1. CGE Training materials- Mitigation Assessment Module C
Mitigation Assessment: Concepts, Structure and Steps

2. Module Objectives and Expectations
Objective: Provide participants with an overview of the purpose, key steps and key design considerations involved in conducting a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation assessment, and the issues involved in building upon these assessments to create more detailed national climate action plans.
Expectations: Participants will have a broad but sound understanding of how to conduct GHG mitigation assessments and how to create detailed national climate action plans.

3. Module Outline Purpose and Objectives
Steps for Conducting a Mitigation Assessment
Translating Mitigation Assessments into National Climate Plans
The objective of this session is to provide the participants with an overview of mitigation in the context of climate change, sustainable development and the UNFCCC. It introduces key concepts and sets the stage for the subsequent sessions. It is heavily oriented around scientific findings and general issues and trends, motivating participants on the rationale and urgency associated with global GHG mitigation, the benefits of mitigation actions, and how they can fit with other national priorities.  

4. Module C1 Purpose and Objectives
This subsection explores the overall rationale for, and benefits of, mitigation assessment.

5. Why do a Mitigation Assessment?
Meet the principles and objectives of the UNFCCC:
Under Article 4, all Parties are required to assess programs and measures that will mitigate climate change
Provide policy makers with an evaluation of technologies and practices that can mitigate climate change and contribute to national development objectives
Better understand the scale of emission reductions possible and their associated costs and benefits
Identify and evaluate potential new programs and projects, including nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs)
Put existing initiatives in context.
There are many reasons to conduct a mitigation assessment beyond the requirements of UNFCCC communications.

6. GHG Inventory and Mitigation Assessment and Reporting
Inventory of
GHG Sources
and Sinks
Taxonomy of
Mitigation Options
MITIGATION
ASSESSMENT
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
and FINANCE
INVENTORY
National
Action Plans
GHG Reduction
& Sequestration
GHG Mitigation
Projects & Policies
UNFCCC
Reporting
Assessment of Mitigation Options
Mitigation assessment is closely linked with inventories, and with policy and planning processes. These are iterative steps, which, in principle should be reviewed and updated regularly.

7. Examples of Mitigation Assessment (National Reporting)
Over the past decade, dozens of new mitigation assessments have been completed as key elements of national communications. Reviewing best practices of existing assessments can help to inform planning for mitigation assessment.
Source: Images from 2nd National Communications: Congo, Peru, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Argentina, Lebanon, Belize, Armenia, Samoa
Available at

8. Examples of Mitigation Actions Described in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) countries’ National Communications
Barbados’ 1st Nat. Comm.
Presented broad abatement options (e.g., energy efficiency in industry and buildings)
Highlighted the need to target entities providing a unique service to the country (e.g., sole electricity generator and only cement production plant in the country).
Noted an opportunity to introduce electric vehicles since impediments facing other countries (e.g., oil companies discouraging use of alternative fuels) don’t yet exist.
Belize’s 2nd Nat. Comm.
Included examples of particular projects, along with GHG savings compared to likely alternatives:
Solar panels in villages (vs. adding a diesel generator or connecting to the power grid miles away)
Installation of compact fluorescent lights across the country (replacing incandescent bulbs).
Chile’s 2nd Nat. Comm.
Calculated scenarios of GHG emission impacts from energy efficiency measures in the copper mining sector business as usual (BAU) and mitigation scenarios).
This slide presents a few examples from LAC countries’ national communications. Barbados presented broad mitigation options in various sectors, and highlighted unique characteristics for the country (working with sole providers of services/products, taking advantage of electric vehicles (Evs) before barriers develop). Belize noted specific initiatives, including rural solar power and light bulb replacement projects. Chile provided detailed energy efficiency scenarios, such as in the copper mining sector, shown here.
Sources (National Communications):
Barbados:
Belize:
Chile:

9. Other Examples of Mitigation Assessment
Abundant academic and grey literature is available on national mitigation analyses
The mitigation assessments contained in national communications represent just a fraction of the national mitigation analyses that have been conducted to date. These analyses can be a very valuable resource for national mitigation planning, as they often provide new perspectives and modelling tools that can be adapted for the purposes of preparing a national communication.
Sources for images:
India’s abatement cost curve & China’s green revolution: McKinsey & Company, available at
ESMAP “Brazil Low Carbon Country Case Study” available at

10. Module C2 Steps for Conducting a Mitigation Assessment
This subsection introduces a step-wise approach to conducting a mitigation assessment.

11. Steps of a Mitigation Assessment
Exact procedure will depends on context, e.g. goals, scope and integration with national planning:
Once complete, review and communicate findings and integrate into national reports and plans.
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Organizational and preparatory
Analytical

12. Step 1. Assess situation and organize process
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 1. Assess situation and organize process
Determine and prioritize objectives of assessment:
Contribution to other national objectives (e.g. sustainable development, rural development, reduced local pollution), effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions, etc.
Assess existing studies, current capacities and data availability:
Review available national mitigation studies, identify strengths and gaps.
Define key participants and stakeholders:
Which organizations will have institutional responsibility for the analysis and for implementing results
Possible stakeholders include: policy makers, scientific community, NGOs.
The first step is to establish the objectives of the mitigation assessment, assess what existing work and skills are readily available, and organize the process for conducting the assessment and the involvement of key parties. In many cases, there may already be a considerable body of in-country work and expertise that can be brought to bear on the assessment.
Source: IPCC SAR, WGIII, Chp. 27

13. 1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Key Participants
The development of mitigation assessments will require close cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders
Energy, agriculture, environment, planning and finance ministries will all likely need to be involved
Some tasks may be undertaken by outside consultants or the academic community
Sectoral policy analysts, modellers, and technical writers are typically needed to prepare assessment
Broader set of participants often useful to ensure mitigation options are consistent with national development priorities and other considerations.

