024 when the ETF enters into force. Submitting BURs will no longer be required once the ETF enters into force. In the period up to 2024, countries will be able to submit their last BUR in a consolidated report with their first BTR, applying the MPGs for the ETF. All countries will continue submitting the NC every four years and will be able to do so in a consolidated report with the BTR, the years they coincide.

The BTR will undergo a Technical Expert Review (TER) process consisting of:

• A review of the consistency of information,
• Consideration of the Party’s implementation and achievement of its NDC,
• Consideration of the Party’s support provided (for developed countries),
• Identification of areas for improvement on transparency, and
• Assistance in identifying capacity-building needs for countries that require it.
   

The TER will be followed by the Facilitative, Multilateral Consideration of Progress (FMCP) between parties, and will consider:

• Information in the NIR,
• Information to track progress in implementing and achieving the NDC,
• Information on transparency-related support provided to developing countries (for developed countries), and
• Information on support needed and received.

The Global Stocktake (GST) takes place every five years, starting from 2023, in parallel with the process of raising ambition of NDC submissions, which also takes place every five years, starting from 2020. The GST is meant to periodically take stock of the implementation of the PA, assess the collective progress towards achieving the goals of the PA, and, through its outcome, inform Parties' preparation of future NDCs. In addition to the ETF, Parties are also invited, by the end of 2020, to communicate long-term strategies (LTS), defining the countries' mid-century, long-term low greenhouse gas (GHG) emission development strategies.

1.2 Requirements of developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDS, to implement the ETF

For developing countries, including LDCs and SIDS, the MPGs will enter into force with the submission of a Party's last BUR, or by the end of 2024 at the latest. All countries are guided by the same set of MPGs. However, flexibility is provided to those developing country Parties that need it, due to their capacities.

Recognizing the special circumstances, LDCs and SIDS have discretion in terms of submitting their BTR. This allows Parties that need it to provide less information than otherwise required by the MPGs. However, this cannot be applied to all categories of the information requested. When flexibility is allowed, the country will have to explain why and how it has applied flexibility, and to identify the capacity constraints that justified the use of flexibility. Furthermore, the country must report and follow up on the areas where improvement is needed, provide information on progress made and a timeframe showing how the country plans to meet the full requirements. Thus, the flexibility accommodates countries with transparency-related capacity constraints, but also provides a process that allows countries to continuously improve over time, with an expectation that support for ETF implementation will be provided by developed countries.

In addition to the flexibility provision, in some cases the MPGs request information as “should”, “may” or “encouraged to report” formulations. In all cases other than “shall” requirements, information can be omitted without needing to apply the flexibility provision. Appendix 1 provides a list of information to be reported in the BTR, where flexibility can be applied.

For LDCs and SIDS, specifically, reporting information on progress and updates on implementation presents an opportunity to highlight both mitigation and adaptation efforts, while also highlighting challenges and further support needs. This information can serve to attract financial, technology and capacity-building support to overcome the identified challenges, and offers a vehicle for LDCs and SIDS to attract international support to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The MPGs for the ETF should, therefore, not only be regarded as additional reporting requirements, but also as an opportunity for LDCs and SIDS. Applying the MPGs will allow LDCs and SIDS to strengthen national Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) processes, thus allowing for enhanced capacities to identify, prioritize, plan, execute and communicate national mitigation and adaptation policies and measures, and communicate the support needed and received for their implementation. In this context, the expected and ongoing support for transparency by the international community and the Nordic countries can have wider, significant impacts beyond improving the information provided to the UNFCCC.

2. TYPES OF CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES FOR TRANSPARENCY BY THE MAIN INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT INITIATIVES

2.1 Overview of the main international support initiatives to implement the ETF

Information about the main international support initiatives to developing countries, including LDCs and SIDS, has been sourced from the 'MRV Group of Friends' database^{[1]The database is not available to the general public, but accessible to the MRV Group of Friends members.} of ongoing support initiatives for monitoring, reporting, verification (MRV) and transparency, as well as the websites of the individual initiatives. The Group is informally coordinated by the UNFCCC Secretariat and includes about 14 international institutions and countries, including UNEP DTU Partnership. An overview of the main support initiatives, and the period over which they are implemented, is provided below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Timeline for implementation of the main international support initiatives

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019. A description of the initiatives is provided in Table 2

Support provided by the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) and the Partnership on Transparency in the Paris Agreement (PATPA) is on going and will expand into the future. Other initiatives, such as the MRV Program by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) and the MRV Hub for the Caribbean are time-limited. The Initiative for Climate Action Transparency (ICAT), now in its second phase, will finish in 2021, with potential expansion and continuation. The Enabling Activities for NCs, BURs and BTRs supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) will continue also after 2024, as GEF supports all mandatory reporting under the UNFCCC. The size of future funding for the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) is currently undetermined. The allocation for CBIT under the GEF-7 cycle of USD 55 million is exhausted and has been fully committed to CBIT projects. The Global Support Programme (GSP) for NCs and BURs by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) will finish in 2020, but will transfer into a new GEF-funded programme and will merge with the CBIT Global Coordination Platform (GCP).^{[1]The CBIT Global Coordination Platform is a website that hosts all CBIT projects globally. Its aim is to enable coordination among countries and agencies, and facilitate knowledge sharing and peer learning. The platform can be accessed via https://www.cbitplatform.org/} Further information about which LDCs and SIDS are supported by the initiatives is provided in Appendix 2. Analysis of the data in Appendix 2 gives an overview of the number of all support activities (both project-type and workshop-type) to all LDCs and SIDS, which can be seen in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Number of support activities to all LDCs and SIDS

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

Figure 4 shows that all LDCs and SIDS have received at least two support activities from the main initiatives, and most countries have received three support activities. The countries that have received the most support - the 'donor darlings', receiving six support activities each - are Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia and Rwanda.

By ranking the international support initiatives according to the number of countries supported, an overview can be seen of the geographical outreach and size of the initiatives, as shown in Table 1. For ease of reading, workshop-type support initiatives are in bold font, while project-type support initiatives are in italic font.

Table 1: Ranking of international initiatives by number of LDCs/SIDS supported

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

The CGE and GEF Enabling Activities reach out to almost all LDCs and SIDS with support for implementation of the ETF, focusing on reporting requirements to the UNFCCC, particularly those such as NCs and BURs. PATPA and the GSP are the second largest initiatives, supporting 40–46 countries each, also focusing on reporting requirements to the ETF, particularly NCs and BURs. A common characteristic of the largest initiatives, apart from GEF Enabling Activities, is that the mode of support relies on workshops, training and dialogues, not project support.

A short description of the overall and specific aims of each initiative is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Aim of international support initiatives for MRV and Transparency

Source: Own analysis by consortium based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives

Each of the international support initiatives are described in further detail in Appendix 3 with regard to: 1) Funding, i.e. the size of support available to countries; 2) Implementing partners; 3) Participation in the sense of access to international support from a country perspective; 4) A list of all developing countries participating in each initiative -- also non LDCs and SIDS; 5) Results so far and planned future activities (where information is available).

2.2 Types of capacity-building activities for MRV/transparency by the main initiatives

To further describe the types of capacity-building activities provided, the initiatives are described with regard to their mode of work. Overall, two modes of capacity-building support are the most widely used: 1) project-type support and 2) workshop-type support. Project-type support is understood as in-country multi-year support activities that include, among others, comprehensive capacity-building activities, technical support, and the funding of full-time positions in the countries. Project-type support is provided by CBIT, GGGI MRV Program, GEF Enabling Activities and ICAT. Project support range from USD 1.3 million per project implemented over a 1–2 year period by CBIT^{[1]The average funding of all CBIT projects is USD 1,276,788. The average funding of CBIT projects in LDCs is slightly lower at USD 1,164,807, while the average funding of CBIT projects in SIDS is even lower at USD 1,066,056 (based on own analysis using data from the GEF projects database, as of 20 November 2019).}, to smaller projects of about USD 250,000 per project implemented over a 1–3 year period by ICAT. Workshop-type support is understood as the provision of workshops and trainings and the facilitation of dialogue and cooperation. These activities are often 'on-off' or annual activities such as regional workshops provided by PATPA once or twice a year. Workshops/training/dialogues typically reach out to multiple countries per event, such as regional workshops, training events including webinars and sharing of knowledge resources. Workshop-type support is provided by the CGE, GSP, MRV Hub for the Caribbean, and PATPA.

Due to the length and depth of assistance provided through project-type support activities, the technical and institutional capacities built are likely higher than those through annual workshops or trainings. This is especially the case for the support provided by the GEF Enabling Activities, as countries are supported for the preparation of consecutive NCs and BURs over many years. With regard to project support, Figure 5 provides an overview of the number of countries supported by projects.

Figure 5: Overview of the number of countries supported by projects

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

As Figure 5 shows, 1 country is supported by 4 projects (Ethiopia), 6 countries are supported by 3 projects, 25 countries are supported by 2 projects, 45 countries are supported by 1 project and 1 country is not supported (Singapore). Countries supported by 1 project have received support from the GEF Enabling Activities. Appendix 2 provides further information on which countries receive how much support from which initiatives.

A ranking of which LDCs and SIDS receive the most and least support through projects is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Ranking of LDCs/SIDS receiving most support through projects

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

Figure 6: Number of countries supported with workshops/training/dialogues

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

Figure 7 shows the number of workshop-type support activities provided to LDCs and SIDS (both as one group, blue in colour, and as separate groups, orange and grey). The figure shows that most countries have received two or three workshop-type support activities, and only eight countries have received just one workshop activity (Afghanistan, Bahrain, Cook Islands, Mauritania, South Sudan, Suriname, Yemen). All countries have received at least one workshop-type support activity, leaving no country without support. Further details on which countries have received how much support is provided in Appendix 2.

Figure 7: Number of workshop/training/dialogue activities provided to LDCs/SIDS

3. WHERE THE NORDIC COUNTRIES FINANCE ODA IN LDCS AND SIDS, RELEVANT TO CLIMATE ACTIVITIES AND THE ETF

This chapter presents an analysis of LDCs and SIDS where the Nordic countries have recently or are currently financing climate change-related ODA work or political supported initiatives. The focus is on all climate change-related aid work provided by the Nordic countries, as transparency- related support provided up to now is minor and would not provide a conclusive analysis.

