Break out session: Impact assessment of policies and actions
Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe Regional Workshop on Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions
12-14 June 2015, Derag Livinghotel Kanzler, Bonn
Marion Vieweg-Mersmann, Programme Officer, International Consultation and Analysis Support Unit, Non-Annex I Support Sub-programme, Mitigation, Data and Analysis Programme
Outline
• The WRI Policy and Action Standard in more detail (20 min)
• Exercise: Cookstove initiative in Ethiopia (30 min)
• Report back from exercise and discussion (20 min)
• Quantification of the cookstove initiative: next steps and limitations (20 min)
Identifying effects and mapping the causal chain
Understanding inputs and activities is a means to understanding which effects are expected to occur
Inputs, activities, and effects
• Inputs: Resources that go into implementing a policy or action, such as
financing
• Activities: Activities involved in implementing the policy or action (undertaken by
the authority or entity that implements the policy or action), such as permitting,
licensing, procurement, or compliance and enforcement
• Intermediate effects: Changes in behavior, technology, processes, or practices
that result from the policy or action
• GHG effects: Changes in GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks that
result from the intermediate effects of the policy or action
• Non-GHG effects: Changes in relevant environmental, social, or economic
conditions other than GHG emissions or climate change mitigation that result from
the policy or action
Types of effects
• Different types of effects can be described, based on the point of view taken:
a) By geopolitical boundary: in-jurisdiction/out-of-jurisdiction
b) By time frame: short- and long term
c) By objectives: intended and unintended
d) By probability: likely, possible, and unlikely
e) By sign of expected GHG effect: GHG increasing / decreasing
• Individual effects usually fall into more than one of these categories
Suggestion on how to identify effects by type
Indicator types Short-term Long-term
Intended effects
Unintended effects (Including rebound effects)
Out-of-jurisdiction effects (Leakage and spillover effects)
Example: Types of effects
Indicator types Short-term Long-term
Intended effects
• Reduced emissions from private transport due to shift to public transport
• Increased emissions from public transport due to higher use
• Reduced emissions from densification of urban areas close to the BRT corridors
Unintended effects (Including rebound effects)
• Increased emissions from construction
• Increased emissions from manufacturing construction materials
• Increased emissions from congestion during construction
• Reduced emissions from private transport due to reduced congestion
• Increased emissions (rebound) caused by the reduction in congestion which incentivizes people to change back to private transport
Out-of-jurisdiction effects (Leakage and spillover effects)
• Increased emissions from manufacturing construction materials
The causal chain concept
• A causal chain is a conceptual diagram tracing the process by which the policy or action
leads to GHG effects through a series of interlinked logical and sequential stages of
cause-and-effect relationships.
• Mapping the causal chain can help identify additional effects not previously identified.
• It helps to structure and understand cause-effect relationships.
• Developing and reporting the causal chain is required to be in conformance with the
standard.
Two ways to get to first stage effects
Including inputs and activities Directly from the policy
Two main direct effects:
• Increased installation of insulation
• Increased production of insulation material
Example for a causal chain: Home insulation subsidy
Intended intermediate effect
Unintended intermediate effect
Unintended GHG effect
Example for a causal chain: Home insulation subsidy
Intended intermediate effect
Intended GHG effect
Unintended intermediate effect
Example for a causal chain: Home insulation subsidy
Example for a causal chain: Home insulation subsidy
Determine significance of effects
Based on the assessment of likelihood and magnitude the significance of effects can be
determined, following the guidance shown in the table below
MagnitudeLikelihood
Minor Moderate Major
Very likely
May be excludedShould be includedLikely
Possible
Unlikely
Very unlikely May be excluded
Example of assessing each effect by gas
Define the assessment period
• The timeframe for the baseline scenario refers to the period over which emissions are
projected.
• The start year can depend on:
a) Availability of data
b) Objective of the assessment
c) Starting point of implemented or planned mitigation activities
• The end year can depend on:
a) The time frame set for a goal
b) The time frame set for mitigation actions
c) Political cycles
d) Internationally relevant points in time
e) Availability of reliable data projections for key assumptions
Exercise
• Split into groups of 4-5
• Nominate a facilitator (also responsible for time keeping!)
• Nominate a rapporteur
• 30 minutes for group work
• 20 minutes for report back and discussion
Typical steps for estimating GHG effects
• Some steps may also be carried out in reversed order or in parallel rather than in
sequence
• Whatever the sequence of steps is chosen, each step should be completed and
separately reported
Drivers and parameters
• Parameters, i.e. variables in the calculation, are affected by drivers: Socioeconomic or
other conditions or other policies that influence the level of emissions or removals.
• Drivers that affect emissions activities are divided into two types:
a) Policies; and
b) Non-policy drivers.
• For the baseline all policy and non-policy drivers should be considered that are significant
and to the extent that they are not related to the mitigation actions that are proposed.
Relationship between sources/sinks, methods and parameters
• Emission estimation methods for different types of sources may differ
• Each method contains a number of relevant parameters for calculation
• Policy and non-policy drivers influence parameter values
• GHG effects/sources to be estimated (from previous example):
• Task: Estimate baseline scenario emissions for each of the three GHG effects/sources
Estimating baseline emissions
Step 1: Method
• Step 1: Define an emissions estimation method and all parameters to calculate baseline emissions for each source or sink
Baseline emissions for cooking with inefficient wood stoves in 2020 (t
CO2e) =
baseline fuel wood use (t) x baseline emission factor (t CO2e/t)
Step 2: Baseline values
• Step 2: Determine baseline values for each parameter by identifying policy and non-policy drivers and assumptions for each driver
• Baseline fuel wood use in 2020: 1,000,000 t
– E.g. based on current fuel wood use per capita and population projections
• Baseline emission factor: 1.513 t CO2 / t
– E.g. based on FAO data, data from regional studies, country specific data
Step 3: Estimating baseline emissions
Baseline emissions for cooking with inefficient wood stoves in 2020 =
1,000,000 t x 1.513 t CO2/t
= 1,513,000 t CO2
Identifying affected parameters for ex-ante analysis
• For GHG sources or sinks not affected by the policy or action:
a) Use baseline values
• For GHG sources or sinks that are affected by the policy or action, estimate policy
scenario values based on:
a) Historical trends in relevant parameters
b) How implementation of the policy or action is expected to change during the GHG
assessment period
c) Interactions with implemented or adopted policies included in the baseline
scenario
d) Barriers to policy effectiveness
e) Sensitivity of parameters to assumptions
Estimating policy scenario values for parameters
Estimating policy scenario parameter values
• In our example only one parameter changes: Fuel wood use in 2020
• Policy scenario fuel wood use in 2020: 600,000 t
– E.g. based on literature, pilot studies, in-country studies
Estimating policy scenario emissions
Policy scenario emissions for cooking with inefficient wood stoves in 2020
=
600,000 t x 1.513 t CO2/t
= 907,800 t CO2
Estimating emission reductions
Baseline emissions - policy scenario emissions =
1,513,000 t CO2 - 907,800 t CO2
= 605,200 t CO2