14. Schematic Example of Breadth of Government Involvement
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Schematic Example of Breadth of Government Involvement
This diagram suggests the breadth of engagement of government agencies that is possible when preparing a full low-carbon mitigation plan; it may be useful to involve many of these same actors in the assessment process itself.
Source: Rogers (2011) “Building consensus to prioritize low carbon mitigation actions.” Presentation at Africa Carbon Forum Available at:
Source: Rogers (2011) “Building consensus to prioritize low carbon mitigation actions”

15. Step 2. Define scope of assessment
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 2. Define scope of assessment
Sectoral scope: energy supply, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, land-use, forestry, solid waste:
Include all sectors and sources or only those with significant emissions benefit (see templates).
Technological scope of mitigation options:
Limit based on cost, availability, conflict with other objectives?
Inclusion of cross-sectoral issues and options, e.g. market mechanisms.
Given resource limitations, it can be desirable to limit the scope of a mitigation assessment to key sector- and source-based factors such as the significance of emissions, potential for emission reductions or sequestration, and overlap with development priorities. For example, some non-CO2 industrial process emissions can be quite small and mitigation options (e.g. gas destruction) may prove limited co-benefits. Such options might be addressed, for example, through CDM-like instruments, and may or may not warrant consideration in the mitigation assessment.
Some technologies may be viewed as too costly, unproven or controversial and thus explicitly excluded from the analysis upfront, though such decisions can also be made as the result of further screening and analysis.
Finally, it is important that analysis is not restricted to sectoral or source-specific opportunities, as cross-sectoral mitigation options such as emissions trading or tax policies may be important to consider as well.

16. Time Frame of Mitigation Assessment
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Time Frame of Mitigation Assessment
Select base year: e.g. the most recent year with relatively complete data or a key marker year (e.g. for national planning):
Select time horizon:
Medium-term scenarios (e.g years) integrate with existing national plans and sectoral assessments
Long-term scenarios (e.g years) reflect time scale of many mitigation options (e.g. urban planning), subject to greater uncertainties.
More detailed medium-term scenarios can be complemented by more aggregate assessments of longer-term trends.
Rate of technological change is closely related to the lifetime of capital stock.
Motor vehicles 12 – 20 years
Nuclear 30 – 60 years
Coal power 45+ yrs
Hydro 75+ yrs
Gas turbines 25+ years
Buildings years
Mitigation assessments often run out to the year 2020 or 2030, more in keeping with typical planning horizons. However, many mitigation actions, such as investments in new technologies and infrastructure, may not have significant impact until beyond 2030, therefore it can be useful to look beyond the typical time horizon.
Excerpt from:
Chapter 2 of Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook
The time horizon of the analysis plays a critical role in planning a mitigation assessment and selecting methods.
…A classic definition of the near term is that period of time during which the capital stock is fixed, while the technology mix and allocation of input factors across producing sectors is variable in the long term. Since the economy's structure and productive capacity are fixed in the short run, price changes are generated by fluctuations in variables reflecting seasonal cycles or transient impacts such as severe weather, oil spills, geopolitical conflicts, labour strikes, and so forth.
…Long-term modelling focuses on paths of key variables such as demographic patterns, cumulative impacts such as the depletion of nonrenewable resources, and changes in structural relationships between exogenous and endogenous variables due to capital stock turnover, the penetration of new technologies, emergence of alternative energy sources, and inter-industry shifts in the composition of demand.
…However, in GHG mitigation the real challenge is to be able to sustain reduced emission levels (or lower them further) in a long-term perspective. The goal of identifying opportunities for GHG mitigation that can have a significant impact in the future calls for long-term modeling of the energy and non-energy sectors.

17. Step 3. Design assessment methodology
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 3. Design assessment methodology
Select methodologies consistent with study objectives, desired outputs, available data and resources:
Economic outputs: cost and benefits (bottom-up approaches), macroeconomic impacts (top-down models)
Integrated and/or sector-specific analysis (e.g. power supply or transportation modeling)?
Modelling options discussed in Module E.
Other criteria for methodology selection may include:
Consistency with other assessments (inventory and vulnerability and adaptation assessment (V&A) and established models and methods
Transparency to facilitate consensus building and decision-making across sectors
Familiarity and open access to enhance credibility with stakeholders.
Methodologies can vary from simple spreadsheet analyses to sophisticated multi-model studies; several factors and criteria should to be taken into account before embarking on a specific assessment approach. This slide lists only some of these factors and criteria.

18. Approaches to cost/economic analysis
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Approaches to cost/economic analysis
Mitigation (Abatement) cost analysis:
Often estimated at the policy or measure level, but can done for scenarios
Reflects the incremental cost relative to a baseline
Generally relies bottom-up approaches and simple cost analyses, using direct costs (capital, operation, maintenance, fuel, material, and transaction costs)
Often represented in marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves, and in cost per unit of GHG reduction
Useful in comparing relative costs of options
Captures direct economic costs, not impacts on GDP growth, employment, industrial structure, etc.
Macroeconomic analysis:
Enables estimation of impacts on GDP, prices, employment, other macro- economic variables
Captures price, income, and other interactions unlike typical bottom-up methods
Generally requires use of more complex, and less transparent, macroeconomic models (e.g. equilibrium, input-output models)
Often limited ability to represent specific mitigation policies and measures.
There are two general approaches to choose from if cost and economic analysis is included in the mitigation assessment. The simplest, and perhaps most common approach is mitigation cost analysis, which is used in several national communications and low-carbon studies. Macroeconomic analysis is less often employed in such studies, though it has been a key feature of climate policy debates in Annex 1 countries.