Specifically, this overview is aimed at the identification of LDCs and SIDS with established relationships with the Nordic countries. It is assumed that an active and strong presence by Nordic ODA support indicates a prioritization of LDCs and SIDS for Nordic countries, and that established working relations imply existing systems, which are able to provide further capacity-building support for transparency.

The following section identifies global and regional initiatives supporting LDCs and SIDS, where the Nordic countries are active. These initiatives can be used as vehicles to support thematic transparency-related capacity-building support.

3.1 Overview of global and regional initiatives supported by the Nordic countries

The Nordic countries are deeply involved in global and regional initiatives. The nature of these initiatives is diverse and covers, for example, research, training, promotion, political support and implementation of MRV of the PA. Below is a presentation of initiatives that could be relevant for implementation of the ETF. A takeaway point from Table 4 is that if a program already covers climate change training, it could integrate the ETF as a component, if relevant.

The overview in Table 4 is not exhaustive, and is based on information provided by the Nordic countries on relevant global and regional initiatives. It lists some of the most important initiatives potentially relevant to ETF activities. All the initiatives cover at least one LDC or SIDS. The overview also includes a short description, ideas for ETF action, and a link to the homepage for further information.

Table 4: Overview and description of initiatives

Source: Own analysis based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives, and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

Global and regional initiatives can be a platform for developing ETF activities in a cost- effective manner, as they cover multiple countries and more stakeholders for the same activities. The initiatives have the potential for a smooth transfer of knowledge between countries, including the LDCs and SIDS in the above-mentioned initiatives. For example, the “Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction” initiative can potentially prepare MRV tools and guidelines for the building sector. The tools and guidelines should be prepared so the private sector, such as equipment suppliers and contractors, could use them when implementing solutions in the countries and also as an integrated part of the training and marketing they are performing. Using the initiative promotes the developed material easier, which can be used by more stakeholders under the initiative, potentially resulting in a very high outreach. The initiative, if supported with expertise in the ETF, can also contribute to the detailed set-up and operation of the ETF in a country and the practical implementation of the MPGs. If it is done through one of the above-noted initiatives it can be smoothly transferred and implemented in the selected LDCs and SIDS.

An overview of the Nordic countries’ support to these initiatives is provided in Table 5. For each initiative, the participating LDCs and SIDS and the Nordic countries supporting the initiative are indicated. The notion of 'support' covers both political and financial support.

Table 5: Overview of global and regional initiatives supported by the Nordic countries

Source: Own analysis based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives, and the respective initiatives' own websites, 2019

Most initiatives cover several LDCs/SIDS, while a few cover only one LDC. Ethiopia is a high priority country and is involved in most initiatives. Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda and DR Congo are members and/or partner countries in at least three of the initiatives, each.

3.2 Overview of bilateral initiatives to LDCs and SIDS supported by the Nordic countries

The overview of bilateral initiatives to LDCs and SIDS focuses exclusively on public climate financing. This section aims to identify countries where the Nordic countries have established strong working relations, indicating that the LDCs and SIDS in question are priority countries with systems in place that can absorb capacity-building support. It is assumed that there is a higher probability of effective implementation of capacity-building support due to existing contacts, ongoing work and co-operation.

Sources of data for the analysis come from three sources:

• OECD development finance statistics capture an integrated picture of both bilateral and multilateral climate-related external development finance. Both adaptation and mitigation projects are covered as part of the climate-related activities.^{[1]http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/climate-change.htm}
• Under the UNFCCC Annex I Parties are requested to submit their BURs to the secretariat every two years. The third BUR (BUR3) should have been submitted to the secretariat by 1 January 2018.
• The European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet) is a partnership network of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its 39 member and cooperating countries. The countries have an obligation to report to the EU and GHG Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR). The MMR has now been substituted by Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action and the first report will be in 2021.

Data from the three sources is overlapping, as they report the same activities. ODA is an important part of the OECD reporting and is therefore used to make an overview of the projects covering climate financing for LDCs and SIDS, covering the period 2012–2017.

Table 6, below, presents all the LDCs and SIDS that Nordic countries have provided climate-related ODA support to.^{[2]Climate-Related ODA, as defined for OECD DAC Rio Markers, Nordic countries' own reporting.} Appendix 5 provides a more detailed breakdown of the support, which shows how many climate-related projects each Nordic country has in each LDC and SIDS.

Table 6: List of LDCs and SIDS countries supported by Nordic countries with climate-related ODA

Source: Own analysis based on consultation with Nordic countries' representatives

Table 6 shows that 5 LDCs and SIDS (green colour) have been supported by more than 100 climate-related projects from the Nordic countries; 24 LDCs and SIDS have benefitted from support from 11 to 100 climate-related projects (blue colour) and 20 LDCs and SIDS has been supported from 1 to 10 climate-related projects (yellow colour). Lastly, 29 LDCs and SIDS have not received climate-related support (red).

Looking through the list of 1,959 projects reported to the OECD, very limited attention has been given to the ETF. The main international support initiatives to the ETF are presented in Chapter 2 of this report. Figure 8 provides an overview to further identify which LDCs and SIDS are supported the most by Nordic countries and projects.

Figure 8: LDCs and SIDS countries supported by Nordic ODA projects

Source: Own analysis based on OECD DAC reported information by the Nordic countries between 2012 and 2017

The analysis identifies the LDCs and SIDS that have received the most climate-relevant ODA finance from Nordic countries, as follows:

• 5 Nordic countries are all supporting 5 LDCs and SIDS (Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Somalia and Uganda), with a total of 636 climate-related projects;
• 4 of the Nordic countries are supporting 6 LDCs and SIDS (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malawi, Myanmar, Nepal and Tanzania), with a total of 673 climate-related projects;
• 3 of the Nordic countries are supporting 14 LDCs and SIDS (Angola, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Haiti, Liberia, Madagascar, Niger, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo and Zambia), with a total of 432 climate-related projects;
• 2 of the Nordic countries are supporting 7 LDCs and SIDS (Benin, DR Congo, Lao, Lesotho, Mauritania, Papua New Guinea and Rwanda), with a total of 145 climate-related projects;
• 1 Nordic country is supporting 17 LDCs and SIDS (Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Djibouti, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Maldives, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu and Yemen), with a total of 73 climate-related projects.

In summary, the Nordic countries have prioritised few and nearly the same countries for climate-related support. A detailed breakdown of number of projects in each LDC/SIDS country for each of the five Nordic countries is presented in Annex 5.

4. LDCS AND SIDS TARGET COUNTRIES FOR NORDIC CB SUPPORT TO TRANSPARENCY

This chapter builds on the findings of Chapters 2 and 3 to identify potential target countries (LDCs and SIDS) for Nordic CB support to transparency, based on a set of explicit criteria. Country identification also served to reach out to target countries to schedule interviews during COP25 in Madrid, to inform the analysis of gaps and provide recommendations for Nordic transparency-related capacity-building efforts.

4.1 Ranking of LDCs and SIDS according to international project support and Nordic support received

To start narrowing down potential target countries for Nordic CB support, the LDCs and SIDS where the Nordic countries have been most active through climate change-related ODA projects (Table 6) and where the least support for transparency is provided by the international initiatives (Table 23, in Appendix 2) are selected. This combination of criteria enables the identification of countries that are both under-served, in terms of transparency support, and have well-established working relations with the Nordic countries. The data, which enables a comparison of support to LDCs/SIDS by Nordic countries with CB support provided by international initiatives, is presented in Appendix 4.

Figure 9: Ranking of LDCs and SIDS with least transparency support by number of Nordic support projects

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database 2019 and the OECD DAC reported information by the Nordic countries between 2012 and 2017.

If the Nordic countries are aiming to target support to LDCs and SIDS with a strong history of Nordic country presence, but with a poor presence of transparency-related activities, then countries with green colour coding in Figure 9 should be prioritised, followed by the green ones in Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10: Ranking of LDCs and SIDS with medium transparency support by number of Nordic support projects

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database 2019 and the OECD DAC reported information by the Nordic countries between 2012 and 2017

Figure 11: Ranking of LDCs and SIDS with most transparency support by number of Nordic support projects

Source: Own analysis based on 'MRV Group of Friends' database 2019 and the OECD DAC reported information by the Nordic countries between 2012 and 2017

The fading of the colour of the green and orange bars over the three graphs illustrates an increasing number of project-type support received by international transparency initiatives. This represents the declining prioritization of potential countries for further CB support by Nordic countries. Ethiopia, the only country receiving four transparency project-type support, has the faintest colour coding.

Assuming that the Nordic countries intend to further support countries with established relationships and prioritize LDCs and SIDS, which have received the least or medium support from international support initiatives (one or two projects only, see Figures 9 and 10), a shortlist for Nordic CB support to transparency is suggested as follows:

• LDCs and SIDS with the least capacity for transparency and Nordic ODA support: Nepal, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Somalia, Bhutan, Burundi, Niger, Angola, Guyana, South Sudan (Figure 9).
• LDCs and SIDS with medium capacity for transparency and Nordic ODA support: Tanzania, Mozambique, Malawi, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Madagascar, Afghanistan, Haiti, Liberia, Togo, Lao PDR, Sudan, Papua New Guinea (Figure 10).

4.2 Examples of country-specific challenges and needs

The following section includes identified transparency needs and gaps from the countries selected according to criteria presented in Annex 7. The information is sourced from a review of the latest NCs and interviews during COP25 in Madrid. Remote interviews have been attempted with the two countries that were not reached during COP, however they did not respond after COP either and are therefore left out. The information included in the NCs predates the ETF and MPG, and tends to be focused on the needs related to GHG inventories, while the interviews provide more insights on the broader aspects of transparency support needed.

The interviews were designed to capture the following information:

• Key priorities – and the gaps to meet these – for MRV/transparency in relation to the ETF requirements;
• Key challenges to meet the ETF requirements;
• Type of CB support most needed to implement the ETF;
• Mode of CB support deemed as most effective;
• Preference of partners with which to build capacity for implementing the ETF;
• Other information or issues regarding the CB needs to implement the ETF.
   

