On December 20, 2023, during the Annual Regional Meeting of the Central Asian and the Caucasian network countries, Armenia and Kazakhstan expressed their keen interest in Mutual Learning Programme (MLP) on reporting on mitigation actions and NDC tracking for the Energy Sector. Given the positive examples of the similar approach of the MLP for Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan in 2023-2024, the CBIT-GSP and IGES decided to extend its MLP support for new countries and pursue a series of learning sessions (webinars online) in 2024 for this particular pair. 

IGES and MURC, which supported Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan will also support the new pair in sharing their knowledge on CTFs and mitigation actions for the Energy sector, particularly noting the experience of Japan. CBIT-GSP will technically lead the process and provide comments, questions and consultations on technical issues. 

The support will start on May 2024 and will finish in September 2024. Three virtual webinars are expected and two exercises are foreseen within this MLP.

The progress so far with the MLP for Armenia, Kazakhstan and Japan, is following:

Kick-off meeting which was held on May 10th, 2024:

Objective

The main objective of the kick-off meeting is to (a) discuss the objectives, process, and schedule of the MLP 2024, including how to conduct the first exercise (i.e., filling a common tabular format (CTF) for reporting mitigation actions in the Energy Sector), (b) to share the country status of a national system for tracking the implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), that includes mitigation actions in each sector, and to (c) to discuss how the MLP can be designed and implemented in the way that best matches with the interests and needs of participants.

Target Audience and Language

The kick-off meeting will gather Coordinators and Experts of National Communications and Biennial Transparency Reports, senior experts from the national agencies dealing with GHG inventory and mitigation actions, as well as those specialists, who work in Energy at the domestic level. 

The event will be held in Russian and English with simultaneous translation provided in both languages.

Duration and Registration      

It is expected that the meeting will last up to 2 hours with sufficient timing dedicated to discussion and Q&A sessions.

Key take-away messages:

• Armenia, Kazakhstan and Japan selected the Energy Sector for MLP exercises. The main reason behind is that the countries have an access to data and information as well as know what are the strategic development priorities of their countries in expanding the sector by introducing RES and energy effective technologies. 
• The countries presented their status of NDC tracking and situation on GHG inventory for the energy sector. Obviously, for Armenia, Kazakhstan and Japan, the energy sector is the most GHG emitting one, and the selection of this sector is very much argued for the MLP.
• Since Armenia and Kazakhstan speak and understand Russian, it was suggested that the online meetings will be organized with provision of simultaneous translation in/to English/Russian. However, exercises and assignments, which, if written in Russian, will be translated in English by the CBIT-GSP regional network coordinator. 
• The main approach in MLP learning for the First Exercise is to fill in the CTF table 5 with data and information on mitigation actions for the country’s energy sectors. The same should be done for the write-up of the assessment methodology which was used to measure, report and track in CTF 5. The countries, afterwards, will be given some time to submit their assignments and pursue reviews of each other documents, and submit their completed reviews to IGES/CBIT-GSP.
• IGES and MURC proposed their support in reviewing the countries exercises and suggested that the countries review Japan’s files. This will add value to learning process and provide an access to Japan’s cases. 
• The countries raised a question on double counting. If the mitigation policy is used more than in one sector, in addition to the proposed Energy Sector, how it should be accounted? The clarity was provided by Chisa, who expressed her personal opinion to repeat the same mitigation policy action in every sector but to make a note that it is already counted in Energy as an example. Other participating countries proposed to use the mitigation policy action just once for the most appropriate sector. 

There was also a question that if the country did not yet determine the NDC indicator, how it should be considered and accounted in CTFs. The clarity was provided by Chisa who guided the country to use hypothetical indicator. More details on this question will be provided during the presentation of the second exercise which is directly addressing the filling in process for CTF1 and CTF 2.

Main meeting of the MLP, which was held on July 25th, 2024

Objective:

• To improve the understanding of methodologies and assumptions and how to fill the CTF-5 for reporting mitigation actions in the energy sector, including gaps and challenges,
• To discuss the content and schedule of the second exercise that best matches with the interest of participants (proposed second exercise: the development of CTF-1 (description of selected indicators) and CTF-2 (definitions needed to understand NDC)) 

Target Audience and Language

The kick-off meeting will gather Coordinators and Experts of National Communications and Biennial Transparency Reports, senior experts from the national agencies dealing with GHG inventory and mitigation actions, as well as those specialists, who work in Energy at the domestic level. 

The event will be held in Russian and English with simultaneous translation provided in both languages.

Duration and Registration      

It is expected that the meeting will last up to 2 hours with sufficient timing dedicated to discussion and Q&A sessions.