19. Modelling in a Mitigation Assessment
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Modelling in a Mitigation Assessment
Consider who will undertake it: consultants provide ready source of expertise, but this does little to build capabilities within a country.
Continuity and experience: NCs are sometimes hampered by the need to set up a new team for each assessment.
Spreadsheet tools may be suitable for simpler studies. Success depends less on the sophistication of the model: more on quality of data and expertise of analysts.
Lack of data: simple assessments can help focus and prioritize future data collection efforts.
Even the simplest formal models require many months and a good level of expertise; don’t expect this task to be done by just a few analysts: it requires ongoing training and strong guidance from experienced experts (economists, modellers, energy experts).
Don’t leave mitigation modelling to the last few months of an analysis.
Consider setting up a permanent team responsible for mitigation modelling to ensure continuity of expertise.
Strong and coordinated team needed: economists, engineers, energy and industrial engineers, Agriculture and LULUCF experts as appropriate
Close coordination with and involvement of team working on inventories is crucial.

20. Step 4: Collect and calibrate data and assumptions
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 4: Collect and calibrate data and assumptions
Data requirements and level of disaggregation depend on scope and objectives of study:
Sufficient detail to meet needs of analysis, and for which data is available.
Avoid being “data driven”.
Helpful sources of data and assumptions can include:
GHG inventories and prior national communications
Energy statistics and energy balances
National economic and demographic statistics and surveys
Planning reports from utilities
Relevant studies (e.g. low carbon scenarios, renewable energy assessments).
International data and studies can help fill data gaps.
Develop consistent accounts of energy use and emissions for base year (and, if relevant, other historical years).

21. Step 5. Develop baseline scenarios
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 5. Develop baseline scenarios
A baseline scenario provides a plausible and consistent description of future developments in the absence of explicit new GHG mitigation policies:
Not a forecast of what will happen: future is inherently unpredictable.
Development of the baseline scenario(s) can be a critically important analytical and policy task:
Influences the magnitude of emissions benefits and relative cost of mitigation strategies.
Not simply an extrapolation of past trends, a baseline scenario requires data and assumptions regarding:
Macroeconomic and demographic projections (e.g. population and GDP growth)
Structural shifts in the economy (e.g. relative growth of agricultural, industrial and services sectors)
Planned investments and existing policies in individual sectors (e.g. power supply plans)
Evolution of technologies and practices, including saturation effects, fuel switching, and adoption rates of new technologies (e.g. share of household with refrigerators; use of combined heat and power in the steel industry).
The definition and development of one or more baseline scenarios is one of the most important and resource-intensive steps in a mitigation assessment. How the baseline scenario is defined and modelled will influence how significant are the benefits of a given mitigation strategy. It is also often the point at which significant analytical resources are required for collection of data and assumptions, and the mitigation model itself is structured and “populated”: the level of detail determined and key parameters of the analysis are set.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of
Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook:
…a baseline scenario should represent a future in which there are no policies or programmes designed to encourage or require actions that reduce GHG emissions or enhance carbon sinks. Defining a reasonable baseline scenario is a critical element in a mitigation assessment since the incremental costs and benefits of mitigation options will depend on the definition of the baseline scenario. A baseline scenario should not simply extrapolate from recent and current trends but rather incorporate a judgement of the likely evolution of resource-consuming and producing activities and technologies. This type of scenario is sometimes called "business-as-usual." Such a scenario would include some degree of adoption of technologies or practices that improve the efficiency of resource use and thereby reduce GHG emissions. In transition countries in particular, a baseline scenario will be quite different from historical trends.
In both developing and transitional countries, where considerable economic and social change is expected over a period of the next several decades, it can be quite difficult to select a single image of the future as more likely than another. A study team might choose to define more than one baseline scenario. For example, alternate scenarios could reflect low, medium and high economic growth. Obviously, there is a trade-off between keeping the assessment manageable and defining numerous baseline scenarios.
IPCC on multiple baseline scenarios: IPCC TAR WGIII, Chp. 7:
Multiple Baseline Scenarios
The above discussion identifies a number of reasons why the establishment of a baseline case is very difficult and uncertain. There are some additional reasons why this is so. The difficulty in predicting the evolution of development patterns over the long term stems, in part, from a lack of knowledge about the dynamic linkages between technical choices and consumption patterns and, in turn, how these interact with economic signals and policies. Technology and consumption patterns are endogenous, their direction being determined at least partly by political decisions. There are also many general uncertainties that impact on the establishment of a baseline case, for example political and social changes.
The above considerations further emphasize the need for work on the basis of several alternative baseline scenarios characterized by different assumptions regarding development patterns and innovation. This allows the mitigation or adaptation assessments to create an estimate range for the costs associated with very different development paths. Indeed, the range of emission levels associated with alternative baseline scenarios could well be greater than the difference between a certain baseline and the corresponding active policy case.
In reality, this can only provide a partial insight into the costs of climate change. Despite the large disparities in cost estimates likely to arise through the use of multiple baselines, they do allow the future to be framed within a much wider analytical perspective. Using a number of different development patterns is of particular importance to developing countries. Since the major part of their infrastructure and energy systems is yet to be built, the spectrum for future development is wider than in industrialized countries. A baseline scenario approach that assumes current development trends to continue is therefore not very useful in these countries (IPCC, 1996a, Chapter 8).
The scenarios of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC, 2000a) show that alternative combinations of driving-force scenario variables can lead to similar levels and structure of energy use and land-use patterns. Hence for a given scenario outcome, for example in terms of GHG emissions, alternative pathways can lead to that outcome. The conclusion is therefore that one and only one development path does not exist and studies preferably should include multiple baseline scenarios that facilitate a sensitivity analysis of the key scenario variables and assess the consequence of different development patterns.

