Support facility for the development of the Intended Nationally ...

Support facility for the development of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) for submission to the UNFCCC INDC for Kiribati – Synthesis Report – Deliverable 5

23/09/2015

INDC for Kiribati – Synthesis Report – Deliverable 5

Table of Contents SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2

OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 2.2

MANDATE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTENDED NATIONALLY-DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION (INDC) ...................................................................................... 2

3.1 3.2 3.3

MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ADAPTATION.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY AND CAPACITY-BUILDING SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 4

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................................................................................................ 5 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................................................ 6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT..................................................................................................................................................... 7 ECONOMY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................................................................................... 9

SECTION 2. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................... 1

SECTION 3. GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................................................... 2

SECTION 4. COUNTRY CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 4

SECTION 5. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................................................... 10

5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 EMISSION TRENDS .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 5.3 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.3.1 Projections Context ................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.3.2 Historic data GHG calculations and correlations ........................................................................................ 14 5.3.3 Modelled GHG projections .................................................................................................................................... 16 5.3.4 Other projections and goals ................................................................................................................................. 17 SECTION 6. MITIGATION OPTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 17 6.1.1 Mitigation by Sector in Kiribati.......................................................................................................................... 17 6.1.2 Energy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.2 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY (EE) CONTRIBUTIONS ...................................................................... 19 6.2.2 Non-Energy sectors ................................................................................................................................................. 22 6.3 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION OPTIONS COMPARED TO PROJECTIONS ................................................................................ 23

SECTION 7. POSSIBLE ADAPTATION OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 24

7.1 NATIONAL CONTEXT INCLUDING SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES......................................................................................... 24 7.1.1 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 7.1.2 Temperature and rainfall ..................................................................................................................................... 25 7.1.3 Climate change projections ................................................................................................................................. 25 7.1.4 Vulnerability .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 7.2 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................................................................. 29 7.3 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, PLANS AND STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING CLIMATE RESILIENCE....................... 36 7.3.1 Kiribati Development Plan ................................................................................................................................... 36 7.3.2 National Adaptation Programme of Action .................................................................................................. 36 7.3.3 National Framework for Climate Change and Climate Change Adaptation .................................... 36 7.3.4 Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management........... 37

Specific contract N°2015-MS-016-15DDU0C006-Kiribati-INDC-Support

i


PAST, ONGOING AND PROPOSED ADAPTATION PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES ............................................................. 38 7.4 7.4.1 National communication under the UNFCCC ............................................................................................... 38 7.4.2 National Adaptation Programme of Action .................................................................................................. 38 7.4.3 Kiribati Adaptation Project ................................................................................................................................. 39 7.5 ADAPTATION CAPACITY, ENGAGEMENT OF PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN ADAPTATION.......................... 39 7.5.1 National capacity self-assessment .................................................................................................................... 39 7.5.2 Climate Change Study Team................................................................................................................................ 40 7.5.3 Capacity building initiatives ................................................................................................................................ 40 7.5.4 Gaps in national, sector and community-level adaptation and climate resilience programs ... 45 7.5.5 National planning frameworks .......................................................................................................................... 45 7.5.6 Options for innovative and coordinated financing ..................................................................................... 45 7.5.7 Modalities for climate change Adaptation financing ................................................................................ 46 7.5.8 Adaptation costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 7.6 LOSS AND DAMAGE ................................................................................................................................................................. 48 7.7 ADAPTATION TECHNOLOGY NEEDS AND OBSTACLES........................................................................................................ 50

SECTION 8. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................. 50 8.1 8.2

ANNEX 1: GRID EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS......................................................................................................... 50 ANNEX 2: PROPOSED OUTER ISLAND ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................. 51

Framework contract N°2015-AC-001-15DDU0C006-INDC-Support-Facility

ii


Section 1. Introduction 1.1 Objective This report provides a synthesis of available information from the Republic of Kiribati on greenhouse gas emissions and/or removals, greenhouse gas projections, and options for mitigation and adaptation. It also includes information on capacity building needs, technology needs for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The information presented also provides a basis for developing the intended nationallydetermined contributions of Kiribati relating to its ambitions for mitigating climate change and providing its priorities for adaptation. The effective implementation of its offer of actions to mitigate climate change and implementation of priority adaptation measures will depend on the provision of financial, technical and capacity-building support.

1.2 Scope The synthesis includes seven sections; section 1 provides objective and scope of the synthesis report while information on the background to the INDC process including the objectives and purpose of the INDC is provided in Section 2. Section 3 outlines the guidelines of INDC and includes the type of information that can be reported in the INDC by each Party commensurate with national circumstances and availability of data and information. Section 4 provides country context wherein information on its geography, population, economy, socio-economic development, climate and projections of future climate change are presented. The fifth section (section 5) discusses the GHG emissions profile and trends which was developed in the second GHG inventory as part of the preparation of its second national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The sixth section (section 6) is focused on the GHG emissions projections and the mitigation options that are either currently being implemented and/or that are being planned to be implemented in the near future. Section 7 is focused on issues, concerns and difficulties relating to adaptation and the needs and priorities for climate change adaptation.

Section 2. Background 2.1 Mandate The Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC, by its decision 1/CP.17, launched “a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”. The COP further decided that “the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action shall complete its work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order to adopt this protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force at the twenty first session of the Conference of the Parties and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020”. Thus, the COP is expected to adopt, at its twenty-first session in Paris, a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.


1


2.2 Intended nationally-determined contribution (INDC) In order to guide and inform the development of this protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force, Parties to the UNFCCC are required to communicate to the UNFCCC Secretariat their intended nationally determined contributions. The intent is the submission of INDCs by all Parties to the UNFCCC should enhance the understanding of whether the aggregate effect of the efforts of all Parties brings global emissions on a pathway consistent with achieving the objective of the Convention, set out in its Article 2, and for holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, consistent with the scientific findings assessed in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Parties are required to provide information on the type of contribution to reductions in Global Greenhouse Gas emissions, time frames and periods, scope and coverage, expected outcomes and any references and accounting approaches used, taking into consideration, as appropriate, the complementary information identified in the annex, in accordance with their national circumstances. Parties may, when communicating their intended nationally determined contributions, include information on the results of domestic action taken to enhance mitigation ambition in the pre-2020 period.

Section 3. Guidelines The guidelines for preparing INDCs have been provided in decisions 5/CP.17, 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20 of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These guidelines have been expanded in a report prepared the World Resources Institute and the United Nations Development Programme in 2015 (WRI/UNDP, 2015. Designing and Preparing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Parties). These guidelines have been used to facilitate the preparation of Kiribati INDC based on the national circumstances.

3.1 Mitigation On Mitigation Parties have been invited to provide information on any of the following: •

Type of mitigation contribution ;

•

time frame or time period ;

•

base year ;

•

coverage in terms of : -

Geographical boundaries ;

-

sectors ;

-

greenhouse gases ;

-

percentage of total/national emissions covered.