NEPAL:

Nepal's NDC lists the following mitigation targets:

• 80% RE penetration by 2050;
• Reduced dependency on fossil fuels by 50%, by 2050;
• 20% RE expansion by 2020, compared to 2010;
• 20% share of electric vehicles (EV) by 2020, compared to 2010;
• Electrical (hydro-powered) rail network by 2040;
• Maintain 40% of the total area of the country under forest cover;
• REDD+ to reduce about 14 million tCO2-eq by 2020.
   

For adaptation, Nepal presents the following priorities:

• Building Climate Resilience of Watersheds in Mountain Eco-regions; 
• Building Resilience to Climate Related Hazards; 
• Mainstreaming Climate Change Risk Management in Development;   
• Building Climate Resilient Communities through Private Sector Participation.
   

The country has submitted two NCs (the latest in 2014) and no BURs, although the first BUR and the third NC are in the making, but not ready to be submitted yet. Nepal has only received one transparency-related support project -- GEF Global Support Programme. Per capita emissions in 2010 are estimated at 1.3 tCO2eq/cap, with an estimated 11% reduction in per capita emissions by 2030, based on its NDC ambition (Paris Equity Check, 2020). There are 152 registered Nordic country support initiatives between 2012–2017 OECD DAC reporting.

Nepal states that the lack of quality data and absence of country-specific emission factors for the various emission-related activities are the main restraining factors to developing detailed and precise GHG inventories. For example, Nepal's unique type of traditional agriculture is not reflected in IPCC methodologies, and there is no suitable emission factor developed that could be applied.

During COP25, an interview was conducted with the National Focal Point for Climate Change and Chief of the Climate Change Management Division. The Focal point explained that the country is just at the beginning of establishing MRV/transparency systems for the three tiers of government: federal, provincial, and local. One main challenge will lie in collecting data for all tiers in a coordinated manner. The new climate policy has identified several core areas for climate reporting -- including gender, research and technology, finance. These are cross-cutting areas, which require review and access to the necessary information to make the society climate-resilient. As climate resilience is a priority, adaptation communication is also a priority for Nepal. Another priority is research targeting the younger generation, which promotes development of skills for CC and transparency. In terms of preferred modes of support, longer-term projects are most helpful to building capacities. It is necessary to first identify the needs at the local level and for the communities, although workshops and research can also be helpful. In terms of preferred partners for support delivery, inputs from universities and collaboration with private sector are highlighted. All collaborations should be coordinated by the government to work with various partners by setting up a Committee for partnerships and collaborations, including universities, civil society, etc.

The following list specifies gaps and barriers identified through interviews held during COP25:

• Lack of research and baseline information for forestry and land-use for the third NC;
• Limited information available for the industrial sector;
• Fragmented skills and data in various institutions;
• CB for elected bodies at various levels needed to enhance transparency at multiple levels of government; 
• Need to customize the IPCC 2006 Guideline to the Nepal context.
   

ZAMBIA:

Zambia's NDC presents an unconditional target (with limited international support) of 25% emission reductions compared to BAU, equivalent to 20,000 Gg CO2eq. The conditional target is 47% emission reductions compared to BAU, equivalent to 38,000 Gg CO2eq. Focus sectors on mitigation are Sustainable Forest Management, Sustainable Agriculture, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Adaptation priorities are in strategic productive systems agriculture, wildlife and water. Zambia has only received one transparency-related support project -- GEF Global Support Programme. Per capita emissions in 2010 are estimated at 2.3 tCO2eq/cap, with an estimated 8% reduction in per capita emissions by 2030, based on its NDC ambition (Paris Equity Check, 2020). There are 90 registered Nordic country support initiatives between 2012–2017 OECD DAC reporting.

The following transparency-related challenges and gaps are identified through a review of Zambia's latest NC:

• Lack of a Quality Assurance/Quality control (QA/QC) system in place to ensure routine and consistent checks required for data integrity, correctness and completeness from different data sources; 
• Lack of harmonization between Zambia’s energy balance reporting classification with that of the UNFCCC;
• Lack of reliable biomass activity data and appropriate emission factors for biomass combustion and charcoal production;
• Lack  of  reliable  activity  data  for  determination  of GHG emissions for HFCs and SF6 under industrial processes for the following activities: road paving with asphalt, pulp and paper production, food and beverages, refrigeration and air conditioning, and consumption of SF6 in electrical equipment (transformers);
• Lack of assessment of uncertainties and absence of QA/QC system, and use of default emission factors for the Agriculture sector, unreliable activity data for animal waste management, agricultural soils, and burning of agriculture crops;
• Lack of assessment of uncertainties and absence of QA/QC system, and use of default emission factors and unreliable activity data for the LULUCF sector;
• Lack of complete activity data on solid waste management and wastewater flow from all utilities and industries, pit latrines and incineration.
   

In general, studies need to be undertaken to improve on the activity data and/or emission factors for the following sectors: Agriculture, LULUCF, Industrial Processes and Waste. Furthermore, QA/QC systems for the various sectors need to be established.

During COP25, an interview was conducted with representatives from the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, and the Acting Deputy Director of the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. The interviewees explained that Zambia has limited international support to transparency and MRV. Currently, Zambia only receives support through the NDC Partnership, which, in practice, is one person assigned to the task. General support for all UNFCCC-related reporting and the setting up of a permanent national MRV system is needed. The priority is to build up a robust and sustainable system for reporting, which will require the Ministries, Research Institutes and Universities to be boosted in the number of employees, and their respective staff to receive training. Zambia would like to boost expertise in the five inventory sectors:  Energy, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, Land Use Change and Forestry, and Waste. However, they  need support from international experts in order to perform training for these five sectors. Support from international experts will also be needed to set up the national MRV system.

Table 7: Ranking of LDCs with one project-type transparency support, according to number of Nordic support projects received, and emission profile

Source: Own analysis

Table 8: Ranking of SIDS (incl. LDC-SIDS) according to number of Nordic support received

Source: Own analysis

Countries that comply with four criteria are marked dark green. Countries that comply with three criteria are marked light green. SIDS not eligible for ODA have dark grey-coloured text in bold. LDCs moving away from LDC status have blue-coloured. Countries with political instability are coloured red.

The countries that meet most of the criteria on the LDC list, excluding countries soon to graduate from LDC status, not eligible to receive ODA and with political instability, are:

• Djibouti
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Is expected to experience a 22% increase in per capita emissions by 2030 (baseline 2.2 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
     
• Mali
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has been supported by 78 Nordic initiatives
  • Is expected to experience a 42% increase in per capita emissions by 2030 (baseline 1.9 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
     
• Myanmar
  • Has been supported by 73 Nordic initiatives
  • Has only submitted 1 NC
  • Is ranked as the 49th largest contributor to emissions worldwide
     
• Nepal
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has been supported by 152 Nordic initiatives
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
     
• Niger
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has been supported by 24 Nordic initiatives
  • Is expected to experience a 59% increase in per capita emissions by 2030 (baseline 1.3 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
     
• Zambia
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has been supported by 90 Nordic initiatives
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
     

The countries that meet most of the criteria on the SIDS list are:

• Guyana
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has been supported by 78 Nordic initiatives
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Has relatively high emissions per capita (baseline 4.7 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
     
• Nauru
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Has high emissions per capita (baseline 4.4 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
  • Is expected to experience a 49% increase in per capita emissions by 2030
     
• Niue
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Has high emissions per capita (baseline 4.1 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
  • Is expected to experience a 23% increase in per capita emissions by 2030
     
• Suriname
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Has high emissions per capita (baseline 6.8 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
  • Is expected to experience a 34% increase in per capita emissions by 2030

Additionally, the following SIDS comply with three of the selection criteria (equal to the criteria compliance of the selected LDCs):

• Palau
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Has high emissions per capita (baseline 12.4 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)
     
• Timor-Leste
  • Has received transparency support only through the GEF enabling activities
  • Has only submitted 2 NCs
  • Is expected to experience a 13% increase in per capita emissions by 2030 (baseline 1.2 tCO₂ per capita in 2010)

5. GAPS AND NEEDS IN CB EFFORTS TO LDCS AND SIDS TO IMPLEMENT THE ETF

Challenges and gaps in capacity-building efforts vary between countries, due to their respective national circumstances, specific needs and priorities. Generally, capacity-building efforts under the UNFCCC can be divided into two main aspects (Dagnet et al., 2019):

1. Capacity building at the governance level aimed at improving the national institutional structures, mechanisms, procedures, policies and laws.
2. Capacity building to perform core technical functions for specific information requirements -- e.g. gather, analyse and report specific information.

This division can also be applied to the case of capacity building for transparency. Capacity building is needed at the institutional level in order to develop governance systems to implement the ETF, and at the technical, human capacity level through training and knowledge-sharing to raise awareness of specific information available and develop skills -- e.g. application of IPCC methodology to be able to report GHG inventories.

The identification of gaps and challenges depends on the perspective from which these are analysed. Taking an international transparency perspective, challenges and gaps can be framed around the ability to submit timely communications to the UNFCCC, the ability to use high IPCC tier level methodologies for GHG inventory, or the availability of data to respond to both shall and should reporting requirements in BTRs. From a country perspective, challenges and gaps are more related to the ability to assess the effectiveness of national policies, such as capacity to assess sustainable development impacts of climate policies, alignment with national development plans, and availability of priority sectors' activity data for improved planning.  The LDC and SIDS needs and gaps to implement the ETF are mapped from both perspectives. Section 5.1 reviews the existing literature on transparency to identify issues and gaps from an international perspective. Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 present original analysis of countries’ self-reported needs and gaps, identified through CBIT funding proposals (5.2), CBIT self-assessments (5.3) and interviews with two countries during COP25 (5.4). 

The international perspective is mapped through the following approaches:

• Available literature on reporting challenges and gaps, including self-expressed challenges and gaps in NCs
• Results of Task 2 on coverage of international capacity-building efforts and submitted NCs and BURs
   

The country perspective is mapped through:

• Available statements on country priorities and gaps in capacity-building efforts in existing literature
• CBIT project proposal applications
• CBIT Global Coordination Platform country self-assessment tool on the state of national transparency systems
• Interview responses from selected countries during COP25

5.1 Review of literature on transparency issues for LDCs and SIDS

Existing literature on developing country needs and gaps in relation to the ETF is limited (WRI, 2019; IIED, 2019 & GEF, 2019). This is not unexpected due to the short time since the ETF and MPGs entered the international scene, respectively since the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the Katowice 'rulebook' including MPGs for transparency in 2018. The UNFCCC Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) conducted surveys with national focal points, NC and BUR project coordinators, national GHG inventory coordinators, and sectoral or thematic experts from 86 developing country Parties between May and July 2019. The survey maps problems, constraints and lessons learned by developing country Parties during the process and preparation of NCs and BURs, gauging emerging needs resulting from the ETF of the PA (UNFCCC, 2019).