22. Defining Baseline Scenarios
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Defining Baseline Scenarios
Baseline scenarios are often termed “business-as-usual (BAU)” scenarios:
BAU needs to be carefully defined
Does it include anticipated future changes? Does it include policies recently enacted? Recently announced? Does it include only policies not specifically directed at reducing emissions?
There is no single commonly accepted definition.
It can be useful to have multiple baseline scenarios, for example:
With and without existing policies (to reveal their emission benefits)
With efficiencies and other parameters “frozen” at current values (static) and with anticipated technological and other changes (dynamic).
The definition of the baseline scenario, what it includes and what it doesn’t, requires deliberation and judgment. There are currently no rules or guideline to ensure consistent definition across countries.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of
Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook:
…a baseline scenario should represent a future in which there are no policies or programmes designed to encourage or require actions that reduce GHG emissions or enhance carbon sinks. Defining a reasonable baseline scenario is a critical element in a mitigation assessment since the incremental costs and benefits of mitigation options will depend on the definition of the baseline scenario. A baseline scenario should not simply extrapolate from recent and current trends but rather incorporate a judgment of the likely evolution of resource-consuming and producing activities and technologies. This type of scenario is sometimes called "business-as-usual." Such a scenario would include some degree of adoption of technologies or practices that improve the efficiency of resource use and thereby reduce GHG emissions. In transition countries in particular, a baseline scenario will be quite different from historical trends.
In both developing and transitional countries, where considerable economic and social change is expected over a period of the next several decades, it can be quite difficult to select a single image of the future as more likely than another. A study team might choose to define more than one baseline scenario. For example, alternate scenarios could reflect low, medium, and high economic growth. Obviously, there is a trade-off between keeping the assessment manageable and defining numerous baseline scenarios.

23. Baseline Scenario Definitions: Examples from the Literature
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Baseline Scenario Definitions: Examples from the Literature
International Energy Agency’s widely cited World Energy Outlook 2011 presents two:
Current Policies Scenario (“show how the future might look on the basis of the perpetuation, without change, of the government policies and measures that had been enacted or adopted by mid-2011”)
From a national communications perspective this might be one “baseline” scenario; another baseline scenario might look at emissions levels were these policies not in place to enable estimation of their emissions benefits.
New Policies Scenario (“recent government policy commitments are assumed to be implemented in a cautious manner – even if they are not yet backed up by firm measures”)
From a national communications perspective this might be one of several “mitigation” scenarios.
Often it is useful to consult general studies to inform the design of baseline scenarios, and to gather assumptions regarding regional or global parameters (e.g. oil prices, technology developments). However, these studies may not define baseline scenarios in the same way that would be appropriate from a national communications perspective.
Source: IEA WEO 2011
This Outlook assesses the threats and opportunities facing the global energy system based on a rigorous quantitative analysis of energy and climate trends. The analysis includes three global scenarios and multiple case studies. The central scenario for this Outlook is the New Policies Scenario, in which recent government policy commitments are assumed to be implemented in a cautious manner – even if they are not yet backed up by firm measures. Comparison with the results of the Current Policies Scenario, which assumes no new policies are added to those in place as of mid-2011, illustrates the value of these commitments and plans. From another angle, comparison is also instructive with the 450 Scenario, which works back from the international goal of limiting the long-term increase in the global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius (2°C) above pre-industrial levels, in order to trace a plausible pathway to that goal.
The New Policies Scenario – the central scenario of this Outlook – incorporates the broad policy commitments and plans that have been announced by countries around the world to tackle energy insecurity, climate change and local pollution, and other pressing energy-related challenges, even where the specific measures to implement these commitments have yet to be announced.
WEO-2011 also presents updated projections for the Current Policies Scenario (called the Reference Scenario prior to WEO-2010) to show how the future might look on the basis of the perpetuation, without change, of the government policies and measures that had been enacted or adopted by mid-2011.

24. Baseline Scenario Definitions: Examples from Nat. Comms
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Baseline Scenario Definitions: Examples from Nat. Comms
Scenario descriptions drawn from communications of various NAI Parties:
“presupposes…economy will continue its current development course, with similar growth mechanisms and a similar level of government intervention”
“…a ‘business as usual’ projection of…GHG emissions between 2008 and It is assumed that recent trends in population and economic growth will continue and that no GHG abatement measures will be implemented.”
“…business-as-usual (BAU) baseline projections from 2000 until 2020, taking into account national economic and social policies, development trends and projections
“The baseline scenario is constructed based on trends, plans and policies prevailing…”
“development of this scenario required a projection of current levels to future levels of each type of activity for the time period of
“…draws on assumptions made about population growth, GDP, and other macro variables, which were obtained from official institutions”
These examples provide a flavour for how various Parties have defined baseline scenarios in their communications.
Source for characterization in national reports: Non-Annex I national communications, available at

25. Baseline Scenarios are Referred to in Several NAMAs
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Baseline Scenarios are Referred to in Several NAMAs
Several announced NAMAs include national emissions goals or pledges that are indexed to specific baseline or BAU scenarios, for example:
“lead to an expected emissions reduction of between 36.1 per cent and 38.9 per cent below its projected emissions in 2020”
“implement NAMAs in order to achieve a 20 per cent reduction below ‘business as usual’ emissions growth trajectory in 2020, as projected from the year 2007”
“strive to achieve the target of a 20 per cent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 below ‘business as usual’ levels”
“implement NAMAs to enable a 34 per cent deviation below the ‘business as usual’ emissions growth trajectory by 2020 and a 42 per cent deviation below the ‘business as usual’ emissions growth trajectory by 2025”.
Baseline scenarios developed for national communications may provide important reference points for national action, and therefore clarity in scenario definition and care in preparation of the scenario analysis is increasingly important.
Source for NAMA examples: FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, “Compilation of the information on nationally appropriate mitigation actions to be implemented by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention”, available at

