Thank you for making this consultation publicly available. It shows a great deal of transparency and willingness to receive feedback from a wide audience.
My comments and suggestions are mostly related to COFO's mandate in relation to REDD+ and nationally determine goals and strategies under the UNFCCC, especially on measuring and reporting emissions by sources and removals by sinks.
Overall, the document is very easy to read, well-written and concise. It is encouraging to see a specific section on the integration of young experts and I would suggest this is kept in the final version. Along this line, I would suggest that the NFMS shall: “Consider an inter-generational strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of capacities” (Section 3.5., p 13). This strategy should include students, as mentioned in the text, but also young professionals hired at different government levels.
In terms of the operation of the NFMS, I agree with the need to have a QA/QC plan, which in turn needs to be more clearly linked to the national GHG inventory’s QA/QC plan, especially in relation to the AFOLU sector.
At the same time, I was concerned to see the absence of a specific section on the financial sustainability of the NFMS. This could potentially be addressed in Section 2.1. Institutionalization. Especially in developing countries, current efforts to build a NFMS largely rely on international donations/grants. Ideally an institutionalized system would have its own permanent funding, assigned by the government, particularly considering new INDCs under UNFCCC. I would suggest that a section is included (or Section 2.1. is expanded) to address this issue.
Though, as set out in the introductory sections of the document, the NFMS shall seek to providing useful information for a number of initiatives, conventions and commitments, I believe it is very important to make a clear connection to MRV requirements under the UNFCCC and considering IPCC guidelines, as appropriate. Especially for the AFOLU sector, I did not see a link of measurement and reporting processes with the agriculture sector or even within the forestry sector for harmonizing the estimation of emissions by sources and removals by sinks. There is also a lack of guidance on how to link national reports such as FRA, BUR, National Communications and the GHG inventory. In my experience, such guidance is key and many countries have important obstacles to do this. I would suggest adding a new section on MRV under the UNFCCC after Section 4.4. If appropriate, similar sections may be added for FRA and other relevant UNFCCC conventions.
Finally, I have shared my thoughts with other colleagues and international consultants and we have agreed that some of the guidance provided in this document is too broad to help any specific country situation and that efforts should be undertaken to aid countries in implementing the guidelines defined here.
Thanks again for fostering dialogues and promoting transparency,
Thank you for making this consultation publicly available. It shows a great deal of transparency and willingness to receive feedback from a wide audience.
My comments and suggestions are mostly related to COFO's mandate in relation to REDD+ and nationally determine goals and strategies under the UNFCCC, especially on measuring and reporting emissions by sources and removals by sinks.
Overall, the document is very easy to read, well-written and concise. It is encouraging to see a specific section on the integration of young experts and I would suggest this is kept in the final version. Along this line, I would suggest that the NFMS shall: “Consider an inter-generational strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of capacities” (Section 3.5., p 13). This strategy should include students, as mentioned in the text, but also young professionals hired at different government levels.
In terms of the operation of the NFMS, I agree with the need to have a QA/QC plan, which in turn needs to be more clearly linked to the national GHG inventory’s QA/QC plan, especially in relation to the AFOLU sector.
At the same time, I was concerned to see the absence of a specific section on the financial sustainability of the NFMS. This could potentially be addressed in Section 2.1. Institutionalization. Especially in developing countries, current efforts to build a NFMS largely rely on international donations/grants. Ideally an institutionalized system would have its own permanent funding, assigned by the government, particularly considering new INDCs under UNFCCC. I would suggest that a section is included (or Section 2.1. is expanded) to address this issue.
Though, as set out in the introductory sections of the document, the NFMS shall seek to providing useful information for a number of initiatives, conventions and commitments, I believe it is very important to make a clear connection to MRV requirements under the UNFCCC and considering IPCC guidelines, as appropriate. Especially for the AFOLU sector, I did not see a link of measurement and reporting processes with the agriculture sector or even within the forestry sector for harmonizing the estimation of emissions by sources and removals by sinks. There is also a lack of guidance on how to link national reports such as FRA, BUR, National Communications and the GHG inventory. In my experience, such guidance is key and many countries have important obstacles to do this. I would suggest adding a new section on MRV under the UNFCCC after Section 4.4. If appropriate, similar sections may be added for FRA and other relevant UNFCCC conventions.
Finally, I have shared my thoughts with other colleagues and international consultants and we have agreed that some of the guidance provided in this document is too broad to help any specific country situation and that efforts should be undertaken to aid countries in implementing the guidelines defined here.
Thanks again for fostering dialogues and promoting transparency,
All the best,
Javier