•

baseline emissions and related assumptions and methodologies, including methods for the projection of carbon intensity of GDP ;

•

quantification of expected emission reductions, including estimates with and without land use, land-use change and forestry ;

•

annual estimated reduction in emissions intensity of the economy ;

•

methodologies, emission factors and metrics used, including global warming potentials in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties ;

•

peaking year ;

•

expected use of international market mechanisms, including how double counting is avoided;

•

approach to accounting for the land-use sector ;

•

estimated macro-economic and marginal costs of achieving the commitments or targets, describing the methods used to estimate them ;


2


•

an indication of additional mitigation action to be achieved through the provision of support.

The guidance provides that developing country Parties may include alternate information in their INDCs consistent with earlier COP decisions. In regards to mitigation, the INDC should cover information outlined in COP Decision 2/CP.17, Paragraphs 34 and 46, and its Annex III, paragraphs 3 to 13, which provide as follows: (1) Developing country Parties to submit, subject to availability, more information relating to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), including underlying assumptions and methodologies, sectors and gases covered, global warming potential values used, support needs for the implementation of nationally appropriate mitigation actions and estimated mitigation outcomes and (2) Developing country Parties to submit, as appropriate, the following information on individual nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) seeking international support: •

A description of the mitigation action and the national implementing entity, including contact information ;

•

the expected time frame for the implementation of the mitigation action ;

•

the estimated full cost of the preparation ;

•

the estimated full cost and/or incremental cost of the implementation of the mitigation action ;

•

the amount and type of support (financial, technology and capacity-building) required to prepare and/or implement the mitigation action ;

•

the estimated emission reductions;

•

other indicators of implementation ;

•

other relevant information, including the co-benefits for local sustainable development, if information thereon exists.

3.2 Adaptation In regards to adaptation, the INDC should cover information on the formulation and implementation of national adaptation plans, building on the initial guidelines contained in the annex to decision 5/CP.17, including the sectors or geographical areas, the policies included and whether it is a national adaptation plan (or segment(s) of a NAP), a local adaptation plan (or segment(s) of a local adaptation plan) or a national adaptation programme of action (or segment(s) of a NAPA). Developing country Parties should also provide information on the development and financing needs of national adaptation plans, similar to that identified in UNFCCC decision 5/CP.17. Information on adaptation should include the following: •

Type of adaptation contribution ;

•

projected climate impacts and related assumptions ;

•

analysis of vulnerable sectors ;

•

technology, investment and capacity-building needs ;

•

nationally determined adaptation options, adaptive capacity enhancement and their costs ;

•

quantification of own investments; own adaptation efforts ;

•

programmes and projects per sector, including those identified in the context National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs and NAPs) ;

•

definition of adaptation needs ;

•

international cooperation, including cooperative actions, international and regional investments to be contributed or required and their time line ;

•

support for international and regional initiatives;

•

types of support by all Parties (e.g. grants, bilateral funding) ;

•

delivery mechanism, channel for the support by all Parties ;

•

sectors and geographies covered by the various types of support by all Parties ;

•

indicative time line for provision of support.


3


3.3 Finance, technology and capacity-building support In preparing their INDCs Parties have also been invited to provide information relating to finance, technology and capacity-building support: •

Finance, technology and capacity-building support contribution for adaptation, including for identified adaptation options ;

•

finance, technology and capacity-building support contribution for mitigation ;

•

quantified financial contributions for capacity-building ;

•

scale of support contribution ;

•

type of support contribution ;

•

time frame or time period for support contributions ;

•

channel and delivery mechanism for support contribution ;

•

identification of finance, technology and capacity-building needs, including investment needs, related to intended nationally determined contributions ;

•

a quantification of the national investment made on mitigation and adaptation ;

•

policies and measures to provide clarity on where countries are on the pathway to achieving the collective goal defined for the provision of support.

Section 4. Country Context The Republic of Kiribati consists of 32 inhabited low lying coral islands and one raised coral island in three main island groups scattered over 3.5 million sq. km of sea in the Central Pacific between 4° N to 3° S and 172° E to 157° W. Kiribati is made up of three main island groups:

Figure 1 Map of Kiribati


4


•

Banaba: an isolated island between Nauru and the Gilbert Islands ;

•

Gilbert Islands: 16 atolls located some 1,500 kilometres (932 mi) north of Fiji ;

•

Phoenix Islands: 8 atolls and coral islands located some 1,800 kilometres (1,118 mi) southeast of the Gilberts ;

•

Line Islands: 8 atolls and one reef, located about 3,300 kilometres (2,051 mi) east of the Gilberts. The three main island groups stretch over 800 kilometres from north to south and over 3,210 km from east to west. Most of the islands are less than 2 km wide and not more than 6 m above sea level, with Tarawa one of the most populated islands Tarawa being largely less than 2 meters above sea level.

Twenty-one of these islands are permanently inhabited. The total land area is 811 sq. km, of which almost half (388 sq. km) is on Kiritimati (Christmas Island) situated in the eastern Line Islands of Kiribati. The rest of the land in Kiribati consists of thousands of sand and reef rock islets of atolls or coral islands, which rise only one or two meters above sea level. The soil on all the islands is thin and calcareous, and has a low water-holding capacity and low organic matter and nutrient content—except for calcium, sodium, and magnesium. Banaba is one of the least suitable places for agriculture in the world.

4.1 Impacts of climate change Kiribati has already witnessed first-hand the impacts of global climate change. According to the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (previously South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), two small uninhabited Kiribati islets, Tebuatarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise due to climate change, and it is thus likely that within a century the nation's arable land will become subject to increased soil salination and will be largely submerged. As one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to the effects of climate change its ability to respond to climate risks is hampered by its highly vulnerable socio-economic and geographical situation. Low atolls, isolated location, small land area separated by vast oceans, high population concentration, and the costs of providing basic services make Kiribati, like all Small Island Developing States (SIDS), especially vulnerable to external shocks including the adverse impacts of climate change. Sea-level rise and exacerbated natural disasters such as drought and weather fluctuations pose significant and direct additional threats to sectors and resources central to human and national development. The country is located in relatively calm latitudes but its low atolls (in many places no more than 2m above mean sea level and only a few hundred meters wide) are subject to long-term sea level rise and, more immediately, are exposed to continuing coastal erosion and inundation during spring tides, storm surges and strong winds. The islands are subject to periodic storm surges with a return period of 14 years. By 2050, 18-80% of the land in Buariki, North Tarawa, and up to 50% of the land in Bikenibeu, South Tarawa could become inundated. Because of narrow islands, the entire population and most infrastructure is concentrated along the coast making it directly exposed to these climatic threats. The results of sea level rise and increasing storm surge threaten the very existence and livelihoods of large segments of the population, increase the incidences of water-borne and vector-borne diseases undermining water and food security and the livelihoods and basic needs of the population, while also causing incremental damage to buildings and infrastructure. The Climate Change in the Pacific Report (2011) describes Kiribati as having a low risk of cyclones. However in March 2015, Kiribati experienced flooding and destruction of seawalls and coastal infrastructure as the result of Cyclone Pam. Thus, Kiribati remains exposed to the risk that cyclones will strip the low lying islands of their vegetation and soil.