26. Step 6: Identify and screen mitigation options
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 6: Identify and screen mitigation options
A systematic screening process can be used to determine which mitigation options to include in mitigation scenarios:
Establish criteria and indicators consistent with objectives of mitigation assessment
Identify potential mitigation options in each sector
Apply criteria and assess indicators for each option
Determine which options to include/ evaluate further.
Process can involve many participants, from technical analysts to policy makers; can help to ensure consistent perspective across sectors and participants
Particularly important when using bottom-up approach in which a wide range of technologies and policies need to be considered.
May include a quantitative assessment of the mitigation potential (tCO2) and cost of saved carbon ($/TC) of each option. May also include qualitative factors.
Provides opportunity to explicitly consider a comprehensive set of options while reducing the level of effort required in the later more in-depth mitigation analysis.
Reduces likelihood of overlooking important options.
Given large number of available technologies, policies and measures to reduce GHG emissions, it can be helpful to use a systematic procedure to determine which options to include in the mitigation scenarios.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of
Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook:
The nature and importance of the screening process varies depending on the modeling approach. For each sector being studied, one approach is to develop a list of mitigation options that may be of interest. Various criteria…are important for both screening and in-depth analysis of mitigation options. At the screening stage, one makes a rough assessment of the potential attractiveness of options, while the goal of the analysis is to quantify or carefully identify various impacts. … Screening of options may require consideration of likely future conditions. For example, electricity saving options may have a very small impact on GHG emissions if much of the electricity is hydro generated. However, if the mix of generation is likely to shift toward more thermal generation, then electricity-efficiency options could become important.

27. Identify Potential Mitigation Options
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Identify Potential Mitigation Options
Review prior assessments and mitigation literature (in-country and international), including NAMA and low-carbon studies
Consult with sectoral experts and relevant government agencies
Develop lists of strategies – technologies, policies, and measures – by sector and across sectors
Include both hard (quantifiable) and soft (enabling) options.

28. Establish Screening Criteria
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Establish Screening Criteria
Potential criteria/indicators include:
Significance of emissions impact (tCO2e)
Cost-effectiveness (e.g. marginal abatement cost)
Feasibility, including institutional capacity (data collection, monitoring, enforcement, permitting, etc.) and political acceptability
Consistency with national development plans and goals
Social and macro-economic impact (employment, forex, trade)
Equity (differential impacts on income groups)
Environmental impact (e.g. local air quality, biodiversity, soil conservation, indoor air quality, etc.)
Replicability (adaptability to different geographical, socio-economic- cultural, legal, and regulatory settings)
Technology transfer.

29. Screening Example: Mexico Low-Carbon Development Study
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Screening Example: Mexico Low-Carbon Development Study
Source: ESMAP, “Low-Carbon Development for Mexico”, available at
Box 2 | Mexico’s Low-Carbon Intervention Analysis: Criteria to Prioritize Options
Source: ESMAP, “Low-Carbon Development for Mexico”

30. Screening Matrix (exercise to follow)
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Screening Matrix (exercise to follow)
Later in the workshop the first hands-on computer exercise will involve the preparation of a simplified cost-curve and a screening matrix similar to this slide.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of
Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook:
A useful approach for screening options is to prepare a matrix…The matrix provides a qualitative indication of the attractiveness of each option by ranking it high, medium, or low, as judged according to each criterion. This matrix should be completed prior to conducting sectoral analyses in order to identify the options to be evaluated in depth. Screening out the non-promising options requires careful judgment. An obvious reason for screening out options is if its wide-scale application is not viable. For example, location of options in environmentally or otherwise sensitive areas may rule them out for political reasons. The relationship between a mitigation option and development goals is important to consider. In addition, there may be options, such as reducing traffic congestion, which may be difficult to analyze since quantifying the impact on GHG emissions may be difficult to do. However, if the option is important for non-GHG reasons (e.g. as a measure to reduce urban air pollution), then simple assumptions may be made to roughly estimate its GHG impact.

31. Example of Ranking in Paraguay’s 2nd Nat. Comm.
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Example of Ranking in Paraguay’s 2nd Nat. Comm.
The index of political compatibility takes into account sectoral plans, international agreements, and national legislation
The index of barriers considers technical, institutional, financial, and social barriers
Priority mitigation measures
This ranking example uses the methodology developed by ECOENERGY (2000) in Ecuador.
Results of the ranking of the priority mitigation measures:
Substitution of fossil fuel for biofuel is highly compatible with political instruments, but there are severe barriers, especially concerning technical capacity and coordination between institutions.
Biogas is also very compatible politically, but has even higher (technical and financial) barriers.
Improved cooking stoves and saving fuel wood is moderately compatible with political instruments, with small barriers. This is a viable opportunity, as obstacles to implementation can be overcome with little investment and management. The measure also has a big impact on human health, particularly for women. The measure can help contribute to reduced use of primary forest material, reduce pressures on ecosystems and increase carbon sinks.
Rural photovoltaic systems have low political compatibility with high technical barriers.
Implementation of wind energy has a slightly higher political compatibility, but very high technical (including natural wind conditions and irregularity) and financial barriers.
Source (National Communication):
Paraguay: Tabla 4.5: Resume de ranking de medidas de mitigación priorizadas. Fuente de tabla: Elaboracion propia.
Improved cooking stoves:
Compatible with political instruments and has small barriers
Obstacles to implementation can be overcome with little investment
Also a big impact on human health, particularly for women.
Helps reduce impacts on primary forest and ecosystems, and increase carbon sinks.

32. Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) Example from Mauritius’ 2nd Nat. Comm.
Scale 1 to 5, where 5 represents the most probable level of adoption.
MCA ex. for…
Agriculture:
Reducing field burning of agricultural residues is most attractive
Anaerobic digestion of manure from farm animals received the lowest score due to high investment costs and logistical constraints.
Electricity generation:
Geothermal with highest score, followed by solar and wind
Waste-to-energy is last due to risk aversion and health concerns.
After assessing GHG mitigation potential for options within each sector, an MCA was performed to assess feasibility of the measures within the local context. Assessment ranged from 1 (least probable adoption) to 5 (most probable level of adoption), and was performed by a group of people with varying backgrounds.
Source: Mauritius’ 2nd National Communication:

33. Cost-Effectiveness and Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Curves
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Cost-Effectiveness and Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Curves
A technique for screening and ranking GHG mitigation options:
Plot cumulative GHG reduction from successive mitigation options (e.g. tonnes of CO2 avoided) against cost per unit of GHG reduction (e.g. USD/tonne)
Area under curve yields total cost of avoided emissions
Care should be taken to consider interdependencies among options (e.g. benefits such as fuel switching in electric sector may be reduced by end-use efficiency programs), for example through use of integrated models.
Source: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy, McKinsey & Company, 2009

34. Example of MAC Curve: Mexico
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Example of MAC Curve: Mexico
This MAC curve for Mexico shows the types of measures evaluated and their relative marginal abatement costs. This reflects the common finding that many measures can yield a net benefit in terms of cost savings, particularly those that reduce energy or other material costs.
Source: ESMAP, “Low-Carbon Development for Mexico”, available at
Figure 6. Marginal Abatement Cost Curve
Source: Mexico Low Carbon Country Case Study, World Bank ESMAP

35. Example of MAC Curve: Vietnam
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Example of MAC Curve: Vietnam
Mitigation options in agriculture sector
Mitigation options in energy sector
Mitigation options in LULUCF sector
Another example can be used where more regionally appropriate.
Source: “National GHG Inventory and Assumption Baselines for GHG Emissions Projections” presentation by Prof. Dr Tran Thuc, Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment; Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
GHG mitigation options were developed for three main sectors: energy, agriculture and LULUCF.
28 GHG mitigation options were identified and assessed which included 15 options for energy sector (including transportation), 5 options for the agriculture sector, and 8 options for the LULUCF sector.
Mitigation potential and cost for 28 options in energy, agriculture and LULUCF
Total mitigation potential for 28 options is 3,270.7 Tg CO2e
Cost curves for the 3 sectors are presented in Vietnam’s Second National Communication:
Source: Dr. Tran Thuc, “National GHG Inventory and Assumption Baselines for GHG Emissions Projections”

36. Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC)
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC)
MAC is always relative:
 = difference between mitigation and baseline option
Baseline should be consistent across options
Cost = the net present value of direct costs over option lifetime at discount rate:
What discount rate to use? Which costs to include? What option lifetime?
Emissions = GHG emissions over option lifetime
Discount emissions too? (generally not done).
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of:
Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook
Should the avoided GHG emissions or carbon storage be discounted at the same rate as costs? We suggest that these GHG flows not be discounted. By not discounting them, one assumes that the future economic damage caused by GHG emissions increases at the real rate of discount, which is not unreasonable considering that the potential damage that atmospheric GHG concentrations might cause in the future is largely unknown.
Excerpt from:
Halsnaes, K.; Callaway, J.M.; Meyer, H.J Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations: Methodological Guidelines. UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Denmark.
The debate on discount rates is a long standing one (IPCC, 1996b). As that reports notes, there are two approaches to discounting; an ethical approach based on what rates of discount should be applied, and a descriptive approach based on what rates of discount people actually apply in their day-to-day decisions.
The ethical approach suggests that a discount rate that reflects the preferences of society to investments in long term sustainability impacts associated with climate change mitigation be used. This discount rate, according to theoretical arguments, should be the so-called social rate of time preference (Arrow et al. 1996). It can also in a more pragmatic way be argued that the discount rate should be a political choice – this approach often talks about “the social rate of discount”. The descriptive approach argues that the marginal rate of return on capital is the appropriate discount rate. The former leads to relatively low rates of discount (around 3 percent in real terms) and the latter to relatively higher rates (in some case very high rates of 20 percent and above). The arguments for either approach are unlikely to be resolved, given that they have been going on since well before climate change was an issue. Normally the cost effectiveness values are calculated for more than one rate and the results presented to provide the policy-maker with some guidance on how sensitive the results are to the choice of discount rate. The sensitivity is certainly there; at high rates energy projects with long gestation periods become unattractive compared to those with a shorter period…

37. Step 7. Develop Mitigation Scenarios
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Step 7. Develop Mitigation Scenarios
Mitigation scenarios reflect a future in which explicit policies and measures are adopted to reduce the sources (or enhance the sinks) of GHGs.
Mitigation scenarios should take into account:
Specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances
The common but differentiated responsibilities of the Parties.
Mitigation scenarios should not simply reflect current plans. Instead they should assess what would be hypothetically achievable based on the goals of the scenario.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of:
Sathaye, J. and Meyers, S Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook.
A mitigation scenario reflects a future in which climate-change mitigation is a primary motivation for adoption of technologies and practices that reduce GHG emissions or enhance carbon sinks. It may reflect only the technical potential for reducing GHG emissions or storing carbon, or it may incorporate estimates of what is achievable considering the many factors (institutional, cultural, legal, etc.) that may limit the implementability of the technically available options. Ideally, both the technical and the achievable potential should be reported.
A study team could define and develop several mitigation scenarios. For example, alternate mitigation scenarios could reflect different degrees of emissions reduction or carbon storage relative to the baseline (e.g. 10%, 20%, 30%). A study team might also want to define mitigation scenarios that highlight particular types of technologies (e.g., renewable energy technologies). For both the energy and non-energy sectors, scenarios developed using a bottom-up approach take into consideration end-users' needs for energy, forest products, and land.
By explicitly taking these needs into account, end-use scenarios are less likely to over- or understate final demand for products.

