1 / 12

Conducting a national greenhouse gas inventory

Conducting a national greenhouse gas inventory. The Brazilian Experience Le Morne , Mauritius, 10 April 2003 José D. G. Miguez Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology. Brazilian Initial National Communication. Definition of Success within timeframe within budget high quality

bertha
Download Presentation

Conducting a national greenhouse gas inventory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conducting a national greenhouse gas inventory The Brazilian Experience • Le Morne, Mauritius, 10 April 2003 • José D. G. Miguez • Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology

  2. Brazilian Initial National Communication • Definition of Success • within timeframe • within budget • high quality • 4 years late • Out of funds since December 2000 • 15 reports available on the Internet • LUCF is still missing • http://www.mct.gov.br/clima

  3. Strategy • Large country (8.5M), population (175M) and economy (500 G) • Emphasis on inventory preparation • Mitigation ( CDM ) • Adaptation (Regional Climate Change Model) • Education and public awareness • Web page publishing since 1995

  4. Timeframe • Art. 12.5 • 3 years after entry into force (May 1994) • 3 years after availability of funds (SBI/2001/INF9) • Country endorsement 8/31/95 • GEF Council Approval 6/14/96 • Signature by UNDP 8/1/96 (timeframe 1.5 y) • First disbursement 12/96 • Last disbursement 2/01 • Since 2/01 financial resources from federal budget • Low speed

  5. Budget • Meet “agreed” full costs • USCS projectUS$ 0.4mi (signed in 1995) • request US$ 3mi; approved by GEF US$ 1.5mi • Additional funding required • IBAMA, ELETROBRAS, FAPESP, Federal Budget • out of funds since Feb, 2001 • Federal Budget (2000-2003) ‘survival’ funds • Coordination by MCT (in kind contribution) • only coordinator, no staff; • 3 professionals with scholarships from CNPq • Bureaucracy • Brazilian Government (MCT, MRE, ABC, MF) • UNDP first GEF Project, Contract in US$

  6. Budget (current situation) • No bridge funds • Federal Budget – Climate Change Program • 2000 US$ 800K; • 2001 US$ 400K; • 2002 US$ 150K; • 2003 US$ 300K • Concept paper for 2NC (hold under analysis) • conditional to submission of 1NC • conditional to the use of Decision 17/CP.8 • Legal problem in using Federal Budget in 2003 • remaining staff guaranteed until June, 03

  7. Budget and compliance • Art 4.7 • extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties • Art. 13

  8. Quality • 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines • UNFCCC Guidelines (Decision 10/CP.2) • comprehensive scope sectors/gases • steps taken or envisaged to implement the UNFCCC • involvement of institutions and experts • Most knowledgeable or provider of information • activity data x emission factor • Complex (Amazonian region) • Pioneer (Savannah burning, Reservoirs) • Lack of information • Methodology for activity data • uncertainty

  9. Quality (ctnd) • Client - MCT (high quality product) • UNFCCC (any product) • GEF/UNDP (financial aspects and timeframe) • QA/QC (GPG IPCC)(delays not foreseen) • initial reports not accepted in MCT screening • capacity building (learning by doing) • pioneer and complex work • Sugar cane burning (IPCC EF, field measurement, US EPA) • lack of sufficient human and financial resources • Uncertainty and responsibility

  10. Project Control • Progress measurement • Contracts were not well done • Communication among participants • different institutions • spread all over Brazil • need of newsletter • Corrective interventions • lack of alternatives • lack of financial resources • lack of authority

  11. Participants • Staff of participating institutions • MCT Staff - shrinking (future ?) • Government full political support • Coordination • Sectoral - institutions top management (other duties) • Project - Lack of authority

  12. Positive Results • Brazil constituted a multi-institutional and multi-stakeholder team under coordination of MCT • core scientific group will be able to assist Brazil in complying with future commitments (2NC) • 100 institutions and 500 professionals involved • Sectoral/Industry coordination • Different level of success in coordination • Methodology established • Capacity building process going on • 16 reports prepared in 3 languages (summary of 5000 pages of reports) • Two reviews by GEF (positive comments of available reports byauditors Prof. Sathaye and Dr. Jarle) • National Communication to be submitted later this year

More Related