5


4.2 Population and demographics Kiribati has an estimated 2014 population of 105,000, which is slightly above the 2010 census population of 103,500 1. The nation has a population density of 135 people per square kilometre (350/sq. mi), which is ranked 73rd in the world. The country has about 810 sq. km of land area, 186th in the world. Over 90% of the population inhabits the Gilbert Islands, with over 33% of the population in an area of 6.2 square miles on South Tarawa. Until very recently, the Kiribati people mostly lived in villages on the outer islands with populations of just 50 to 3,000. More citizens have moved to the urban island capital of Tarawa (46,000) recently (urban population: 44.3% of total population). The annual rate of urbanization is 1.78%. The South Tarawa area has a population of more than 50,000. The native people of the nation are the I-Kiribati, who are ethnically Micronesians. Archaeological evidence indicates Austronesians originally inhabited the islands thousands of years ago, although Fijians, Tongans, and Samoans invaded around the 14th century, introducing new ethnic diversity. Despite this, Kiribati has a fairly homogeneous population. The I-Kiribati speak an Oceanic language, Gilbertese, but English is also an official language. The main religion is Christianity, which was introduced by missionaries in the 1800's. 56% of the population if Roman Catholic, while 34% is Congregationalist Protestant. According to the World population prospects (UN-Population 2), with a median fertility rate scenario, Kiribati population will approach 200,000 in 2050 (see figure below). The population growth rate is 1.15% (2015 est.) with a median age 3 of 23.6 years which corresponds to a developing country profile. The net migration rate at -2.87 migrant(s)/1,000 inhabitants (2015 est.) indicates that the country is facing issues 4. The demographic transition from high fertility and mortality to low fertility and mortality has only just begun in Kiribati as in other Paciﬁc Island countries of comparable development levels. In the midst of that transition there is now increasing incidences of NCDs, and the Government is hard pressed with a double burden of improving services in the face of increasing population especially in urban areas, receding communicable diseases and increasing NCDs.

1

See: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/kiribati-population/

2

See: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/

3

Half of the total population is younger than this age, and the other half is older.

4

It is less than the other Pacific Islands, for instance: Fiji -6.86, Tuvalu -6.86, Samoa -10.12, Nauru -14.12, Tonga -17.85, Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia -20.93, American Samoa -21.64.


6


Figure 2 Population projections

4.3 Socio-economic context Kiribati is one of the poorest and most remote microstates in the Pacific; highly dependent on volatile fishing license fees, remittances and donor assistance. Revenues from license fees represent about 70% on average of total Government revenues (not including external grants). Table 1 Kiribati Government revenue (in EUR million) excluding external grants

(EUR million)

2011

2012*

2013+

2014+

2015+

Personal income tax

4.5

5.8

4.7

4.5

4.7

Company taxation

4.2

3.8

4.5

4.5

4.9

Import duty

11.4

12.3

11.4

Other taxes

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

12.1

13.1

Tax revenue

VAT Non-tax revenue Fishing licenses fees

21.6

47.1

23.9

26.5

26.9

Other

4.1

4.4

4.3

3.8

4.0

Total revenue

45.9

73.4

48.9

51.4

53.6


7


4.4 Economy The GDP of Kiribati was in the region of USD 175 million in 2012 (EUR 135 million) with a GDP per capita of USD 1,643 5. According to UN classification, Kiribati is in the group of Least Developed Countries. The country has few natural resources. Commercially viable phosphate deposits were exhausted at the time of independence from the United Kingdom in 1979. The public sector dominates economic activity, with ongoing capital projects in infrastructure including the road rehabilitation, water and sanitation projects, and renovations to the international airport, spurring some growth. Earnings from fishing licenses and seafarer remittances are important sources of income. In 2013, the International Monetary Fund estimated that fishing licenses revenues contributed close to half of government’s total revenue and total remittances from seafarers were equivalent to 6% of GDP. However, remittances and the number of seafarers employed have declined since the global crisis. Overall, the economic development is constrained by a shortage of skilled workers, weak infrastructure, and remoteness from international markets. Kiribati is dependent on foreign aid, which was estimated to have contributed over 43% in 2013 to the government’s finances. The country’s sovereign fund, the Revenue Equalization Reserve Fund (RERF 6), which is held offshore, had an estimated balance of $668 million in 2013, equivalent to 381% of GDP. The RERF seeks to avoid exchange rate risk by holding investments in more than 20 currencies, including the Australian dollar, United States dollar, the Japanese yen and the Euro. Drawdowns from the RERF helped finance the government’s annual budget. Since the mid–2000s, revenues have not kept pace with expenditures, leading to increased demands on RERF financing. The latest Article IV consultations between IMF and Kiribati (IMF, 2013) indicated that tax revenue has declined as a share of GDP largely due to poor compliance and problematic State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), while non‐tax revenue stagnated. At the same time, expenditures were not contained in line with revenue trends, leading to large and excessive current fiscal deficits and high financing demands on the RERF. Obligations related to underperforming SOEs have exacerbated the problem. As a result, the RERF drawdowns to finance the budget have become unsustainable, putting the RERF on a declining path as a share of GDP and in per capita terms. Besides RERF financing, until recently the government had resorted to expensive commercial borrowing, which had in turn worsened fiscal dynamics further. In 2012, the government cleared most of the overdraft facilities, thereby reducing its interest cost. Ongoing reforms cover various areas: public financial management, tax system, SOEs, and the private sector. Successful implementation of these reforms increases the likelihood of higher donor financing, including budget support in the form of grants. Discussions on such financing are ongoing. Only 18% of the population is in permanent employment, and over half of these work for the government. Since 47% of the population lives in South Tarawa, this is a magnet for internal migration from the outer islands. South Tarawa provides opportunities for cash employment and consumption, as well as access to higher education and specialist social services not available elsewhere in Kiribati. This has led to population growth of 5.2% in recent years into both North and South Tarawa. The UNDP noted that South Tarawa recorded the highest incidence of basic needs poverty in Kiribati, affecting 18.3% of households and 24.2% of the population. A household census of Betio and Bairiki villages conducted by the Sustainable Towns Programme (STP) in November 2009 found that the per capita income of 70% of residents in the two villages was less than US$1.75/day. In 2006, with a Gini Coefficient of 0.35, South Tarawa was reaching a high level of inequality.

5

Kiribati National Statistics Office, See: http://www.mfed.gov.ki/statistics/

6

The Revenue Equalization Reserve Fund (RERF) is a sovereign wealth fund established in 1956 and capitalized using phosphate mining proceeds before phosphate deposits were exhausted in 1979. It is one of the main sources of fiscal income and budget financing for Kiribati


8


Trade is growing issue for Kiribati as the value of imports is about 20 the one of exports. Food and mineral fuel account for more than 50% of imports. Coconut crude oil and Copra cake/meal are the major export products. The trade ratio is declining over the time: Exports were 10% of imports in 1990 but only 5% in 2010 7. Australia and Fiji are the major trade countries. Kiribati benefits from unilateral preferences granted under the GSP ‐ EBA regime under its status of least developed country.