38. Steps in Constructing Mitigation Scenarios
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Steps in Constructing Mitigation Scenarios
Establish framing
Create option portfolios (identify synergistic and/or mutually exclusive options and double counting), estimate penetration rates
Construct integrated scenarios using chosen modeling methodology
Calculate overall costs, benefits and GHG mitigation potential.

39. Framing Mitigation Scenarios
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Framing Mitigation Scenarios
A mitigation scenario can be framed as:
An emission reduction target
Relative to the baseline
Relative to emissions in some historical year, or
Relative to some indicator such as CO2/capita or CO2/USD
All options up to a certain cost per unit of emissions reduction
“No regrets” (cost-effective options only)
With or without specific options or technologies.
Parties may wish to assess more than one mitigation scenario.

40. Examples of Mitigation Scenario Definitions
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Examples of Mitigation Scenario Definitions
IEA 2011 World Energy Outlook (WEO):
450 Scenario: “works back from the international goal of limiting the long-term increase in the global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius (2°C) above pre-industrial levels”
Scenario description drawn from communications of NAI Party:
“The mitigation scenarios are proposed plans and projects that have a potential for sectoral emission reduction or sink enhancing. Mitigation options are selected and analyzed according to their direct and indirect economic impact, consistency with national development goals, economical feasibility, and compatibility with implementation policies, sustainability and other specific criteria. Various methods and tools are used to evaluate each mitigation option in terms of technological and economical implications. It should be noted that due to major lack in data, most of the values used in the analysis are based on international applications and studies.”
Source for characterization in national report: Non-Annex I national communications, available at
Source: IEA WEO 2011
This Outlook assesses the threats and opportunities facing the global energy system based on a rigorous quantitative analysis of energy and climate trends. The analysis includes three global scenarios and multiple case studies. The central scenario for this Outlook is the New Policies Scenario, in which recent government policy commitments are assumed to be implemented in a cautious manner – even if they are not yet backed up by firm measures. Comparison with the results of the Current Policies Scenario, which assumes no new policies are added to those in place as of mid-2011, illustrates the value of these commitments and plans. From another angle, comparison is also instructive with the 450 Scenario, which works back from the international goal of limiting the long-term increase in the global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius (2°C) above pre-industrial levels, in order to trace a plausible pathway to that goal.
The Outlook presents, in Chapter 6, updated projections for the 450 Scenario, which sets out an energy pathway that is consistent with a 50% chance of meeting the goal of limiting the increase in average global temperature to two degrees Celsius (2°C), compared with pre-industrial levels. According to climate experts, to meet this goal it will be necessary to limit the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to around 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent (ppmCO2-eq).

41. Brazil: Low carbon scenario
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Brazil: Low carbon scenario
Source: ESMAP “Brazil Low Carbon Country Case Study” available at
Figure 3: Comparing Cumulative Deforestation | Reference and Low Carbon Scenarios (2007–30)
Table 3: Energy Sector Emission Reduction Potential (2010–30)
Figure 10: GHG Mitigation Wedges in the Low Carbon Scenario (2008–30)
Source: ESMAP, “Brazil Low Carbon Country Case Study”

42. Assessing Mitigation Scenarios
1. Assess situation & organize process
2. Define scope
3. Design methodology
4. Collect & calibrate data
5. Develop baseline scenario(s)
6. Identify & screen mitigation options
7. Develop & assess mitigation scenario(s)
Assessing Mitigation Scenarios
Scenarios can be assessed in terms of:
GHG emissions savings
Other co-benefits (e.g. reduced local air pollution)
Impacts on energy security
Social impacts (e.g. development benefits or drawbacks)
Costs (e.g. saved fuel costs or increased capital investment requirements, impacts on foreign exchange, etc.)
Technical feasibility of options
Political plausibility, etc.
Source: IPCC SAR, WGIII, Chp. 27

43. Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS)
Collaboration between developing countries
Aims to establish the evidence base for transitions to carbon efficient, robust economies
Contributes to ambitious climate change mitigation; aligns with poverty alleviation and economic development
Mitigation action case studies were conducted for five countries, including South Africa (see next slide)
Several case study scenarios have been assessed under the MAPS programme, a collaboration between developing countries that share knowledge and experience to facilitate pathways to low carbon, robust economies. Case studies have been conducted for Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and South Africa.
Source: &

44. MAPS South Africa Case Study
Four examples of mitigation activities assessed:
Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) in Cape Town: reduced CO2 emissions from improved public transport (energy efficiency, modal shift from SOV)
South African Renewables Initiative (SARi): secure financial and institutional arrangements for renewable energy development
Carbon tax: Explore economic policy as mitigation option (proxy tax on fossil fuels proposed)
National Sustainable Settlements Facility (NSSF): solar water heaters and thermal efficiency measures in new low income houses.
Risks to implementation
Red = high risk
Amber = medium risk
Green = low risk
Assessed risks related to four example mitigation activities, using a color scale (red = high risk, green = low risk). Application of risk criteria was challenging and fundamentally subjective as most mitigation activities have not yet been implemented.
Source: “MAPS. Mitigation Actions in Developing Countries: Country Study for South Africa ”
Emily Tyler, Anya Boyd, Kim Coetzee and Harald Winkler
Table 2. Risks to implementation
Source: “MAPS. Mitigation Actions in Developing Countries: Country Study for South Africa”

