City-level GHG Emissions
accounting and reporting
IPCC Expert Meeting:
Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines to Other Areas
1-3 July 2014, Sofia, Bulgaria
Ana Marques, Senior Project Officer
Bonn Center for Local Climate Action and Reporting (carbonn Center)
ICLEI World Secretariat

•Contents
1. Introduction to Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Measurement, Reporting and Verification(MRV) by Local Governments (LGs)
2. Typical deviations from IPCC guidelines atlocal level
3. Resources available for local GHG MRV•Introducing ICLEI• International membership association of Local Governments (LGs)• Established in 1990 in New York – for cities, by cities• Thematic city network: technical guidance, peer-learning, exchange• Focal Point for LGMA Constituency at the UNFCCC, and Observer
ICLEI members:More than 1000 citiesin 86 countries~660 million people

ICLEIoffices

Introduction to Greenhouse Gas
Measurement, Reporting andVerification by Local Governments
Introduction to GHG MRV by LGs

•Drivers for local climate action•Many risks of climate change concentrate in urban areas1•

Existing pressures (environmental, social and economic)•Potential benefits (jobs, health, energy security, etc.)•

Improve mandated service delivery•

National legislation, targets, and initiatives
ICLEI, European Climate Foundationand University of Cambridge
Summarize AR5 implications for Cities

Source:1. IPCC, AR5,Summary for policy makers

•Drivers for local GHG MRV•

Empower cities to identify opportunities and take action•

Improve performance of mandated service delivery•

Track policy impacts•

Transparency•Credibility•

Improved access to finance
Voluntary mechanisms:•Covenant of Mayors•

cCCR / Mexico City Pact•

Earth Hour City Challenge•Relevance of community-scale GHG
MRV to national governments

1. Typical LG mandates (cities worldwide):••••••

75% have direct control over their transit system
80% have control over roads
80% control residential waste collection
Most cities have control over building codes
Many can mandate energy efficiency standards
Procurement, taxes, fees, spatial development patterns, etc.

2. Most investments for mitigation and adaptation
take place at the sub-national and local levels:••

50 to 80% for mitigation
up to 100% for adaptation

Sources:
1. V-NAMA, GIZ
2. UNDP•

Benefits of LEDS vertical integration• For National Governments (NGs):•••

More effective implementation of national policies
Contribution to achieve national targets
Risk avoidance through pilot testing• For Local Governments (LGs):•••

Removal of political and institutional barriers
Improved access to financeBetter access to quality data, data in correct format•One of the key barriers

Absence of a methodology for local & subnational
GHG MRV which is:••universally accepted and recognizedcompliant with national inventory requirements(IPCC guidelines)

Typical deviations from IPCC
guidelines at local level
Technical issues

•Typical deviations from IPCC
guidelines at local level

Single-community inventory:
1. Boundary setting(risk of double counting & incomplete counting)
2. Methodological limitations
3. Access to data / quality data•Typical deviations from IPCC
guidelines at local level

1 – Boundary setting (i)••Territorial boundary (IPCC guidelines)
Community activity(usually leading to overestimation & double counting)−−−−

Energy (stacionary) – quatification at consumption, not atproduction; e.g.: no generation facilities in-boundary(consumption of grid energy: electricity/heating/cooling)
Energy (mobile) – e.g.: airport that serves city is locatedoutside of its boundary
Waste – e.g.: no disposal/treatment facilities in-boundary
Energy/IPPU – e.g.: in-boundary facilities mostly export

•Typical deviations from IPCC
guidelines at local level

1 – Boundary setting (ii)
•LG degree of control(usually leading to underestimation)−−−

National/regional infrastructures located in-boundary(e.g.: transport, energy, IPPU)
Other accounting schemes (e.g.: ETS)
„Non-urban“ activities (e.g. agriculture not included in
Covenant of Mayors reporting)•Typical deviations from IPCC
guidelines at local level

2 – Methodological limitations•

Transport−−−•

Fuel sales – difficulty in assessing transboundary trips
Transport models – not all cities have access
Different methodologies hinder comparison & benchmark