4.5 Social considerations

The Government endorsed in April 2012 the Kiribati Development Plan (KDP) 2012-2015, prepared by Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MFED), with specified actions (Key Policy Areas KPA) to address national priorities in terms of i) Human resources Development, ii) Economic growth and poverty reduction, iii) Health, iv) Environment v) Governance and vi) Infrastructure. The KDP also builds upon the previous National Development Strategies which had guided the previous strategic focus on improving the economic environment in the outer islands, particularly Kiritimati Island (Christmas Island); strengthening access to health services throughout the country; and addressing climate change. The Government has also embarked on the development of the Kiribati National Population and Development Policy of which a number of components such as family planning, universal primary education, housing, outer island growth centers and increasing employment opportunities including overseas employment and emigration to Paciﬁc rim countries especially New Zealand and Australia are being implemented. MDGs are therefore incorporated into Kiribati national development strategies and Population Policy. Nevertheless, from 1990 to 2014, of the 8 MDGs, Kiribati has achieved none outright 8. The goals to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty (Goal 1), to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases (Goal 6), ensuring environmental stability (Goal 7) and developing a global partnership for development (Goal 8) are likely to be borderline. Another goal is close to achieving its targets (promote gender equality and empower women). According to the FAO, Kiribati has reached one of the three targets for the goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Several other MDG targets have been substantially met (e.g. HIV/AIDS) although the poor results of other health targets in that overall MDG goal (reduce HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases) have diminished the performance of Kiribati in achieving MDG targets. Similarly many other targets have been achieved, but not the overall goal. Some goals have a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information which make it difficult to assess the true progress. Regarding health more specifically, medical services are provided free by Government and consists of 85 health centers/clinics on outer islands staffed by medical assistants and/or nurses, and one referral hospital service on the capital island of Tarawa. Communicable diseases like acute respiratory infections and diarrhea are common. Tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are on the rise becoming a cause for concern for Government. In the midst of all these, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease are also on the increase. There is a very high prevalence of smoking in Kiribati with more adult males smokers (70%) than adult females smokers ( 99% of the inventory. For the latest year of the SNC (2008), imported fossil fuels are used in the Energy sector under the various purposes of: •

Public electricity (31.2%) ;

•

transport, including the subcategories of road transport, marine navigation, and civil aviation (48.9%) ;

•

other sectors, including the subcategories of residential and agriculture/forestry/fishing uses of fossil fuels (19.9%).

5.2 Emission trends The emissions trend for the years 2004-2008, as per Kiribati’s Second National Communication (SNC), is shown below. There is a near doubling of emissions from 2005 to 2006, attributed largely to the transport sector. Though transport activity is increasing, it is unlikely that activity increased to this extent in a single year. Rather, the data jump is likely due to a change in data collection approach, method of analysis or change in conversion factors. The cause is not known, and this limitation is acknowledged in the SNC.

9

Some initial analysis combining CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions has been done for this report.

10

The last year of reported data in the SNC.


10


Figure 3 From Figure 12 of the SNC: Kiribati total emission trends (in GgCO2e) for periods 2004 – 2008

Additional data on fossil fuel imports and use over the period 2000-2009 is available from the Energy Statistics Yearbook published by the Government of Kiribati and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) 11. This covers the Gilbert group of islands, and not the entire Republic of Kiribati, though this represents more than 90% of the population. This data shows a 15.6% increase in energy consumption over the 10 year period, with increasing dependence on imported petroleum products. The figure below, taken from the Energy Yearbook, gives an indication of the steady rise in energy consumption.

Averaged over the 10 year period, the annual growth in energy consumption is approximately 1.6% for the Gilbert island group. Unfortunately, the proportion of primary energy from domestic renewable sources (primarily biomass from coconut) is declining. The total imported petroleum products increased from 606.8 TJ in 2000 to 765.6 TJ in 2009. This represents a 26.2% increase over the 10 year period, or an annual average of approximately 2.6%/year. The population of Kiribati is similarly increasing at nearly 2% per year over the same period, see table below 12. Note that this differs from the 2015 estimate of population growth given as 1.15% in the country context section above. The reason for the difference is not known, but there is expected to be a slowing of population growth rate as the demographics mature. There is a clear correlation between population and GHG emissions. The energy import dependency increased in the first part of the decade, but due to high oil prices as well as an acceleration in the use of solar systems, reduced somewhat in the later part of the data set. Accordingly, there is no clear trend relating to emissions per capita.

11

Energy statistics yearbook: Gilbert Island Group 2000-2009 / compiled by the SPC Energy Programme for the Government of Kiribati, published 2013, ISBN: 978-982-00-0629-4

12

Taken from page 33 of the Energy Statistics Yearbook.


11


Figure 4 Estimated population growth over 2000-2009

More recent data from the Kiribati Oil Company Limited (KOIL), the sole importer of fossil fuels to Kiribati 13, shows a steady increase in fossil fuel imports from 19.85 Ml to 22.54 Ml over the period 2010 to 2013. This is a 13.6% increase over 4 years, or approximately 3.4% per year on average. Note a slight decrease in importation in 2013 but increase in sales is explained by some storage over the accounting period year end. This data is shown in the following figures. 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 2010

2011

2012

2013

Others

Dual Petroleum Kerosene (DPK)

Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO)

Unleaded Petrol (ULP) - Benzene

Total Import

Figure 5 Total imports by fuel product 2010-2013 (liters)

13

Data supplied to national consultant by KOIL, corroborated by Ministry of Energy staff, 17/10/15.


12


25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 2010

2011

2012

2013

Others

Dual Petroleum Kerosene (DPK)

Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO)

Unleaded Petrol (ULP) - Benzene

Total Sales

Figure 6 Fuel sales by type 2010-2013

20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2010 Gov & Ind

2011 Commercial

2012 Domestic

2013

Total consumption (MWh)

Figure 7 Total power consumption by sector

From the Statistics Yearbook and more recent KOIL data sets there is a clear trend of steadily increasing fossil fuel use in the range of 2.6% to 3.4% annual increase per year. Given that fossil fuel use represents more than 99% of the national inventory, the national inventory is taken to be increasing at the same rates, notwithstanding the data challenges identified in the SNC.


13


5.3 Emissions Projections 5.3.1 Projections Context The Government of Kiribati rightly focuses its efforts on adaptation measures, and the SNC contains no projections of emissions, though there is the implicit assumption that emissions will increase with economic development. No other published or internal emissions projections are available or have been identified for Kiribati. Nonetheless, as noted above, there is a steady increase in emissions over time. These increases are associated with economic and population growth both of which are relatively stable over the medium term. There have been no issues identified that suggest that the trends of the previous 15 years will not continue for the next 15 years, to 2030. Therefore, emissions projections have been derived based on projections from historic data up to the year 2014. Specific to the INDC, the implication of this is that Kiribati will make a Business as Usual (BaU) projection to 2030 using a baseline period of 2000-2014.