Key take-away messages:

• All three countries presented various sets of policy and measures on mitigation actions in Energy. Some policy and measures are crosscutting, especially in terms of RES, EE and e-cars for transport sectors. For example, Armenia has described RES and EE in much details with desegregation.
• However, Kazakhstan presented PaMs not only for Energy Sector. As such, Kazakhstan has to revise the Exercise 1 with the focus on Energy Sector only.
• Kazakhstan has requested a bilateral technical meeting to provide more practical guidance to correct the Exercise 1 and follow-up on Exercise 2.
• Solar PV, electrical vehicle and fuel switching in transportation sector and energy saving in residential and commercial sector are the most common mitigation actions, and there is a potential opportunity once again to check methodologies and assumptions for emission reduction, which the mentioned measures foresee.
• Methodology for estimations of GHG emission reduction was the most challenging part of the Exercise 1 and received more questions (such as indicators to track emission reduction).
• Some countries (Armenia) used LEAP model for methodologies and assumptions of mitigation actions and PaMs, while other countries (Kazakhstan and Japan) used statistical approach in estimations.  
• The gaps and challenges are also associated with data collection and it will take improvement throughout the BTR development process.
• The countries confirmed that the results of the MLP exercise will definitely build the base and contribute to the 1BTR on NDC tracking part. 
• The Exercise 1 was very useful and provided the content for PaMs for 1BTR. The challenge is that all provided PaMs are not yet final and derived from the latest BUR/BR and should be updated for 1BTR.

Final (follow-up) meeting of MLP, which was held on October 1, 2024

Objective:

The main objective of the final meeting is to increase understanding of the participating countries of how to complete the CTF-1 and 2 as part of the BTR and to increase the confidence in submitting their BTRs.

The also aims to share and exchange knowledge of how to make progress and overcome challenges with BTR preparation, to increase awareness and inspiration of how to link the information of BTRs to NDCs, and to provide recommendations for future collaboration, including through the MLP and other channels of support. 

Target Audience and Language

The main meeting will gather coordinators and experts of National Communications and Biennial Transparency Reports, senior experts from the national agencies dealing with GHG inventory and mitigation actions, as well as those specialists, who work in Energy Sector at the national level, more specifically representatives of:  

Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ); Ministry of Environment of Armenia; Ministry of Ecology and Nature Protection of Kazakhstan, JSC “Zhasyl Damu of Kazakhstan”; Ministry of Environmental Protection Serbia; Environmental Protection Agency of Serbia; Ministry of Environment, Urbanization of Türkiye; Directorate of Climate Change Türkiye; UNDP and FAO; UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre (UNEP CCC) via its CBIT-GSP project; Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting (MURC); Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).

The webinar will be held in English and Russian with simultaneous translation provided in both languages.  

Duration and Registration      

It is expected that the meeting will last up to 3 hours with sufficient timing dedicated to discussion and Q&A sessions.

Key take-away messages:

• All MLP participating countries are making the progress to submit BTR1 on time, before the end of 2024. The countries are expected to include the exercises which they performed in the MLP (e.g., CTF 1, 2 and 5) in their first BTRs.
• All participants have submitted and developed CTF 1 and 2 as for the Exercise 2, and reviewed each other`s draft tables. The review process has increased the quality of the reported information such as selecting an indicator for tracking NDC and its definition. 
• In CTF 1, countries have different indicators for tracking NDC such as total GHG emissions, net GHG emissions, GHG emissions economy-wide, depending on their NDC types. Table 2 shows some examples of indicators that countries drafted. 
• For CTF 2, experts filled the definition needed to understand each indicator shown in Table 2. Some participants were asked to clarify if the indicators include or exclude contributions from Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector and indirect CO2 emissions. The experts discussed that if net GHG emissions is used as the indicator, the definition would be easier to understand since it excludes LULUCF sector. However, some participants mentioned CTF 4 has three different cells for indicators, contribution from LULUCF sector (different from indicators), and ITMOs. Therefore, it may be better to report removals from LULUCF to a different cell than indicator.
• The information and data from the first BTRs will be used as the basis for developing the next NDC. Some expressed the challenge that different institutional units are responsible for preparing BTRs and NDC 3.0. Therefore, it is important to collaborate with these units/teams to update the next NDC as the first BTR shows country`s emission reduction level and effectiveness of mitigation measures. A vice versa, the collaboration is needed to prepare the second BTRs in order to facilitate the reporting of necessary information and data from the updated NDCs. 
• Participants expressed the MLP was very useful as experts had a peer-to-peer discussion and practical exercises to learn better on how to report on mitigation actions. Reviewing each other`s draft and receiving feedback was helpful to improve their own CTFs; in particular, they have learned a lot from reviewing methodologies and assumptions of GHG emission reductions. 
• Although MLP has a very straightforward approach of learning and having step-by-step virtual webinars, a face-to-face meeting is also important for technical experts to discuss and interact with each other more deeply. 
• For future collaboration, countries highlighted working on other sectors for CTF 5 (e.g., agriculture and waste), methodologies and practices on climate finance tracking, refining tools and methodologies for emission reduction estimation, reviewing the first BTRs and discussing possible improvements for the next BTRs, and expanding on participating countries. 

With the final (follow-up) meeting, the in-country support for reporting on mitigation actions under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement, targeting Armenia and Kazakhstan (Japan) for 2024 was completed.

- End-