The UNFCCC survey indicated that only 24% of the respondents (117) were familiar enough with the MPGs to identify their needs and start planning for the implementation of the ETF.

Key capacity-building needs identified for preparing and reporting BTRs include:

• The national GHG inventory
• Tracking progress of implementation and achievement of NDCs
• Climate change impacts and adaptation
• Support needed and received

For all countries, needs related to institutional arrangements, methodologies and tools was a recurrent theme for capacity-building needs, under the four topics listed above. In particular, the need for formalizing MRV processes, retaining institutional capacities, and the need for establishing an MRV system. The need to strengthen institutional arrangements and coordination was predominant. Under methodologies and tools, the need for practical tools and guidance and technical capacities were highlighted. In addition, the need for enhancement of assessments for vulnerability and adaptation, tracking and reporting of support needed and received were also identified.

In terms of the countries' own priorities for capacity building, they are listed in sequence of relative importance, as follows:

1. Methods or practical guidelines for tracking progress of implementation and achievement of NDCs (42%)
2. Understanding the relationship between MRV and transparency of climate action and support, and the tracking or monitoring of Sustainable Development Goal indicators (19%)
3. Formalizing a data collection and management process (18%)

For further details on results of the CGE UNFCCC survey and insights from literature representing an international perspective on LDCs and SIDS capacity-building gaps and needs, see Appendix 6.

5.2 Analysis of CBIT support requests reflecting country needs and gaps for CB

Looking at CBIT funds to developing countries can provide some information on the transparency-related needs and priorities expressed. Figure 12, below, illustrates the percentage of specific types of CB activities included in approved CBIT projects.

Figure 12: CBIT Project Priorities per Type of Activity (as of April 30, 2019)

Source: GEF, 2019: Progress report on the Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency

A majority of CBIT-approved projects focus on capacity building, knowledge sharing, and training activities, as well as activities to strengthen institutional arrangements, MRV systems, and NDC transparency and policy design. Scenario modelling of economic and/or GHG emissions trends are seldom included in project proposals, and less than a third of the projects included a project-component on reporting of support needed and received (GEF, 2019).

Even though adaptation is a priority for most developing countries, only 47% of CBIT proposals included a component related to the establishment or improvement of MRV for adaptation activities (GEF, 2019). Approximately 28% included a component related to improvements of GHG emissions from the AFOLU sector, reflecting the sector's relative importance in terms of emissions in the countries, and the challenges countries have in quantifying and reporting sectoral emissions and removals, due to limited data and technical capacities (GEF, 2019).

Focusing on LDCs and SIDS, there is a similar prioritisation, although LDCs and SIDS seem to have more focus on support needed for GHG Inventory Data Collection and Management Tools, and general GHG Inventory improvements (GEF, 2019).

Looking beyond approved CBIT projects, and analysing LDCs and SIDS Project Identification Forms (PIF) submitted to the GEF for CBIT funding, a specific set of trends arise. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the number of outputs LDCs and SIDS have included in their PIFs, as it relates to a specific set of categories. The last five categories are aligned with the reporting inputs and aspects of the transparency framework, as illustrated in Figure 1, while the first four categories are cross-cutting. Out of the 11^{[1]11 LDCs: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Togo and Uganda} analysed PIFs submitted by LDCs, most outputs sought were related to GHG inventory support, with a main focus on the procedural aspects of GHG inventory development. This is followed by outputs related to transparency of NDC actions, with the focus staying on the procedural aspects. Capacity-building support on stakeholder knowledge-transfer and institutional aspects of transparency appear to also be a relatively high priority.

Figure 13: Distribution of outputs of LDCs in CBIT PIF submitted to the GEF

Source: Martinez, et al., 2019: Implementing the enhanced transparency framework: early insights from the capacity-building initiative for transparency

Looking at sectoral representation, Agriculture and Land use/Forestry were prioritized by all PIFs analysed, followed by Energy (renewables and efficiency) and Waste.

Table 9: Sectoral prioritisation for LDCs in analysed CBIT PIFs

Source: Own analysis by Martinez, G. S., 2019, UNEP DTU Partnership

Looking at SIDS, the focus of the 5^{[1]5 SIDS: Papua New Guinea, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica} analysed PIFs shifts and is much more centred around transparency support for NDC actions. Moreover, 7 outputs focus on support for procedural aspects, 5 on institutional aspects and capacity building, and 5 on support for procedural aspects of climate change impacts and adaptation. According to PATPA, LDCs and SIDS would highly benefit from basic training on GHG inventory, and SIDS' focus on NDC tracking might illustrate the difference in priorities between international UNFCCC reporting requirements and national priorities, as mentioned at the start of this chapter. 

Figure 14: Distribution of outputs of SIDS in CBIT PIF submitted to the GEF

Source: Martinez, et al., 2019: Implementing the enhanced transparency framework: early insights from the capacity-building initiative for transparency

In terms of sectoral representation, Agriculture and Land use/Forestry were again prioritized, followed by Energy (renewables and efficiency), Industrial Processes and Transport.

Table 10: Sectoral prioritisation for LDCs in analysed CBIT PIFs

Source: Own analysis by Martinez, G. S., 2019, UNEP DTU Partnership

5.3 Self-assessment of 19 LDCs and SIDS capacity-building needs

The CBIT Global Coordination Platform's self-assessment tool is designed to help countries define the state of their national transparency systems and identify the corresponding gaps and needs, through guiding questions and complementary information collected directly from country representatives. It also enables countries to submit additional information on their priorities for capacity building.

The tool is made in the form of a questionnaire, covering the information that Parties to the Paris Agreement shall regularly provide, as defined in the enhanced transparency framework established by Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. The questionnaire has four sections, each with a number of sub-sections asking specific questions about the countries' capacity to prepare the required information, as follows:

1. National greenhouse gas inventory
   • Responsible institution for coordination and implementation of inventory activities – sub-section with 5 questions
   • Engagement of stakeholders – sub-section with 9 questions
   • Data collection and management – sub-section with 12 questions
   • Methodologies used – sub-section with 6 questions
   • Quality assurance and control procedures – sub-section with 11 questions
2. Progress made in implementing and achieving NDCs
   • Institutional arrangements – sub-section with 7 questions
   • Data collection and management – sub-section with 5 questions
   • Procedures for monitoring progress – sub-section with 8 questions
3. Climate change impacts and adaptation
   • Institutional arrangements – sub-section with 8 questions
   • Data collection and procedures – sub-section with 7 questions
   • Methodologies for planning and monitoring – sub-section with 6 questions
4. Financial, technology transfer, and capacity-building support needed and received
   • Institutional arrangements – sub-section with 5 questions
   • Procedures for reporting support needed – sub-section with 7 questions
   • Procedures for reporting support received – sub-section with 7 questions

The self-assessment tool has previously been used by focal points of the CBIT projects, who are typically part of the team engaged in transparency and MRV work in the country (see Table 23 for details on countries). The questions in the self-assessment are close-ended but there is always an open answer option, to be used if the available closed answer options are not appropriate to describe the country situation. The answers provide an indication of the level of country 'readiness' in the topic being asked about. After the country completes its self-assessment, the answers are examined and scored against a 'readiness' scale, and a summary sheet is created and shared with the country. Finally, there is a follow-up discussion with the country to validate the results in the summary sheet and make adjustments, when necessary. Upon validation by the country, the results of the self-assessment are published in the CBIT Global Coordination Platform.

The results of the self-assessment tool provide an indication of the level of capacity (on a scale ranging from 0 to 100%) that a country has to meet the information requirements specified in the ETF. This level of capacity can of course change over time because of ongoing capacity-building efforts or due to changes in the country context -- e.g. poor retention of qualified staff, changes in organizational structure at the ministry level. The results presented in this document pertain to the self-assessment of capacity done by a sample of 44 developing countries, of which 12 are LDCs, 7 are SIDS, and 25 are other developing countries (Figure 15). These self-assessments were done throughout the last quarter of 2018 and first semester of 2019.

Figure 15: Country users of the self-assessment tool (2019)

Source: Own analysis by Cardoso, A., 2020, UNEP DTU Partnership

In terms of level of capacity for reporting a national GHG inventory, the analysis of the self-assessments shows that on average LDCs and SIDS have somewhat lower levels of capacity than other developing countries -- 60% for SIDS and LDCs, and 67% for other developing countries. The majority of other developing countries have a level of capacity for national GHG inventory within 57% and 89%, whereas the majority of SIDS is within 53% and 77%, and the majority of LDCs is within 57% and 73%. This can be seen in Figure 16, which shows the shape of the distribution of capacity levels to produce and report a GHG inventory, the variability (minimum and maximum values), and the central values (average and median).

For the different groups of countries assessed (LDCs, other developing countries, and SIDS), the box-and-whisker chart of Figure 16 shows, on a scale of 0 to 100:

• The minimum value of capacity level in the group - for example, in the LDC group this value is 35 (the low end of the whiskers)
• The average value of capacity level in the group - for example, in the LDC group this value is 60 (the dot in the light blue box)
• The median value of capacity level in the group - for example, in the LDC group this value is 64 (the black line in the light blue box)
• The maximum value of capacity level in the group - for example, in the LDC group this value is 73 (the high end of the whiskers)
• The mid-spread dispersion of capacity level in the group, which is a measure of where the middle 50% of countries are - for example, there is more spread in the group of other developing countries than in the groups of LDCs and SIDS (the coloured boxes). This means that the group of other developing countries is less homogeneous.