5.3.2 Historic data GHG calculations and correlations Using the Statistics Yearbook and KOIL data sets, an emission profile for the period 2000-2014 has been calculated. This is presented in Figure 7. The data sets are from 2000-2009, and 2010-2014. There is no apparent discontinuity between 2009 and 2010, therefore it is concluded that joining the two data sets is valid. The GHG calculations assume:

14

•

An average population in the Gilbert islands of 94% of the total Kiribati population, based on the trend toward outer islands migrating internally to Tarawa ;

•

a 1% additional emissions factor (in tCO2e) to account for CH4 and N2O emissions from fossil fuel combustion, volatilisation and leakage ;

•

avgas usage has been discounted as it is small, and is partly re-exported ;

•

LPG is butane not propane 14 ;

•

standard densities of fuels as provided in the Statistics Yearbook ;

•

complete combustion of fuels, providing emissions calculations based on stoichiometric conversions ;

•

zero emissions from lubricants.

This assumption was corroborated by Ministry of Energy staff on 17/10/15.


14


Historic GHG emissions and modelled trends 70.00

Emissions (ktCO2e)

Average Trend line (ktCO2e)

Fitted trend line (ktCO2e)

60.00

50.00

40.00

y = 0.9593x + 48.532 R² = 0.6025 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 8 Reconstructed and modelled GHG emissions from fossil fuels, 2000-2014

The constructed data lines are from average annual emission increases, and a linear best-fit line. The average annual emission increase over the period is 2.9%pa, though clearly there are periods of steeper growth, such as 2001-2003 and 2010-2012, and other periods that are relatively flat, such as 2003-2008 and 2012-2014. The 2001-2003 period was during deregulation of the marine transport industry. Before 2001, all inter-island marine transport was by government vessels. This was liberalised, and led to a significant increase in marine transport, and associated emissions. The decrease in emissions in the 2008-10 period in part reflected the global recession, but the decreased Kiribati activity was also driven by the use of the AUD as national currency. The Australian economy was the only western economy that did not dip into recession during the global crisis. This strong currency in turn meant less competitive exports for Kiribati. It was also a time of relatively high oil prices, which tends to decrease usage 15. The line of best fit trend is fitted to the data with a reasonable, though not strong, correlation of 0.6. By varying the data period against line of best fit, the only period that has a higher correlation than the 2000-2014 period was the much shorter period of 2009-2014, with a correlation of 0.8. This is a substantially better correlation, but the shorter data period is less than half (40%) of the length of historic data, and includes the change from two data inputs (2009-2010). While the shorter period does include some decrease (2009-2010) as well as increase, it does not contain the long plateau of stable emissions between 2003 and 2008. Hence, while the shorter data period correlation seems a better fit mathematically, it requires ignoring 60% of the historic data, and does not perform well against qualitative judgement.

15

Qualitative description of historic emissions data based on discussions with consultancy team and Ministry of Energy staff.


15


Accordingly, the fitted line for the period 2000-2014 is considered a better reflection of the data than the shorter period correlation.

5.3.3 Modelled GHG projections The average increase trend line and line of best fit 2000-2014 are projected to 2030 as shown in Figure 8 below. There is clearly divergence between the projections: the continuing 2.9% annual increase reaches 104,440 tCO2e by 2030; while the line of best fit projection reaches 78,270 tCO2e by 2030. Kiribati emissions from fossil fuels grew from 44,240 to 62,230 tCO2e from 2000 to 2014. That is an approximately 40% increase over the 15 year period. The same percentage increase over the similar time period 2014 to 2030 would result in emissions in 2030 of approximately 85,000 tCO2e. The line of best fit should statistically be more appropriate as a projection, since the annual average is disproportionately affected by start and end year which in the historic data set are both relatively dislike the majority of the annual yearly change. Adding to this mathematical preference, the general comparison between the past and future 15 year periods indicates the line-of-best fit is a more appropriate projection.

Historic GHG emissions & modelled projections 110.00

Emissions (ktCO2e)

Average Trend line (ktCO2e)

Fitted trend line (ktCO2e)

100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00

y = 0.9593x + 48.532 R² = 0.6025

60.00

40.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

50.00

Figure 9 Historic emissions and emission projections to 2030

Accordingly, the Kiribati emissions projections estimates, rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes are: Year

tCO2e from fossil fuel sources

2020

68,700

2025

73,500

2030

78,300

This table represents BaU projections to 2020, 2025 and 2030 using a baseline period of 2000-2014.


16


5.3.4 Other projections and goals It is not a requirement of the INDC process, but the Government of Kiribati may consider emission profiles beyond 2030 to long term goals, such as 2050. Many countries have defined 2050 goals, for example, the EU goal is: “By 2050, the EU aims to cut its emissions substantially – by 80-95% compared to 1990 levels 16”. This long term perspective is important for showing leadership and setting the agenda for transitioning to a low carbon economy. It is, however, very difficult to make a credible BaU (or other) projection to 2050. Rather, statements on 2050 should be seen as goals or targets, rather than a projection. In this regard, Kiribati may consider qualified, general target, such as: “Emission reductions consistent with avoiding a 1.5oC global average temperature increase”. Given Kiribati’s extreme vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, and to provide leverage to seek larger emitters to take on higher targets, Kiribati may seek a more ambitious 2050 target, such as: “Climate Neutral Kiribati by 20XX; or” These goals should be considered as part of international discussions at the UNFCCC, and seasoned by considerations of achievability and resources (domestic and foreign) required.

Section 6. Mitigation Options Kiribati is a LDC and a SIDS. It has no obligation or expectation under the UNFCCC to undertake mitigation actions. Nonetheless, Kiribati faces an existential threat due to climate change, and is endeavoring to mitigate its emissions, even though they are extremely small on any reasonable global comparison. As discussed above, emissions in Kiribati are overwhelmingly from the Energy sector, and mitigation options are accordingly focused there. Kiribati has extreme limitations on options given its geographic isolation and lack of domestic financial resources. Accordingly, mitigation contributions will rely heavily on international assistance. Kiribati can, however, make an important contribution through sequestration in the ocean sector. This is not included in UNFCCC accounting rules of national inventories, and thus the approach to estimating the contribution will inherently involve complications in comparisons between INDCs.

6.1.1 Mitigation by Sector in Kiribati The mitigation opportunities and potential scale of GHG reductions are limited by: •

There being no industrial emissions unrelated to fossil fuel use ;

•

no accounted emissions from the waste sector, since current waste management practices do not develop anaerobic conditions ;

•

there being no data on synthetic gases ;

•

agricultural emissions (from livestock) being less than 1% of the inventory ;

•

the land area being so small that LULUCF emissions are insignificant, and in any case the land use is relatively stable.

