community to make them more resilient to the
consequences of climate change. Recent Dutch efforts to minimize adverse impacts include active engagement for a full operationalization of the Green Climate Fund and New Market Mechanisms.
Green Climate Fund
The Netherlands actively contributes to the full and timely operationalization of the Green Climate Fund and is committed to providing climate finance to support developing countries in their mitigation and adaptation activities. This Fund will, among other things, seek to use public funds to attract private finance for both mitigation and adaptation investments. On the Board of the Green Climate Fund, the Netherlands again shares a chair with Denmark, as it did in the Transitional Committee. Full operationalization of the Green Climate Fund is crucial to support developing countries in their transformation to low-carbon and climate-resilient development. In doing so, the GCF should try to maximize development benefits by linking climate change to poverty reduction and gender. Enhancing the role of the private sector is a Dutch priority to which the Netherlands has actively contributed through the operationalization of the private sector facility. Collaboration between authorities, business and know- ledge institutions
In the years ahead, the Netherlands will be working more closely with companies and knowledge institutions to
contribute to combating climate change and its consequences. The innovations and financial strength of these parties are essential to meet the challenges of climate change together. The Netherlands has, for example, a great deal of expertise in the fields of water, food security and energy and we are already collaborating with various countries in these fields: on water security, for instance, with Vietnam, Colombia and Indonesia. In the future, the private sector and knowledge institutions will be more closely involved and this is a key factor in the Dutch strategy. It is also in line with our ambitions for the new climate instrument: to offer customization and to let everyone make an appropriate contribution.
Fast start finance
Meanwhile, the Netherlands has fulfilled the Copenhagen agreement on ‘Fast Start Finance’. This involved financially supporting immediate action on climate change and kick-starting mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries from 2010 to 2012. The Netherlands provided € 300 million in Fast Start Finance over the period 2010-2012. In 2013, € 200 million was contributed.
In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency of implementation and collective action, the Netherlands stands ready to continue scaling up its climate finance action in order to contribute its share to the developed countries’ goal to jointly mobilize 100 billion dollars per year by 2020.
The Netherlands has also contributed to enhancing transparency regarding the Fast Start Financing initiative. On the initiative of the Netherlands, a special module on fast start finance has been established on the financial portal of the UNFCCC website, http://www3.unfccc.int/pls/ apex/f?p=116:13:601354855187581. With the establishment of this module on the UNFCCC website, the Netherlands is confident this transparency of fast start finance will be safeguarded.
Market Mechanisms
The flexible mechanisms under the Protocol – (1) International Emissions Trading (i.e. the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme EU ETS), (2) Joint
Implementation and (3) Clean Development Mechanism – are all tools incorporated into the Protocol in order to share efforts aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, ensuring that investments are made where the money has optimal greenhouse gas reducing effects, and thus ensuring a minimum impact on the world economy. The Netherlands has made use of each of the flexible mechanisms. It has also signed MoUs regarding CDM and JI projects with several countries worldwide. The Netherlands is supporting the World Bank’s “Partnership for Market Readiness”, which will help countries to make use of the benefits and advantages of the carbon market. The PMR promotes collective innovation and piloting of
market-based instruments for GHG emissions reduction. In addition, the PMR also provides a platform for technical discussions of such instruments to spur innovation and support implementation.
In the view of the Netherlands, COP 17 in Durban showed important progress on the future and the use of (flexible) market mechanisms. COP 17 ‘defined a new market-based mechanism operating under the guidance and authority of the COP’. Work continues on developing the modalities and procedures for the use of this new market-based mechanism, which will actually allow different
approaches, including sectoral ones, to accommodate the differing needs of countries. The Netherlands also intends, however, to actively participate in the further discussions on the development and implementation of the Framework for Various Approaches in order, on the one hand, to allow flexibility in the use of market instruments and, on the other, to ensure that environmental integrity is safeguarded. Through this approach, fragmentation of the carbon market can be beminimized.
An important outcome of COP 18 is the decision to continue the Kyoto Protocol, which in practice implies that CDM and JI can continue to operate beyond 2013. For CDM and JI, decisions were taken to further enhance their efficiency and credibility.
Minimizing adverse effects regarding biofuels production
All biofuels on the market in Europe and the Netherlands must comply with the sustainability criteria laid down by the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EG). Only if the biofuels are sustainable, are they allowed to be used for fulfilling the blending target. Compliance with these criteria must be demonstrated through one of the adopted certification systems. These certification systems are controlled by an independent audit. All biofuels produced in the Netherlands fulfil these requirements.
Annex 1
Key sources
A1.1 Introduction
As explained in the Good Practice Guidance (IPCC, 2001), a key source category is prioritized within the national inventory system because its estimate has a significant influence on a country’s total inventory of direct greenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level of emissions, the trend in emissions or both.
For the identification of key sources in the Netherlands’ inventory, we allocated national emissions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) potential key source list, as presented in Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 of the Good Practice Guidance. As suggested in this table, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary combustion (1A1, 1A2 and 1A4) are aggregated by fuel type. CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from Mobile combustion: road vehicles (1A3) are assessed separately. The CH4 and N2O emissions from aircraft and ships are relatively small (about 1–2 Gg CO2 equivalent). Other mobile sources are not assessed separately by gas. Fugitive emissions from oil and gas operations (1B) are significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands. The most significant gas/ source combinations in this category are separately assessed. Emissions in other IPCC sectors are disaggregated, as suggested by the IPCC.
The IPCC Tier 1 method consists of ranking the list of source category/gas combinations according to their contribution to national total annual emissions and to the national total trend. The areas at the top of the tables in this annex are the largest sources, the total of which adds up to 95 per cent of the national total (excluding LULUCF): 32 sources for annual level assessment (emissions in 2012) and 33 sources for the trend assessment out of a total of 72 sources. The two lists can be combined to obtain an overview of sources that meet one or two of these criteria. The IPCC Tier 2 method for the identification of key sources requires the incorporation of the uncertainty in each of these sources before ordering the list of shares. This has been carried out using the uncertainty estimates presented in Annex 7 (for details of the Tier 1 uncertainty analysis, see Olivier et al., 2009). Here, a total contribution of up to 90 per cent to the overall uncertainty has been used to avoid the inclusion of too many small sources. The results of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 level and trend assessments are summarized in Table A1.1 and show a total of 43 key sources excluding LULUCF). As expected, the Tier 2 level and trend assessment increases the importance of very uncertain sources. It can be concluded that, in using the
results of a Tier 2 key source assessment, five sources are added to the list of 38 Tier 1 level and trend key sources (excluding LULUCF):
• 1A3 Mobile combustion: road vehicles N2O (Tier 2 level and trend);
• 2B5 Other chemical product manufacture (Tier 2 level); • 4A8 CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation in
domestic livestock: swine (Tier 2 level);
• 4B9 Emissions from manure management: poultry CH4 (Tier 2 trend);
• 6B Emissions from wastewater handling: N2O (Tier 2 level).
The share of these sources in the national annual total becomes more significant when taking their uncertainty (50 per cent–100 per cent) into account (Table A1.4). When we include the most important Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) emission sinks and sources in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 key source calculations, this results in five additional key sources, giving an overall total of 48 key sources; see also Table A1.2. In this report, the key source assessment is based on emission figures from Common Reporting Format (CRF) 2014 version 1.2, submitted to the European Union (EU) in March 2014.
Please note that the key source analysis for the base year (1990 for the direct GHG and 1995 for the F-gases) is included in the CRF Reporter and not in this annex.