Figure 16: Distribution of countries' capacity levels to report information on national GHG inventory

Source: Own analysis by Cardoso, A., 2020, UNEP DTU Partnership

The areas of the GHG inventory where LDCs and SIDS are lagging somewhat behind other developing countries are methodologies and procedures for data collection and management. Figure 17 (left) shows that half of the LDC and SIDS countries in the sample have a capacity level on methodologies for GHG inventory between 44% and 64%, whereas the capacity level in half of other developing countries is within 48% and 81%. There is a more accentuated difference in the levels of capacity on data collection and management procedures for GHG inventory, as shown in Figure 17 (right). The capacity level on data collection and management procedures in the majority of the other developing countries is within 54% and 81%, whereas in the LDCs this level ranges between 21% and 73%, and in SIDS countries it is within 32% and 61%. Half of the LDCs have a capacity level on data collection and management procedures for GHG inventory below 43%, whereas in half of SIDS countries it is below 50%.

For the different groups of countries assessed (LDCs, other developing countries, and SIDS), the box-and-whisker charts of Figure 17 show, on a scale of 0 to 100:

• The minimum value of capacity level in the group - the low end of the whiskers
• The average value of capacity level in the group - the dot in the coloured box
• The median value of capacity level in the group - the black line in the light blue box
• The maximum value of capacity level in the group - the high end of the whiskers
• The mid-spread dispersion of capacity level in the group, which is a measure of where 50% of the countries are - the coloured box

Figure 17: Distribution of countries' capacity levels on methodologies (left) and data collection and management procedures for GHG inventory (right)

Source: Own analysis by Cardoso, A., 2020, UNEP DTU Partnership

In general, countries' assessment of the capacity level to report information on the implementation and achievement of NDCs is lower than the capacity level to report on national GHG inventory. This is expected because the implementation of NDCs is supposed to start in 2020 and the first time countries will report about it will be in 2024. Conversely, all countries that used the self-assessment tool have gone through at least one round of reporting information on GHG inventory through a National Communication. Moreover, a significant number of countries have also submitted one Biennial Update Report.

The results of the self-assessment show that there is a less accentuated difference between LDCs and other developing countries in terms of their assessed levels of capacity for reporting information on NDC implementation, and that SIDS have lower levels of capacity than both LDCs and other developing countries. Figure 18 shows that the average level of capacity for reporting on NDC implementation range is 53% in other developing countries, 46% in LDCs, and 37% in SIDS. The difference is explained by the lower assessed capacity by SIDS in terms of institutional arrangements and methodologies for monitoring NDCs. All countries in the sample have significant gaps in terms of data collection and management procedures, where the average level of capacity is 28% for LDCs, 31% for SIDS, and 44% for other developing countries.

For the different groups of countries assessed (LDCs, other developing countries, and SIDS), the box-and-whisker chart of Figure 18 shows, on a scale of 0 to 100:

• The minimum value of capacity level in the group - the low end of the whiskers
• The average value of capacity level in the group - the dot in the coloured box
• The median value of capacity level in the group - the black line in the light blue box
• The maximum value of capacity level in the group - the high end of the whiskers
• The mid-spread dispersion of capacity level in the group, which is a measure of where 50% of the countries are - the coloured box

Figure 18: Distribution of countries' capacity levels to report information about implementation and achievement of NDCs

Source: Own analysis by Cardoso, A., 2020, UNEP DTU Partnership

In terms of reporting information on climate change impacts and adaptation, the LDCs assessed a somewhat higher level of capacity than SIDS and other developing countries. The average level of capacity for reporting climate change impacts and adaptation actions is 49% in LDCs, and 42% in SIDS and other developing countries (Figure 19). The capacity levels of SIDS and other developing countries are very similar in terms of institutional arrangements for reporting adaptation, methodologies, and data collection and management procedures. In all of these, the LDCs have, on average, higher levels of capacity. In all countries, the gaps in capacity are higher for data collection and management procedures in adaptation reporting.

For the different groups of countries assessed (LDCs, other developing countries, and SIDS), the box-and-whisker chart of Figure 19 shows, on a scale of 0 to 100:

• The minimum value of capacity level in the group - the low end of the whiskers
• The average value of capacity level in the group - the dot in the coloured box
• The median value of capacity level in the group - the black line in the light blue box
• The maximum value of capacity level in the group - the high end of the whiskers
• The mid-spread dispersion of capacity level in the group, which is a measure of where 50% of the countries are - the coloured box

Figure 19: Distribution of countries' capacity levels to report information about climate change impacts and adaptation

Source: Own analysis by Cardoso, A., 2020, UNEP DTU Partnership

Despite countries having experience in reporting on adaptation through their National Communication, the average capacity level for reporting on adaptation is approximately 20 points lower than for reporting on national GHG inventory.

The experience of countries in reporting information about support needed and received is quite limited. As such, the capacity levels for reporting this kind of information are the lowest. On average, the capacity level is 34% for LDCs, 35% for other developing countries, and 43% for SIDS (Figure 20). The SIDS consistently reported higher levels of capacity in all aspects related to the reporting of support, namely the institutional arrangements, the procedures for reporting support needed, and the procedures for reporting support received. In all countries, capacity gaps are slightly higher in procedures for reporting support needed than in support received.

For the different groups of countries assessed (LDCs, other developing countries, and SIDS), the box-and-whisker chart of Figure 20 shows, on a scale of 0 to 100:

• The minimum value of capacity level in the group - the low end of the whiskers
• The average value of capacity level in the group - the dot in the coloured box
• The median value of capacity level in the group - the black line in the light blue box
• The maximum value of capacity level in the group - the high end of the whiskers
• The mid-spread dispersion of capacity level in the group, which is a measure of where 50% of the countries are - the coloured box

Figure 20: Distribution of countries' capacity levels to report information about support needed and received

Source: Own analysis by Cardoso, A., 2020, UNEP DTU Partnership

There are no significant differences in terms of capacity levels for institutional arrangements in the reporting of information about GHG inventory, tracking of NDCs, adaptation, and support needed and received. Overall, the average levels of capacity for this aspect range between 40% and 67%, which denotes the existence of capacity gaps, although there are larger capacity gaps in data collection and management procedures.

5.4 Synthesis of categories and types of gaps and needs

Summarizing the gaps and needs in capacity-building efforts to LDCs and SIDS to implement the ETF, there are some general observations that can be used to highlight general trends, and to guide formulation of recommendations for Nordic countries' transparency support. In general, there are very low capacities on data collection and management, procedures for reporting on NDC progress and achievement, and procedures for reporting support needed. SIDS also have limited reporting capacities on climate change impacts and adaptation, especially in terms of institutional arrangements, and data collection and management and procedures. Additionally, there appears to be a large gap for SIDS on methodologies for NDC progress and achievement. In terms of priorities, LDCs seem to prioritise capacity building for GHG inventory improvements, followed by NDC progress and achievement, while SIDS seem to priorities building capacities in NDC progress and achievement, followed by climate change impacts and adaptation.

Table 11 illustrates gaps in transparency capacity (score 1–100) for different CB needs areas for LDCs and SIDS, respectively. Areas with the biggest gaps are marked in green; medium capacity in yellow; and higher capacity is marked in red. The priorities for CB enhancement for LDCs and SIDS is based on the number of outputs related to each CB needs area countries have requested support to CBIT. The higher the number, the more countries have requested support related to the respective area. The CB needs areas with highest support requested are marked in green.

Table 11: Matrix of prioritized gaps and needs by LDCs and SIDS

Source: Own analysis

The left column lists overall ETF reporting requirements. The second column lists CB needs areas based on the CBIT self-assessment tool. The third column identifies areas where capacities are lowest, based on the CBIT self-assessment tool, as discussed in section 5.3. The last column identifies priorities based on CBIT PIF outputs under the same categories as reporting inputs and aspects of the transparency framework, as presented in Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Expressed types of CB support needed by LDCs and SIDS

The CBIT PIF sample analysed, and the NDC priority sectors reveal some trends in terms of priority sectors for transparency-related support. This information might be relevant in the potential choice to utilize existing international and regional initiatives supported by the Nordic countries. Where some of these initiatives focus on specific sectors, these could be used as a channel for transparency-related CB in the given sector to participating LDCs and SIDS. This information is also useful in case the Nordic countries choose to deliver CB through bilateral programmes. Specific Nordic countries' capacities in the respective sectors could be utilized to deliver targeted transparency support through existing REDD+ capacities for forestry sector support or support transparency activities in the energy sector through capacities with LEAP, for example.

The sample of LDCs seem to prioritize, in particular, the Agriculture and Land Use Change and Forestry sectors, followed by Energy and Waste. The sample of SIDS also prioritize Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry. It should also be noted that NDC priorities, in general, tend to include the energy sector; therefore the CBIT PIF sample, in addition to identifying priority sectors, likely also illustrates where capacities lack. Some transparency capacities and data in the energy sector tend to be in place, compared to other sectors.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NORDIC SUPPORT TO TRANSPARENCY

In this chapter, priority areas for capacity building for LDCs and SIDS to implement the ETF (identified in Chapter 5) are assessed, regarding how well they fit the international initiatives, programmes and Nordic support activities (as identified and described in Chapter 2). Through a scoring approach, the most suitable programmes/initiatives/support activities have been identified. To validate assessment results, the consultant had a dialogue with the representatives of the initiatives to clarify initial interest and views on the identified priority areas.

6.1 High priority areas for LDCs and SIDS

Based on the analyses in previous chapters, the following can be concluded.

Countries complying with UNFCCC reporting requirements by submitting one or more BURs and participating in the International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) are assumed to have more capacities and be better prepared to respond to the new requirements of the ETF. Therefore, capacity-building support for enhanced transparency should focus on countries that are underperforming in terms of UNFCCC reporting, in line with the analysis under Task 2. Furthermore, the focus of new initiatives should target countries that have received less support and are more limited in their capacities, so as to build basic institutional and technical capacities to be able to generate reports on a continuous basis, in line with the analysis under Task 2. Therefore, it is recommended that the Nordic countries remain updated on the advancements of participating countries under the different international initiatives, to target the countries most in need of support.

Specifically, the results from Chapter 5 led to the following conclusions:

• The two ETF reporting components, 1) GHG Inventory (LDCs) and 2) NDC progress and achievement (LDCs and SIDS), have been identified as both highest priority and highest gap in knowledge.
• The capacity-building needs cover 1) Institutional arrangements, 2) Methodologies, and 3) Data collection, management and procedures.
• Both LDCs and SIDS have Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry as highest sectoral priority.