Hence, options are limited to mitigation in the energy sector.

16

See: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm


17


6.1.2 Energy The largest share of Kiribati energy emissions (48.9% in 2008) are from the transport sector, followed by public electricity (31.2%) and ‘other energy’ (19.9%), which includes approximately 50% electricity and 50% motive power, with some minor uses such as cooking and lubricants. 6.1.2.1

Energy – Electricity

The energy profile for Tarawa and Kiritimati are very different from the outer islands. Electrical and petroleum energy use is dominated by Tarawa and Kiritimati, while in the outer islands most energy is supplied by biomass with solar power used for lighting, but an otherwise very low level of electrification. Supply of electric power is provided primarily by the PUB, by far the largest electricity producer in Kiribati. It had 2,064 residential meters, 574 commercial meters and 290 government meters on its grid in 2011. There are about 150 public streetlights on Tarawa. Electricity also is supplied through small grids on Kiritimati Island and in the vicinity of Island Council Offices on the outer islands but customer numbers are small. The total installed capacity in 2011 was 5.45 MW, with a de-rated capacity of 5.10MW and a peak demand of 4.60 MW. The 2011 generation on Tarawa was approximately 17.3 GWh, requiring a use of 5.79ML of diesel for electricity production 17, and resulting in approximately 15,190 tCO2e of emissions 18. The Kiribati National Energy Policy (KNEP) has a vision for ‘available, accessible, reliable, affordable, clean and sustainable energy options for the enhancement of economic growth and improvement of livelihoods in Kiribati’. In 2012, the Government of Kiribati and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) conducted a Renewable Readiness Assessment (RRA) with a goal to maximize the economic use of Kiribati Renewable Energy (RE) resources. The results of the study are listed below; •

Maintaining grid stability while allowing a high level of solar PV input ;

•

develop coconut natural oil as a biofuel for power generation and transportation ;

•

rural electrification – Policy, legislation and regulation development to support renewable energy ;

•

addressing the issues identified in the Rapid Renewable Assessment (RRA) will effectively cover the following key problem areas: -

Energy security: Extreme reliance on petroleum which is subject to rising and volatile prices, transportation difficulties and environmental risk, including greenhouse gases ;

-

inequitable distribution of resources to the outer islands: low per capita energy use on the outer islands is contributing to limited development and economic opportunities ;

-

lack of electricity for basic services (education, health, community development, etc.) and local government: schools, health centres, community institutions and municipal buildings are without electricity.

The RRA assessed the current usage and potential of: •

Solar home systems ;

•

solar water heaters ;

17

Data from Electricity Statistics 2005-2011, as quoted in the Government of Kiribati document GoK (14) DPF (Presentation 05) Development Partners Forum Agenda Item 5: Towards an Energy Secure Kiribati; 13 March 2014.

18 This emission calculation based on stoichiometric conversion with assumed complete combustion of diesel. See Annex 1 for calculation of the Tarawa grid emission factor, which gives a relatively high value of 0.88tCO2e/MWh, reflecting gen-sets not running in optimal range, and significant transmission and distribution losses.


18


•

grid-connected solar ;

•

solar pumping ;

•

solar street lights ;

•

biofuels from coconut oil for electricity generation ;

•

wind energy ;

•

ocean energy.

From this assessment and other published information available in Kiribati, as well as discussions with key stakeholders, the actions and outcomes below were formulated.

6.2 Renewable energy and Energy Efficiency (EE) contributions Using domestic resources and currently available international finance 19 Kiribati is working with international partners toward installing 1.3 MW 20 of grid-connected solar PV, which should deliver approximately 2,170 MWh/year 21. Using an average grid emission factor of 0.88 tCO2e/MWh 22, this results in 1,910 tCO2e emissions reductions per year by full implementation, expected well before 2025. This represents a Kiribati unconditional contribution of 2.8% deviation from BaU 2020 emissions, 2.6% of 2025 emissions, and 2.4% of 2030 emissions. Kiribati has been successfully using solar PV for outer island electrification for over 20 years and has a government owned company, the Kiribati Solar Energy Company (KSEC) that has a pool of technicians skilled in the installation and maintenance of off-grid solar power systems. The KSEC is currently managing over 2,000 solar installations on 18 islands. Solar pumping for village water supply is also a major use of renewables on outer islands. This illustrates the credible track record Kiribati has in RE, and PV in particular. Using domestic resources and currently available international finance 23 Kiribati will work with international partners to provide off-grid electricity solutions to outer island populations. Annex 2 lists key activities planned. Of these, currently underway or fully financed are activities 3, 5 and 10 24, which is expected to provide some 752 kWp installed capacity, which should deliver approximately 0.75 * 1,670 MWh/MW installed per year = 1,256 MWh equivalent. Though these installations will not be grid connected, the likely alternative electricity supply is through diesel generators, so the GEF calculated in Annex 1 is used to estimate emission reductions: 1,256*0.88 = 1,105 tCO2e per year. Thus, off grid solar systems will avoid 1,105 tCO2e emissions per year by full implementation. This represents a Kiribati unconditional contribution of 1.6% deviation from BaU from 2020 emissions, 1.5% of 2025 emissions, and 1.4% of 2030 emissions.

19 Note that currently available international finance is considered part of ‘unconditional’ or Kiribati contributions within an INDC according to the WRI/UNDP guidance on INDC preparation. This means that funding or assistance from international sources that is already secured is counted as Kiribati contribution. Additional actions or outcomes require new and additional assistance. 20

GoK (14) DPF (Presentation 05) Development Partners Forum Agenda Item 5: Towards an Energy Secure Kiribati; 13 March 2014.

21

Reverse-calculating emission factors from World Bank feasibility study of October 2011 to give a value of 1670MWh per year per MW of installed PV capacity.

22

See Annex 1.

23

Note that currently available international finance is considered part of ‘unconditional’ contributions within an INDC according to the WRI/UNDP guidance on INDC preparation. 24

This assessment is based on discussion with stakeholders during consultations in week of 14 September. It is understood that financing for other activities is under discussion with international partners, but has not been secured yet, and therefore cannot be included as part of the Kiribati contribution.


19


A significant outcome of the RRA is the fossil fuel reduction target for electricity generation by 2025 which was stated in the Majuro Declaration 25. This is an important measure to reduce the consumption of imported fossil fuels, and the Government is committed to work towards achieving the target with the support from its development partners. The target is focused on the following sectors; •

South Tarawa 45% : 23% RE and 22% EE ;

•

Kiritimati Island 60% : 40% RE and 20% EE ;

•

Rural public infrastructure 60% :Southern Kiribati Hospital and Ice plants: 40% RE and 20% EE ;

•

Rural public and private institutions 100% RE (Boarding Schools, Island Council, private amenities and households).

