This document discusses accounting considerations and guidance needs for different types of mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement, including emissions intensity goals and goals relative to baseline emissions levels. Key issues addressed include requirements to quantify future emissions in the target year, developing reference levels for corresponding adjustments under cooperative mechanisms, data sources and guidance for intensity targets, defining consistency and review procedures for baseline scenarios, and inclusion of policies and cutoff years. Recommendations are made around enhancing transparency of assumptions in baseline scenarios and including all adopted policies with significant emissions impacts.

1. KELLY LEVIN SEPTEMBER 2016
GUIDANCE FOR ACCOUNTING: EMISSIONS
INTENSITY GOALS, AND GOALS RELATIVE
TO BAU EMISSIONS LEVELS UNDER
ARTICLE 4

2. TYPES OF CONTRIBUTIONS

3. INDCS: MITIGATION CONTRIBUTION TYPE
Source: CAIT climate data explorer (cait.wri.org)

4. INDCS: GHG TARGET TYPE

5. NEW ACCOUNTING NEEDS
• Will there be a requirement to quantify future emissions in the target year?
For all? For those who want to use markets?
– Relatedly, how to develop level against which corresponding
adjustment is made if ITMOs are used
• For intensity targets:
– Data sources for unit of output
• For baseline scenario targets:
– Definition of consistency and procedure for reviewing consistency
– Any additional guidance for baseline scenario development
• Inclusion of policies in baseline scenario and cut off year for
inclusion
• Projection methods, assumptions for key drivers, and data sources

6. WILL THERE BE A REQUIREMENT TO QUANTIFY FUTURE
EMISSIONS IN THE TARGET YEAR? FOR ALL? FOR
THOSE WHO WANT TO USE MARKETS?
Intensity targets: Calculating target year emissions level
requires a projection of unit of output
Baseline scenario targets: Requires information on target
level of emissions in the baseline scenario
If not quantified, how would progress be tracked?

7. HOW TO DEVELOP LEVEL AGAINST WHICH
CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT IS MADE IF ITMOS ARE
USED
37. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological
Advice to develop and recommend the guidance referred to under
Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Agreement for adoption by the
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to
the Paris Agreement at its first session, including guidance to
ensure that double counting is avoided on the basis of a
corresponding adjustment by Parties for both anthropogenic
emissions by sources and removals by sinks covered by their
nationally determined contributions under the Agreement;
• Previously had carbon budget to calculate reference level

8. INTENSITY TARGETS: ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTING
CONSIDERATIONS
• Data sources for unit of output may differ and be
unclear
• Will there be any guidance for unit of output?
– Recommendation: Data for the level of output should
come from official, peer-reviewed sources that are
publicly available and subject to robust QA/QC
procedures

9. ACCOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS FOR BASELINE
SCENARIO TARGETS
• What changes can be made to the baseline
scenario? What constitutes “consistency”? Will
there be a review procedure to assess consistency?
• Will there be additional guidance on baseline
scenario development?

10. ACCOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS FOR BASELINE
SCENARIO TARGETS
• What changes can be made to the baseline
scenario? What constitutes “consistency”? Will
there be a review procedure to assess consistency?
• Will there be additional guidance on baseline
scenario development?

11. DYNAMIC BASELINE SCENARIO GOALS

13. “METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY” ON BASELINES
BETWEEN THE COMMUNICATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF NDCS
What is “consistent” and does not change during implementation:
• Whether static or dynamic?
– Recalculation policy for dynamic
• Inclusion of policies in baseline scenario and cut off year for
inclusion?
• Projection methods?
• Assumptions for key drivers?
• Data sources for drivers?

14. “METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY” ON BASELINES
BETWEEN THE COMMUNICATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF NDCS
• To achieve consistency between communication and
implementation, will Parties be more forthcoming about
assumptions underlying baseline scenario (to assess
consistency)?
• Is the intention to allow for technical improvements, akin to
national GHG inventories and REDD+ reference levels?
• Would the elements that can be changed be clearly identified
before implementation? Will there be a common
recalculation policy across countries?
• Will there be any review procedures to assess consistency?

15. ACCOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS FOR BASELINE
SCENARIO TARGETS
• What changes can be made to the baseline
scenario? What constitutes “consistency”? Will
there be a review procedure to assess consistency?
• Will there be additional guidance on baseline
scenario development?

16. ACCOUNTING DECISIONS RELATED TO BASELINE
SCENARIO TARGETS
• Inclusion of policies in baseline scenario and cut off
year for inclusion
• Projection methods, assumptions for key drivers,
and data sources for drivers

17. INCLUSION OF POLICIES IN BASELINE SCENARIO
• Emissions will be affected by policies and actions implemented in the
jurisdiction
• This includes policies and actions designed to reduce emissions as
well as those designed to meet other objectives
• Which policies are included in the baseline scenario and the
assumptions made about their likely effects on emissions can have a
significant effect on resulting baseline scenario emissions
• Accounting decisions/reporting on:
– Policies and actions that are included in the baseline scenario
– Methods used to estimate the effects
– Justification for any significant policies excluded
– The cutoff year for the inclusion of policies

18. RECOMMENDATION
Parties should include all policies and actions that (1) have a significant
effect on GHG emissions, either increasing or decreasing them, and (2)
are implemented/adopted in the year the baseline scenario is developed

19. EXAMPLE: CHILE’S NATIONAL BASELINE

20. ASSUMPTIONS FOR KEY DRIVERS,
PROJECTION METHODS, AND DATA SOURCES
• Drivers: e.g., economic activity, energy prices,
population, land-use practices, etc.
• Assumptions for drivers
• Methods: Top-down vs. bottom-up vs. hybrid
models
• Data sources: what types of data sets (e.g. national,
international, etc)

21. ASSUMPTIONS MAKE A DIFFERENCE: E.G. CHILE

22. QUESTIONS?
Kelly Levin
klevin@wri.org
+1-202-729-7910