Waste
−

FOD – historical data may not exist; very data intensive(e.g.: in Indonesia nearly every variable needs to be modelled)−

Facilities that process waste from several municipalities,
characterize waste as a whole and not seperatly• Indirect emissions of product consumption & use−Complex, difficult to replicate, with double counting risk

•Typical deviations from IPCC
guidelines at local level

3 – Access to data /quality data•••

National statistical data are not made available with
sufficient geographic disaggregation(energy, waste, AFOLU, etc.)
No access or authorization to disclose data fromindividual private businesses (for competitive reasons)
LG having no mandate, budget or staff for datacolection for the purpose of GHG inventory•Difficulties encountered inaggregation of inventories

Derive mostly from boundary setting issues:••••

Energy produced in one city and consumed inanother (grid electricity/heating/cooling)
Transboundary trips
Solid waste/wastewater produced in one city andtreated in anotherIndirect emissions due to comsumption of imported
products are direct emissions in other cities (energy,transport, IPPU)

Use of different methodologies impairs additionality.

Resources available for local
Greenhouse Gas Measurement,
Reporting and Verification
Resources available for local GHG MRV•Resources for local GHG MRV

GHG emissions, actions and commitmentsActivity Resource
LEDS
GreenClimateCities (GCC) methodology
Measure ‐ Global Protocol for Community‐scale Emissions (GPC)‐ International LG GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP)‐ Harmonized Emissions Analysis Tool plus (HEAT+), ICLEI‐ ClearPath, ICLEI USA
ReportVerifycarbonn Cities Climate Registry (cCCR)
No widely accepted mechanisms(Basic verification at the level of the voluntary mech.)
Urban‐LEDS project is developing a process MRV for local
climate action, linked to cCCR and used in GCC

•Introducing the carbonn Registry•Free use by any local & subnational government•

Addresses climate change mitigation & adaptation•

Covers GHG inventories, actions and commitments•

Purpose: credibility, verification, recognition, inspiration•

Reporting can be done at any time•

Analyses made twice a year (used at climate negotiations)•No automatic aggregation yet, to avoid double counting•

Operated by:•

Status as of 31.03.20145814%

http://citiesclimateregistry.org/
carbonn@iclei.org

178
42%
105(25%)

65
15%

113%

5(1%)

•

GHG inventories
Reported GHG emissions in Mt CO2eCities
137
4659
115

Disclaimer: non-verified data reported to the cCCR as of 31 March 2014.

•Ambition of community commitments

Disclaimer: non-verified data reported to the cCCR as of 31 March 2014.

•Protocols used for inventories• 2006 IPCC guidelines for National GHG
inventories (IPCC)• International Local Government GHG
Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)• GHG Protocol standards (WRI/WBCSD)• Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG
Emissions, GPC (WRI/ICLEI/C40)• ...

Combining efforts, aiming at auniversally accepted methodologyfor subnational inventories

•Concluding remarks

Guidelines for local GHG MRV should*…
• Address cities’ needs• Provide a methodology to monitor, adjust anddemonstrate progress, while solving current
difficulties• Require a reasonable level of effort from cities,
considering typical LG capacity and constraints• Be recognized by UNFCCC/IPCC as being
compatible with IPCC 2006 guidelines.
* In other words, ICLEI’s hope.

•Contact
Ana Marques
Senior Project Officer
carbonn Center
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
World Secretariat
E‐Mail:Websites:ana.marques@iclei.org
www.iclei.org
www.citiesclimateregistry.org

•Project examples• Urban-LEDS (www.urban-leds.org)−−−−“Promoting Low Emission Urban Development Strategies inEmerging Economy Countries“International mitigation project funded by EC
Implementation partners: ICLEI & UN-Habitat
37 cities (8 Europe, 29 from Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa)• V-NAMA−−−−“Involving sub-national actors in national mitigation strategies
through vertically integrated NAMAs”
Implementation: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
Funding: German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU)
V-NAMA projects in Indonesia (waste), South Africa (buildings)