6.2 Types of CB for transparency to be considered by Nordic stakeholders

CB support for transparency is split into three types, which can be structured as a menu of options or “work packages” to recipient countries, namely:

1. GHG Inventory
2. Reporting NDC progress and achievement
3. Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry

The following provides some general insights on the types of capacity-building support identified for each ETF reporting component, to be considered when designing a transparency support programme.

6.2.1    GHG inventory

Institutional arrangements

Institutional arrangements should be formalized by establishing data-sharing protocols or memorandums of understanding with the relevant institutions to facilitate data sharing (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). The institutional arrangements and relevant mandates should be supported by the creation of a legal instrument mandating the preparation of the national GHG inventory and the continuous disclosure of activity data by major GHG emitters to the designated entity responsible for the national GHG inventory (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). This will contribute to making the process more sustainable (PATPA, 2019). The involvement of the national statistical agencies can assist the inventory preparation process and the cross-fertilisation of capacities between the institutions. The creation of a coordination mechanism, such as a working group comprising key ministries, is key to improving the quality of the national GHG inventory and the efficiency of the data collection process (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). It is important to consider and explore ways of engaging more national experts in the capacity-building initiatives, instead of contracting consultants to lead the national GHG inventory process, in order to prevent the loss of knowledge and expertise of temporarily employed consultants. The establishment of a dedicated team or unit in key institutions serving as the focal point for data sharing and management can improve data collection and address the issue of data loss resulting from staff turnover (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). The Zambia interview delegate stressed the importance of building up a robust and sustainable system for reporting and inventories, which will require Ministries, Research Institutes and Universities to boost the number of employees and the appropriate training for the staff. Zambia would like to implement this approach.
 

Methodologies

Capacity building is needed in the understanding and application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and IPCC inventory software, and for identifying appropriate and consistent methods for estimating emissions, to ensure a reliable and consistent time series (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). Countries have also expressed the need to establish national emission factors to ensure more accuracy in the estimation of national emissions from key sectors (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). Basic training on how to do GHG inventories would be highly useful in LDCs and SIDS that have not yet submitted a BUR, while countries with more experience could benefit from advanced training on GHG inventories (PATPA, 2019).
 

Data collection and management and procedures

When providing support for GHG inventory improvements, the establishment of national

GHG inventory data management systems are central. The systems should also function as an archive and make accessible to the relevant stakeholders the background data and information, procedures and steps undertaken, assumptions made, and functions performed by key stakeholders (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). When providing data to the system, users should be enabled to document the steps in the data collection process to help maintain institutional memory and create a basis for a larger data depository (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). There is a need to improve the data collection system, storing of data and QA/QC procedures in LDCs and SIDS.

6.2.2    Reporting NDC progress and achievement

National Arrangements

The capacity-building support should aim to develop in-house expertise and arrangements to make the process sustainable (PATPA, 2019). The strengthening of coordination with enforcement entities, including ministries and other stakeholders at different governance levels, can facilitate data collection and use of policy instruments (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). There is a need to develop or strengthen a mechanism for tracking and verifying GHG emission reductions resulting from various mitigation actions across all sectors (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). This system should build upon the lessons learned and existing mechanisms in the GHG inventory process. There needs to be institutional arrangements in place to properly identify and prioritise adaptation actions, which are included in almost all NDCs from LDCs (IIED, 2019). These arrangements can build on the NDC process but also expand on stakeholder participation to allow for adaptation of relevant participation. Aiming for continuous reporting will contribute to enhancing the technical capacity of experts and institutions (UNFCCC CGE, 2019).
 

Methodologies

The inclusion of sustainable development co-benefits in assessing mitigation actions provides more comprehensive mitigation assessments and makes mitigation measures more attractive for policymakers (UNFCCC CGE, 2019), which can contribute to an increased ambition in the NDCs. There is a need to identify and apply appropriate methodologies and progress indicators, to track the progress and quantify the effects of NDC actions (UNFCCC CGE, 2019), especially for countries that use qualitative targets in their NDC -- particularly frequent for LDCs (IIED, 2019). Work on climate impacts and adaptions should strive to build upon capacities built through models, estimates and analyses from previous NCs (UNFCCC CGE, 2019). There will be cases where appropriate and practical methodologies and tools for vulnerability and adaptation assessment, climate modelling and projections will have to be identified (UNFCCC CGE, 2019).
 

Data collection and management and procedures

For future mitigation assessments it could be important and supportive, if progress indicators are developed. The progress indicators can be set-up for future mitigation assessments, but it should also be possible to explore, whether the indicators can be used for already gathered data. Building on existing data collection processes can facilitate NDC reporting and support clear reporting with indicators. Strengthening the network of meteorological stations and observation systems can assist in improving data availability. There is a need to develop or upgrade the technology infrastructure to enhance the quality of observational and meteorological data (UNFCCC CGE, 2019).

6.2.3    Agriculture and land use change and forestry

The agriculture, land use change and forestry sectors are characterised by having both an adaptation and mitigation component. This combination could be attractive for any potential support programme. Below is a list of ideas of high priorities identified from various sources.
 

National Arrangements

Improved national LULUCF MRV in terms of implementation of the principles of accuracy, completeness, transparency and comparability in accordance with the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF. The setting-up of the national LULUCF MRV should be done in conjunction with other priority sectors in LDCs and SIDS.
 

Methodologies

Adaptation has attracted less attention for methodology development to enable good monitoring and reporting. Therefore, there is a need for further development of methodologies and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits and resilience to be part of systematic monitoring and reporting. The methodologies and processes for measuring and monitoring mitigation co-benefits of adaptation are relatively well defined under the UNFCCC national communications, national inventories, and biennial update reports compared to adaptation. Consequently, further development of methods and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits and resilience are recommended. As an example, carbon stock is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored within the ecosystem. It has a huge global impact and there is no agreed methodology. Therefore a common method for estimating the carbon stock in LDCs and SIDS could have a big impact. Developing synergies with existing agricultural databases and information systems  are also mentioned as an area with potentially substantial impact.
 

Data collection and management and procedures:

Support for the digitalisation of agriculture by promoting the application of digital tools in LDCs and SIDS to enable more effective implementation and measurement of results from climate actions in the agricultural sector could be a priority. Agriculture has been behind other sectors in the development and implementation of digital tools. Digital tools are good for transparency reporting and go well with, for instance, real-time farmer decision support systems, more effective and accurate measurement of results, as well as commercial action in the market, like buying and selling of products. The forestry sector can also benefit from digital tools, especially to document more precisely the actual situation, which is important in the national reporting to the UNFCCC. In both the agricultural and forestry sectors in LDCs and SIDS, there is a need to improve the data collection system, data storing and QA/QC procedures.

6.3 International transparency initiatives

Table 12, below, presents how potential international support initiatives could be expanded to support the priority areas identified, based on the analyses in Chapter 5.

For the priority areas Inventory; NDC progress and achievement; and Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry, the scoring is based on whether the topic has been included in the initiative. The initiatives are very different. For instance, one is a platform for exchange of information; another is built to facilitate potential grant support. The scoring is based on whether the initiative is suitable to administer funding used for capacity building in LDCs and SIDS.  In the event that the Nordic countries would like to support an initiative, it is also important that they can influence how the funding is used. It is a sensitive parameter, as this can be interpreted differently. It is included in the scoring, as it is an attention point for potential future support.  

The higher the score, the better the fit between the activities of the initiatives and the priority areas.  High scoring = 3, Medium scoring = 2 and Low scoring =1. 

Table 12: Scoring of international initiatives to support CB for transparency for LDCs and SIDS

For all the initiatives, it seems like the priority area 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry' could be included, although it is not a focus area in the description of most of the initiatives. All the initiatives are expected to potentially cover 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry', hence they all have the same scoring for this. In general, all the initiatives have a high score, as they are pre-selected as relevant for transparency activities.

ICAT provides country-driven support. Nordic countries could provide funding through ICAT, and influence the choice of countries to support with the additional funds provided. The volume of support is much smaller than CBIT, but support is targeted to address countries' main gaps and needs. ICAT also provides more flexible and swifter support and administrative procedures. Current implementation approaches provide a competitive process, where Nordic countries' specific expertise and tools have a high priority of being selected for capacity development.

CBIT is now mainstreamed into the GEF Trust Fund and is fully integrated into the GEF-7 cycle (2018–2022) with a funding of USD 55 million. When the GEF-8 replenishment negotiations start, the Nordic countries may influence funding priorities through the Council. CBIT prioritises LDCs and SIDS. However, as GEF delivers through its accredited agencies, the Nordic countries  have little direct control over the process or potential use of their specific expertise and tools.

GSP will finish in 2020 but will transfer into a new GEF-funded programme and will merge with the CBIT Global Coordination Platform.

If the Nordic countries opt for providing transparency support through CCMRVH, it will only cover few LDCs and SIDS, and the support will be given through already existing set-up.

Based on the above information, it is recommended that ICAT be explored as the highest priority in case the Nordic countries would like to give support through the international support initiatives. It should be noted that all the initiatives support transparency as their key objective.

6.4 Nordic supported initiatives

Table 13, below, presents the potential international programmes with Nordic support and the priority areas, based on the analyses in Chapter 5.

The higher the score, the better the fit between the activities in the programmes and the priority areas.  High scoring = 3, Medium scoring = 2 and Low scoring =1. 

Table 13: Scoring of Nordic initiatives to support CB for transparency to LDCS and SIDS

The three initiatives with the highest potential for being aligned with the priorities of the LDCs and SIDS are (shown by the green colour in the table above):

• Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative;
• Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate – A global capacity building programme;
• The “4 per 1000” Initiative.

Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative is one programme. However it does have several different strands focusing on different aspects of deforestation and forest degradation (bilateral partnerships, multilateral channels, private sector cooperation etc). The Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative has partnership agreements with the following five LDCs or SIDS: Guyana, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tanzania and DR Congo. From Table 6 it can be observed that both Ethiopia and Tanzania have the most Nordic climate-related project support.  Guyana, Liberia and DR Congo are in the second highest category with Nordic climate-related project support out of four categories.

Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate – A global capacity-building programme that supports the following three LDCs: Ethiopia, Mozambique and Uganda. These three countries are in the category with the most Nordic climate-related project support.