Given the relative size of Kiritimati Island and rural infrastructure relative to Tarawa, these targets together add to approximately a 50% reduction in fossil fuels from electricity production. Assuming electricity production includes half of the ‘other sectors’ (19.9%) of energy use, and maintains the public sector electricity share of the inventory (31.2%) through 2025 and 2030, then these targets would be reductions against approximately 41% of the projected inventory: 30,140 and 32,100 tCO2e in 2025 and 2030 respectively. Reductions of 50% of the electricity portion of the inventory represent 15,070 and 16,050tCO2e deviation from BaU in 2025 and 2030. These outcomes have been identified as technically feasible based on current RE technologies and status of the Kiribati system. They are NOT GoK policies, nor are there programs in place or planned to meet these outcomes. Accordingly, reaching such a target would be conditional on securing appropriate new and additional international assistance and financing. The actions currently being implemented or already implemented relating to on-grid PV in Tarawa and off-grid solar on outer islands are a part of the identified RE and EE targets, so the calculations of emissions reductions must deduct those accounted for above. Thus the identified RE and EE targets will reduce or avoid (15,070 -1910 – 1110) = 12,050 tCO2e in 2025; and (16,050 – 1910 – 1110) = 13,030 tCO2e in 2030. These contributions represent a Kiribati conditional contribution of 16.4% deviation from BaU 2025 emissions, and 16.6% of 2030 emissions. Roughly 70% of Kiribati land area is covered by a coconut tree canopy of an estimated 6.1 million trees. Production from that resource could be in excess of 3.5 million liters of coconut oil (CNO) per year. CNO can be used as fuel for adapted engine, while vegetable oil can be modified to suit to any diesel engines. CNO would not be intended to replace completely the use of imported diesel, but it is not out of reach that importation of fossil product could be reduced by 80% in volume if this option works well 26. Assuming PV mitigation options are pursued and realized first (as they are cheaper mitigation options), CNO replacement of diesel (and hence emissions) could reach 80% of the remaining emissions from electricity production of 15,070 and 16,050 tCO2e in 2025 and 2030 respectively. That is, reductions of 12,050 and 12,840 tCO2e in 2025 and 2030 respectively.

25

From Pacific Island forum meeting in Marshal Islands from 5 September 2013, see: http://www.majurodeclaration.org/the_declaration

26 From the IRENA Renewables Readiness Assessment, May 2012. The use of 80-20 blend CNO-diesel was corroborated by Ministry of Energy staff during consultations in week of 14 September 2015.


20


There are substantial barriers to uptake of this option, including: •

Much of the coconut tree stock has exceeded its prime production period and has become senile, so a large stock replacement would need to be undertaken ;

•

prices for copra are low, and so supply chains are not reliable ;

•

CNO needs to be finely filtered and anhydrous, which requires further processing than available currently ;

•

using CNO in the existing (< 10 years old) generators will void the warranty of the engines ;

•

financially, the price of the coconut oil is currently fixed by the international market. So long as PUB fuel purchase prices are equal or higher than the export value of coconut oil, the delivery of the mill product for power generation is reasonably assured. However, should the export price of coconut oil exceed the price that Public Utilities Board (PUB) finds acceptable, there will be strong economic pressure to sell the coconut oil for export and have PUB revert to imported diesel fuel.

Use of CNO for power production is technically feasible based on current RE technologies and status of the Kiribati system. It will require substantial additional investment however, and there are currently no programs in place or planned to pursue this option. Accordingly, achieving these emission reductions is conditional on securing appropriate new and additional international assistance and financing. The use of CNO for power generation thus represents a Kiribati conditional contribution of 16.4% deviation from BaU 2025 emissions, and 16.4% of 2030 emissions. 6.2.1.1

Energy – Transport

Transport emissions are difficult to mitigate in any country, and the combination of marine, air and road transport emissions, along with extraordinarily long supply chain logistics makes transport mitigation options extremely challenging. Any reduction in fossil fuel use for electricity generation will have an additional benefit of reducing the transport emissions from marine and road in delivering the diesel. This is estimated to be approximately an additional 0.5% of reported emission reductions from RE and EE, as well as reducing risks of oil spills and road congestion 27. Currently both government and private ships provide passenger and freight services between islands or across the lagoon on an atoll. The majority of the inter-island vessels have diesel engines which could be adapted to use a percentage of coconut oil (CNO) as their fuel. To date, in the Pacific islands there have been a number of discussions and some proposals for the conversion of ship engines to CNO, but no definitive trials. There are significant barriers to uptake of CNO as a transport fuel:

27

•

A biofuel quality standard that is stringently enforced is more important for shipping than for power generation since an engine breakdown at sea can put the vessel and those aboard in serious danger. Therefore before committing to a percentage of coconut oil for shipping, there must be standards established and a testing facility that can continually check to ensure that the standards are being maintained ;

•

Unlike diesel generators for electricity production on the grid, ship engines may be operated for extended periods at low power levels such as while manoeuvring into port or while anchored. Many of the problems of carbon build up that are seen in diesel engines burning fuels with a significant percentage of CNO are the result of low combustion chamber temperatures that occur at low engine loading. To accommodate a high percentage of CNO in engines that sometimes operate at low load levels, one simple approach used elsewhere has been to switch between two fuel tanks, one with biofuel that is only used when the engine is loaded above about 50% and one with diesel fuel for low load conditions. This requires additional investments in vehicles.

Based on indirect emission reduction estimates from the World Bank feasibility study results.


21


If these major barriers could be overcome, up to 50% diesel replacement with CNO might reasonably achieved 28. Assuming this is achieved for marine and road diesel transport, the average diesel use for transport is 52% from historic data from 2000. The average diesel emissions as a proportion of total emissions is 61% from historic data from 2000. On this basis, a simple mitigation estimate is given as 50% of 52% of 61% of projected emissions. That is, 11,780 and 12,550 tCO2e reductions by 2025 and 2030 respectively. Use of CNO for motive power is technically feasible based on current RE technologies, but will require substantial additional investment to be realized, as well as ensuring safety at sea in particular. Achieving these emission reductions is conditional on securing appropriate new and additional international assistance and financing. The use of CNO for transport thus represents a Kiribati conditional contribution of 16.0% deviation from BaU 2025 emissions, and 16.0% of 2030 emissions.

6.2.2 Non-Energy sectors Kiribati is classified as a ‘Small Island’ state, but is better characterised as a ‘Large Ocean’ state. The ocean dominates all aspects of the Kiribati way of life, including the economy, culture, and of course emissions. Naturally, Kiribati has placed greater emphasis on managing ocean resources. These actions are not included in the compilation of the National Inventory, which disadvantages SIDS. These actions are, nonetheless, important sequestration actions, that also have substantial adaptation benefits. They relate to: •

Maintaining and sustainably managing the current mangrove forests ;

•

mangrove plantations to increase mangrove forest area and sequester Carbon Dioxide ;

•

planting and enhancing seagrass beds ;

•

coastal and littoral zone vegetation management and enhancement.