45. Rwanda’s National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development
Strategic framework
for the strategy
Vision of climate-resilient, low carbon economy by 2050
Guiding principles (e.g. economic growth, good regional and global citizenship)
Strategic objectives (e.g. low carbon energy supply, sustainable land use)
Programmes of action (e.g. agricultural diversity of markets, climate compatible mining, ecotourism)
Rwanda’s National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development relies on a strategic framework consisting of a vision, guiding principles, strategic objectives, programmes of action, enabling pillars, and a roadmap for implementation.
Source: “Green Growth and Climate Resilience: National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development”
The Rwanda National Strategy on Climate Change and Low Carbon Development was developed over a period of nine months, from November 2010 to July 2011, as a collaborative effort between the Government of Rwanda, the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment (SSEE) at the University of Oxford, and the donor institutes UK DFID-Rwanda and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). The Principal Investigator was Professor Sir David King and the Programme Manager was Megan Cole, from SSEE. The project was coordinated by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MINIRENA), and was directed through a Steering Committee consisting of ten Cabinet Ministers from the following ministries: Disaster Management (MIDIMAR), Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI), Trade and Industry (MINICOM), Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN), Education (MINEDUC), Infrastructure (MININFRA), Natural Resources (MINIRENA), Local Government (MINALOC) and Health (MOH).
Source: “Green Growth and Climate Resilience: National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development”
Enabling pillars (e.g.f inance, capacity building, integrated planning and data management)
Roadmap for implementation

46. Rwanda’s National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development (2)30
A few “big wins” were identified from the actions recommended in the national strategy that will have a large impact on mitigation, adaptation and low carbon economic development.
Likely to produce the greatest return on investment since these actions impact the economy in the long-term.
Three largest GHG sources (energy, agriculture, and transport) are all addressed in mitigation “big wins” to enable low carbon development, increased food and energy security, and reduced vulnerability to oil prices:
Geothermal power generation
Integrated soil fertility management
High density walkable cities.
“Big wins” were identified from recommended actions in the national strategy, which are likely to provide the biggest return on investment, and address the sectors with the greatest GHG contributions.
Source: “Green Growth and Climate Resilience: National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development”
The Rwanda National Strategy on Climate Change and Low Carbon Development was developed over a period of nine months, from November 2010 to July 2011, as a collaborative effort between the Government of Rwanda, the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment (SSEE) at the University of Oxford, and the donor institutes UK DFID-Rwanda and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). The Principal Investigator was Professor Sir David King and the Programme Manager was Megan Cole, from SSEE. The project was coordinated by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MINIRENA), and was directed through a Steering Committee consisting of ten Cabinet Ministers from the following ministries: Disaster Management (MIDIMAR), Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI), Trade and Industry (MINICOM), Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN), Education (MINEDUC), Infrastructure (MININFRA), Natural Resources (MINIRENA), Local Government (MINALOC) and Health (MOH).
Source: “Green Growth and Climate Resilience: National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development”

47. Reporting Mitigation Assessments
Mitigation assessments form an important part of communications on climate change.
They are read both by the international scientific community and by national and international policy makers, so need both a high level of scientific rigour and a high level of clarity and comprehensibility.
Raw modelling results need to be reinterpreted in a form more familiar to policy makers.
Should describe:
What methodologies were adopted and why (not just software chosen, but how it was used)
How structure of national energy system is reflected in the model.
What data structure was used and why.

48. Module C3
Translating Mitigation Assessments into National Climate Plans

49. From Mitigation Assessments to National Action Plans…
Developing a national action plan goes well beyond the scope of a mitigation assessment:
Key issues include:
Plan development must involve a diverse group of government agencies
Requires participation of non-governmental stakeholders
Must focus on well-defined objectives
Should emphasize implementation and have a practical focus
Should have local control and ownership
Should include aspects that aim to increase public awareness of climate change
Should be living documents and viewed as part of an ongoing process to address climate change.

50. Integrating with GHG Inventories and Vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) Assessments
Mitigation assessments should be closely linked to the other national communications: GHG inventories and V&A assessments.
Should be consistent with data and assumptions used in those assessments (e.g. demographic and economic assumptions).
Reporting on the 3 elements should be harmonized and closely coordinated.
GHG Inventories:
Will identify major sources and sinks of GHGs, helping to determine the scope and emphasis in the mitigation assessment
Mitigation assessment accounts should use inventories accounting procedures and emission factors wherever possible.
V&A Assessments:
Will identify possible changes in natural resource conditions and management practices, which could effect baseline resource conditions as well as the applicability of mitigation options
For example: climate change might affect hydro potential, irrigation energy requirements, and biomass productivity, and alter the effectiveness of mitigation strategies such as afforestation or the reduction of agricultural emissions.

51. Resources for Planning a Mitigation Assessment
Institutions that support mitigation assessments include:
UNDP National Communications Support Programme (NCSP)
analysis
Global Environment Facility
UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development
Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) toolkit
OpenEI, LEDS gateway
Emission_Development_Strategies

52. Topics for Discussion
What lessons have you learned from past mitigation assessments?
What are the most challenging and resource intensive steps, and how can they be addressed?
What are the biggest challenges in defining a baseline?
What criteria have you used for mitigation and other planning efforts?
This slide lists some possible topics for discussion. The discussion session will take place immediately following the presentation and will likely be facilitated by CGE staff. In addition, participants may also wish to ask questions of the presenters.