The “4 per 1000” initiative has two LDCs. Cambodia and Senegal are part of the consortium of this initiative. Cambodia is in the second highest category with Nordic climate-related project and Senegal is in the third, out of four, category.

6.5 Nordic direct bilateral cooperation and through NDF/NEFCO

The purpose of this section is to explore, whether bilateral cooperation and the NDF/NEFCO are suitable for being part of transparency capacity building activities. 

It is an overall assessment, as the Nordic countries are presented as one group, though each country has its own profile for bilateral cooperation. This is also the case for NDF and NEFCO, as each fund has its own characteristics. For both the bilateral cooperation and the NDF and NEFCO, the individual deviations are considered minor compared to the overall grouping. Table 14, below, presents the potential suitability for bilateral cooperation and through the NDF and NEFCO for the three priority areas identified in Chapter 5.

For the priority areas Inventory; NDC progress and achievement; and Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry, the scoring is based on whether the topic has been included in former or ongoing bilateral programmes or through the Nordic Funds.

Table 14: Scoring of Nordic bilateral cooperation and funds to support CB for transparency to LDCs and SIDS

Source: Own analysis

All the Nordic countries have experience in bilateral cooperation with SIDS/LDCs with capacity building in the climate space and many have inventory and reporting as tasks as part of the biltaral projects. Nordic countries also have 'Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry' as part of the bilateral cooperation. It has not been the purpose of this assignment to do an in-depth analysis of the Nordic programmes. Overall, it seems that the Nordic countries could adapt the bilateral programmes so that they fit to the priorities identified for the LDCs and SIDS in relation to transparency support. Bilateral programmes can have the advantage of being easier to directly involve the ETF negotiators under the UNFCCC from the Nordic countries, to support the preparation and implementation of the programmes. 

Both NEFCO and NDF do not have significant experience in implementing inventory, NDC reporting and projects within ‘Agriculture and Land use Change and Forestry’. NDF is supporting few projects within this area, but mainly as additional funding through other projects.

In case the Nordic countries would like to explore developing ETF support through the Nordic Funds, the ongoing NEFCO project for cooperative approaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement could be considered and extended in scope.

6.6 Consultations

To collect stakeholder views and feedback, the decision was made to consult with the programmes that have the best alignment with priorities proposed by SIDS and LDCs. On 31 January 2020 the following initiatives and institutions were invited to share their views, with a deadline of 4 February 2020:

• ICAT
• CBIT
• Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative
• Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate – A global capacity building programme
• The “4 per 1000” Initiative
• NEFCO

Views regarding bilateral cooperation were not requested during the consultation, as the draft final report is being commented on by country representatives in the NKL Steering Group.

ICAT has commented that only half of ICAT countries are LDCs and/or SIDS. A specific analysis of gaps and needs for this group of countries has not been done. The ICAT initiative focuses on the establishment of MRV/transparency systems in countries with a focus on tracking mitigation policies and actions in the context of NDC implementation. Most of the work done under ICAT is related to “The ETF reporting component NDC progress and achievement”. Some countries have, however, identified activities under ICAT focusing explicitly on GHG inventory. In general, country activities related to inventories are considered in the broader context of the ETF. For example, some countries are working on improving GHG data inventories but it is usually in the context of the broader ETF. A few countries have asked for support regarding GHG inventory methodologies, including Peru and Dominican Republic -- but only as a minor activity in their work plans. In terms of sectors, Agriculture and Forestry were not the most targeted sectors under ICAT. Under ICAT, cross-sectoral and energy-related activities are the most common, followed by transport and waste.

CBIT was not available to respond within the consultation period, however, in their progress report to GEF (November 2019), the following priorities for CB support to transparency were reported: Overall, the project activities proposed by LDCs and SIDS are similar to the overall portfolio for all countries (as shown in Appendix 3, Figure 1). However, there are some differences in the proportion of countries prioritizing certain activities, namely: 1) GHG inventory data collection and management tools, and overall GHG inventory improvements, 2) tracking climate finance, and 3) NDC transparency and policy design.

Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative responded that they are already working on transparency issues related to forests and land use, forest policies, land ownership, etc. The initiative works in bilateral partnerships with countries, as well as through multilateral institutions such as the FAO and the World Bank. For further information see https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/klima-og-miljo/klima/klima--og-skogsatsingen/id2000712/ and http://www.fao.org/gfoi/activities.

SIDA commented that for the Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate – A global capacity building programme, they have identified the same priorities and are working with them, both the GHG Inventory and the ETF reporting component NDC progress and achievement. It has been noted that gaps in the energy and transport sectors have also been identified by the programme.

NEFCO responded that it could be useful to add a transparency component of the existing crediting schemes related to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

These consultations were held over a short period with limited response. However, the feedback confirms that the identified priorities are already considered for support to SIDS and LDCs.

7. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of previous chapters’ overview and analysis of ongoing CB efforts to implement the ETF to meet LDCs and SIDS needs and gaps for support, the study finds that the Nordic countries have good opportunities to further promote effective ETF activities in line with country priorities through:

• A focus on 12 target countries^{[1]Excluding countries with a fragile political situation, high income SIDS not eligible for ODA and countries that are expected to graduate away from LDC status shortly.}: Djibouti, Guyana, Mali, Myanmar, Nauru, Niue, Nepal, Niger, Palau, Suriname, Timor-Leste and Zambia.
• A focus on LDC and SIDS high priority ETF reporting components: 1) GHG inventory and 2) NDC progress and achievement. Capacity-building needs covering: 1) institutional arrangements, 2) methodologies, and 3) data collection, management and procedures. Both LDCs and SIDS identify agriculture and land use change and forestry as the highest sectoral priority.
• Adding a component to ongoing Nordic or bilateral programs for implementation of country-specific CB needs for MRV/transparency, for instance through: 1) Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative, 2) Strengthened institutions for a sustainable climate, 3) '4 per 1000' Initiative, and 4) the NEFCO program.
• New CB activities added to ongoing international support initiatives, for instance through ICAT, but more initiatives could be supported.

In the context of enhanced transparency requirements and the limited funding available by existing international CB initiatives, there is an urgent need for further CB support to LDCs and SIDS before the ETF enters into force by December 2024. The need for CB support to implement the ETF is emphasized by the status of UNFCCC negotiations to finalize details of the ETF 'rulebook' towards a conclusion by COP26 (postponed to 2021 due to Covid-19). An overall recommendation for Nordic support is to fast-track design of additional or new CB programs by building on existing international and Nordic initiatives tailored to country-specific needs and gaps, to meet ETF requirements in line with national priorities.

REFERENCES

CBIT, 2019: Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency, available at: https://www.thegef.org/topics/capacity-building-initiative-transparency-cbit

CCMRVH, 2019: Caribbean Cooperative MRV Hub, available at: https://ghginstitute.org/2018/08/27/caribbean-cooperative-mrv-hub-ccmrvh/

Dagnet, Y., Cogswell, N., Bird, N., Bouyé, M., Rocha, M., 2019: Building capacity for the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework: What can we learn from countries’ experiences and UNFCCC processes?, Project for Advancing Climate Transparency, World Resource Institute working paper

GEF, 2019: GEF Enabling activities, available at: https://www.thegef.org/project/enabling- activities-preparation-initial-communication

GEF, 2019: Progress report on the Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency, Global Environment Facility 57th GEF Council Meeting, December 17-19, 2019, Washington, D.CWashington, D.C., available at: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF.C.57.Inf_.06_Progress%20Report%20on%20the%20CBIT.pdf

Government of Guyana, 2012: Guyana Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Government of Nepal, 2014: Nepal Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

GGGI, 2019: MRV Program by the Global Green Growth Institute, available at: https://gggi.org/tag/mrv/

ICAT, 2019: Initiative for Climate Action Transparency, available at: https://climateactiontransparency.org/

ICAT Introductory Guide, 2019: Introductory Guide - Overview of the ICAT series of guidance documents, 34 June 2019, Initiative for Climate Action Transparency

IIED, 2019: Meeting the enhanced transparency framework: what next for the LDCs? International Institute for Environment and Development, Policy and planning; Climate change Briefing, October 2019

OECD DAC data, 2019: Climate Change: OECD DAC External Development Finance Statistics, http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance- topics/climate-change.htm

OECD DAC, 2020: DAC List of ODA Recipients for reporting on aid in 2020. OECD DAC List of ODA Recipients, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/daclist.htm

Paris Equity Check, 2020: http://paris-equity-check.org/the-science.html

PATPA, 2019: Partnership for Transparency in the Paris Agreement, https://www.transparency- partnership.net/

PATPA, 2019: COP24: Implications for capacity building for transparency in developing countries, Partnership on Transparency in the Paris Agreement, News 29.04.2019, https://www.transparency-partnership.net/news/cop24-implications-capacity-building-transparency-developing-countries

Republic of Fiji, 2014: Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Martinez, G. S., Maier, S. C., Farias, F. E., Kapijimpanga, D. R., Desgain, D. D., Cardoso, A., Staun, F., 2019: Implementing the enhanced transparency framework: early insights from the capacity building initiative for transparency. UNEP DTU working paper series 2019: 1.

UNEP DTU Partnership, 2019: Unfolding the reporting requirements for Developing Countries under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework

UNEP/UNDP GSP, 2019: Global Support Programme, http://www.un-gsp.org/

UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.21, 2016: Decision 1/CP.21 Adoption of the Paris Agreement

UNFCCC, 2019: Biennial Report Submissions by Annex I Parties, https://unfccc.int/process-and- meetings/transparency-and-reporting/reporting-and-review-under-the-convention/national- communications-and-biennial-reports-annex-i-parties/third-biennial-reports-annex-i

UNFCCC, 2019: Problems, constraints and lessons learned as well as capacity-building needs for the preparation of national communications and biennial update reports. Technical paper by the Consultative Group of Experts, https://unfccc.int/documents/200999

UNFCCC, 2019: Problems, constraints and lessons learned as well as capacity-building needs for the preparation of national communications and biennial update reports, Technical paper by the Consultative Group of Experts, 24 October 2019

UNFCCC CGE, 2019: Consultative Group of Experts, available at: https://unfccc.int/CGE

Zambian Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, 2014: Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED IN THE BTR WHERE FLEXIBILITY CAN BE APPLIED

When reporting information in the BTR, developing country Parties have the flexibility to provide less information. Flexibility cannot be applied to all categories of information, and in some cases the MPGs request information through “should” and “may” formulations, so the flexibility provision does not need to be applied, and information can be omitted without having to explain in which area, why and how. The tables below list the information requested for the BTR. Flexibility provisions are highlighted in 'bold', while information that is 'should', 'may' and 'encouraged' to be provided is marked in 'italic'.

Table 15: Information to be provided in the NIR

Table 16: Information to be provided on national circumstances and institutional arrangements relevant to progress made in implementing and achieving the NDC

Table 17: Information to be provided on the NDC and to track its progress on implementation and achievement

Table 18: Information to be provided on mitigation policies and measures, actions and plans, including those with mitigation co-benefits resulting from adaptation actions and economic diversification plans, related to implementing and achieving the NDC

Table 19: Information to be provided on projections of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (Flexibility for developing countries on the whole category of GHG projections)

Table 20: Information related to climate change impacts and adaptation (Should provision, not mandatory and flexibility not needed)

Table 21: Information to report on support needed and received, in common tabular format (Should provision, flexibility not needed)

FN= Financial support needed; FR= financial support received; TDTN= technology development and transfer support needed; TDTR= Technology development and transfer support received; CBN= Capacity-building support needed; CBR= Capacity-building support received; ST= Support needed and received for the implementation of Article 13 of the PA and transparency activities.

Table 22: Information to report on support needed and received (Should provision, flexibility not needed)

APPENDIX 2 - OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSPARENCY SUPPORT INITIATIVES TO LDCS AND SIDS

Table 23: Overview of International transparency support initiatives to LDCs and SIDS

Figure 21: Map of SIDS countries

Source: ITU based on UN-OHRLLS

Source: ITU based on UN-OHRLLS

APPENDIX 3 - DESCRIPTION OF EACH INITIATIVE REGARDING TYPES OF CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES PROVIDED

**Figure 1: LDC/SIDS CBIT project priorities per type of activity compared to overall portfolio as of December 2019 (GEF, 2019) 

APPENDIX 4 - COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL CB SUPPORT PROJECTS FOR TRANSPARENCY TO LDCS AND SIDS WITH NORDIC ODA FINANCE TO THE COUNTRIES

Table 24: Comparison of international CB support projects for transparency to LDCs and SIDS with Nordic ODA finance to the countries

APPENDIX 5 - LIST OF LDCS AND SIDS COUNTRIES SUPPORTED BY EACH NORDIC COUNTRY WITH CLIMATE-RELATED ODA

Appendix 5 and Table 25 present all the LDCs and SIDS that each of the Nordic countries have provided climate-related ODA support to12. The table shows that 5 LDCs and SIDS (green colour) have been supported by more than 100 climate-related projects from the Nordic Countries; 24 LDCs and SIDS have benefitted from support from 11 to 100 climate-related projects (light grey colour); and 20 LDCs and SIDS have been supported by 1 to 10 climate-related projects (yellow colour). However, 29 LDCs and SIDS have not received climate-related support (red colour).

Table 25: List of LDCs and SIDS countries supported by Nordic countries with climate-related ODA

Source: Own analysis based on OECD DAC reported information by the Nordic countries between 2012 and 2017

APPENDIX 6 - INSIGHTS FROM THE UNFCCC SURVEY AND SUPPORTING LITERATURE (2019)

Looking at the problems and constraints related to the UNFCCC reporting requirements, the survey identified the following issues, by order of rated significance:

National GHG Inventories:

1. Data collection process (including establishment of a database, data sharing system)
2. Coordination across sectors/institutions to collect and share data
3. Availability of data that is consistent with reporting guidelines
4. Institutional capacity to retain skills/knowledge gained from training
5. Quality data (consistency, completeness, accuracy, etc.)
6. Technical capacity to understand and apply IPCC guidelines
7. Technical capacity to perform uncertainty assessment
8. Data management process (including documentation, archiving, QA/QC protocols, uncertainty management)
9. Definition of roles and responsibilities across the involved institutions
10. Policy or legal arrangements that mandate the preparation of national reports
11. Improvement planning
12. Technical capacity to perform key category analysis
13. Awareness of stakeholders, especially in the private sector
14. Accessibility of data for confidentiality reasons
15. Technical capacity to use IPCC software
16. Leadership (e.g. an entity appointed to undertake/coordinate data collection and sharing, web-based knowledge management platform) (UNFCCC, 2019)

Most developing countries do not have the necessary institutional arrangements, human resources, and data availability to develop full inventories every two years with the level of detail required by the MPGs and IPCC guidelines (Dagnet et al., 2019). Current arrangements are often based on external consultants, and there is a lack of formal contracts and arrangements to allow for timely data collection from governmental and non-governmental sources. Insufficient legislative and policy support, and lack of mandates for climate change initiatives were found to lead to inadequate institutional capacities to maintain national reporting processes on a regular basis (UNFCCC, 2019). Countries expressed challenges to sustainably collect, manage, and analyse relevant data. A disconnect between the data collection entities and the data custodians leads to a mismatch in data availability and data needed for national reporting. Data archiving is seldom structured and centralised. Countries also lack technical capacities to apply IPCC guidelines, and have expressed the need for support to calculate national emission factors that could improve the accuracy of GHG inventories (UNFCCC, 2019 and Dagnet et al., 2019). LDCs have specifically identified challenges related to lack of data or its availability in electronic format, absence of time series data, quality issues, including data reliability, lack of disaggregation or lack of primary source data (IIED, 2019).

Reporting on mitigation actions:

1. Institutional capacity to retain skills/knowledge gained from training
2. Methods for quantification of direct and indirect effects of mitigation actions
3. Coordination across sectors/institutions to collect and share data
4. Definition of roles and responsibilities across the involved institutions
5. Policy or legal arrangements that mandate the preparation of national reports
6. Practical guidelines or methods for setting baselines, target values, indicators, etc.
7. Practical tools for conducting mitigation assessment (e.g. sector-specific modelling)
8. Availability of data that is consistent with reporting guidelines
9. Data management process (including documentation, archiving, QA/QC protocols, uncertainty management)
10. Quality data (consistency, completeness, accuracy, etc.)
11. Data collection process (including establishment of a database, data-sharing system, web-based knowledge management platform)
12. Awareness of stakeholders, especially in the private sector
13. Technical capacity to interpret/analyse/translate data and information gathered from modelling
14. Technical capacity to use the available tools
15. Accessibility of data for confidentiality reasons
16. Leadership (e.g. an entity appointed to undertake/coordinate data collection and sharing)
17. Improvement planning

Lack of data and high data uncertainty was found to hinder identifying and developing mitigation options, and assessing mitigation measures. There is a lack of technical capacity in the application of models, methods and tools to establish baselines and scenarios, establish targets, select progress indicators, uncertainty management and abatement cost analysis (UNFCCC, 2019). In particular, LDCs, which in many cases use qualitative targets e.g. preparation and implementation of policies and legal frameworks, need capacities to develop suitable indicators to track progress of these qualitative targets (IIED, 2019).

Reporting on climate change impacts and adaptation:

1. Practical guidelines on the development of baseline/socioeconomic scenarios for vulnerability and adaptation assessment
2. Practical tools to conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessment (e.g. sector-specific modelling, regional/downscaling climate models)
3. Technical capacity to interpret/analyse/translate data and information gathered from modelling
4. Coordination across sectors/institutions to collect and share data
5. Institutional capacity to retain skills/knowledge gained from training
6. Technical infrastructure (e.g. weather stations, forecasting systems, networks) serving as a basis for monitoring climate data
7. Data collection process (including establishment of a database, data-sharing system, web-based knowledge management platform)
8. Quality data (consistency, completeness, accuracy, etc.)
9. Technical capacity to use the available tools
10. Availability of data that is consistent with reporting guidelines
11. Definition of roles and responsibilities across the involved institutions
12. Data management process (including documentation, archiving, QA/QC protocols, uncertainty management)
13. Policy or legal arrangements that mandate the preparation of national reports
14. Awareness of stakeholders, especially in the private sector
15. Improvement planning
16. Leadership (e.g. an entity appointed to undertake/coordinate data collection and sharing)
17. Accessibility of data for confidentiality reasons

Countries expressed challenges in developing climate change scenarios, due to lack of standard methodologies and tools, limited available data, and the lack of funds and in-country expertise needed to carry out technical studies (UNFCCC, 2019), even though they see the need to bring climate risk modelling into national and sectoral plans (Dagnet et al., 2019). For example, in Saint Lucia the currently applied large-scale modelling cannot be integrated into current plans, and there is a need to downscale the climate risk model to fit the national and sectoral contexts (Dagnet et al., 2019). LDCs, specifically, lack functional M&E systems or indicators to track progress in adaptation action (IIED, 2019). There is a need for research on the domestic sectoral impacts of climate change, to be able to integrate this information into national planning (Dagnet et al., 2019).

Reporting on support needed and received:

1. Allocation of responsibilities for MRV of support
2. Data collection process (including establishment of a database, data-sharing system, web-based knowledge management platform)
3. Process for the coordination of support received
4. Availability of data
5. Process or approach for integrating processes to report to various donors on support received
6. Data management process (including documentation, archiving, QA/QC protocols)
7. Guidelines or standards for identifying support needs and reporting on support received, including common definitions of relevant terminology and approaches
8. Improvement planning
9. Identification of all relevant stakeholders related to MRV of support
10. Accessibility of data for confidentiality reasons

Countries expressed the lack of a common classification for financial support as climate finance or development assistance, as a factor leading to unclear understanding of what climate finance is, resulting in challenges in operationalising data collection processes and procedures (UNFCCC, 2019). For LDCs, specifically, there is little precedent on reporting on support received; data is often dispersed across multiple actors (IIED, 2019). Countries also expressed the need for support in establishing frameworks to track and manage finance received. For example, Cambodia noted that its financial management mechanisms to effectively implement climate action are not in place, and that it is currently focusing on building the needed climate change financing and monitoring and evaluation frameworks (Dagnet et al., 2019). Another concern of developing countries is the need for support to actually access international climate, which requires familiarity with the procedures and processes of some providers (Dagnet et al., 2019).