Of these, actions relating to mangroves have been assessed and the related emissions impact calculated. Seagrass and coastal vegetation could have large sequestration potential (particularly seagrass beds), but there is insufficient data on areal extent of the baseline to determine the likely sequestration potential. 6.2.2.1

Non-Energy – Mangroves

Kiribati will protect and sustainably manage 250ha of existing mangrove forest. Based on 288tC sequestration (1,056 tCO2) per hectare per year 29, and a 25 year time to plateauing carbon sequestration 30 (ie: maturity), 1ha of mature mangrove forest represents 26,400t of sequestered CO2. The managed mangrove forest represents a carbon storage of more than 6 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (6.60 MtCO2). By managing and maintaining the mangrove forests, Kiribati is avoiding more than 6 MtCO2 being released to the atmosphere. This is more than 100 times the current annual national emissions inventory.

28 The use of 50-50 blend CNO-diesel was corroborated by Ministry of Energy staff during consultations in week of 14 September 2015. 29

Bouillon S., et al., 2009. - Mangroves. - In: Laffoley D.d.A. et Grimsditch G., éd. -. The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. IUCN : Laffoley D.d.A. et Grimsditch G., p. 13-22.

30

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (2015), Mangroves, http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/Mangroves.pdf


22


Kiribati, using domestic resources and working with international partners, is expanding the mangrove forest area in the period up to 2020 31. This will provide an additional approximately 6.7ha of mangrove forest 32 through active planting and management. This is estimated to deliver approximately 7,075 tCO2 of sequestration per year for approximately 25 years. This represents a cumulative total sequestration of approximately 177,000 tCO2 sequestration, and approximately 106,000 tCO2e sequestration by 2030. Kiribati acknowledges that the sequestration from mangroves is not immediately comparable to national inventory emissions because of the inadequate rules of the national communication process that excludes this important sink and storage of carbon. Nonetheless, it represents real and ambitious efforts by Kiribati to contribute to global mitigation efforts. The actions to expand mangrove forests will sequester 7,075 tCO2e emissions per year by full implementation. This represents a Kiribati unconditional contribution of 10.3% deviation from BaU 2020 emissions, 9.6% of 2025 emissions, and 9.0% of 2030 emissions.

6.3 Summary of Mitigation options compared to projections The mitigation component of the INDC will be carried out under the aegis of the Office of Te Beretitenti (OB), in consultation with relevant stakeholders and Ministry of Public Works and Utilities (under which the energy sector is placed). Kiribati will undertake significant actions in relation to awareness raising, education and behavioural change which will facilitate broad uptake and assistance by the public at large. Based on the analysis above, the following table summarises the quantified emission reduction options. Table 2 Summary of mitigation options

Sector

Mitigation option

INDC type

Mitigation in 2025 (tCO2e)

% of 2025 projected inventory



Mitigation options using Kiribati and current international assistance Energy

1.3MW PV on grid

Kiribati

1,910

2.6

1,910

2.4

Energy

Off grid solar

Kiribati

1,100

1.5

1,100

1.4

Ocean

Mangrove enhancement

Kiribati

7,080

9.6

7,080

9.0

10,090

13.7

10,090

12.8

Total:

Mitigation options requiring new and additional climate finance and technical assistance Energy

Maximum RE & EE

Conditional on assistance

12,050

16.4

13,030

16.6

31 Environment and Conservation Division of MELAD (2011), Mangrove Replanting, Monitoring and Assessment and Outreach in Kirabati, KAPIII project. 32

Approximately 67,000 mangrove trees.


23





Sector

Mitigation option

INDC type


Energy

CNO for electricity generation


12,050

16.4

12,840

16.4

CNO for transport


11,780

16.0

12,550

16.0

35,880

48.8

38,420

49.0

Energy

Total:

With all Kiribati Contributions fully implemented, there is a 13.7% and 12.8% deviation from BaU projections in 2025 and 2030 respectively. The largest portion comes from enhancing mangrove sequestration, followed by on-grid solar and off-grid solar electricity. With all conditional Contributions fully implemented, there is a further 48.8% and 49.0% deviation from BaU projections in 2025 and 2030 respectively. With all mitigation options fully implemented (unconditional and conditional) with appropriate levels of international assistance, the 2030 inventory can be reduced by more than half (61.8%). In addition to these quantified outcomes, Kiribati will proactively protect and sustainably manage its mangrove resource, as well as protect and enhance coastal vegetation and seagrass beds. Together these actions represent effective stewardship of more than 6 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide stored. This is more than 100 times the current annual national emissions inventory.

Section 7. Possible Adaptation Options The following section summarizes relevant documents, defines adaptation and climate resiliencebuilding gaps, and identifies possible adaptation intervention options that could be included in Kiribati’s INDC.

7.1 National context including specific vulnerabilities 7.1.1 Climate Kiribati has a hot, humid, tropical climate with an average air temperature of 28.3°C and average rainfall of about 2100 mm per year in Tarawa (1980–1999; Bell et al. 2011). Its climate is closely related to the temperature of the oceans surrounding the small islands and atolls. Across Kiribati the average temperature is relatively constant year round. From season to season the temperature changes by no more than about 1°C. Kiribati has two seasons – te Au Maiaki, the dry season and te Au Meang, the wet season. The periods of the seasons vary from location to location and are strongly influenced by the seasonal movement of the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) and the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).


24


7.1.2 Temperature and rainfall The six-month dry season (te Au Maiaki) for Tarawa starts in June, with the lowest mean rainfall in October. The wet season (te Au Meang) starts in November and lasts until April; the highest rainfall occurs from January to March, peaking with a mean of 268 mm in January. The highest rainfall usually occurs when the ITCZ is furthest south and closest to Tarawa; there are also high rainfalls, though to a lesser extent, when the SPCZ is strongest. The average sea-surface temperature of oceans around Kiribati is 29.2°C (1980–1999). As Kiritimati is 2000 km to the east from Tarawa, its wet season starts at a different time, from January to June, with the wettest months being March and April. Rainfall in the northeast of Kiribati is only affected by the ITCZ. Across Kiribati there is a change in mean monthly rainfall towards the end of the year. There is however, a large variation in mean annual rainfall across Kiribati. A notable zone of lower rainfall, less than 1500mm per year exists near the equator and extends eastwards from 170°E. On average, Tarawa at 1.1416ºN receives just under 2100mm, while the island of Butaritari at 3.1678ºN only 350 km to the north receives around 3000mm. The climate of Kiribati, especially rainfall, is highly variable from year to year. Tarawa, for example, receives more than 4,000 mm of rainfall in the wettest years, but only 150 mm in the driest. This huge range is similar in Kiritimati and has enormous impacts on water availability and quality, crop production and health. The main reason for this variability is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Many Kiribati islands lie within the equatorial waters that warm significantly during an El Niño event and cool during a La Niña event. As a result rainfall is much higher than normal during an El Niño and much lower during a La Niña. Maximum air temperatures tend to be higher than normal during El Niño years, driven by the warmer oceans surrounding the islands, while in the dry season minimum air temperatures in El Niño years are below normal. At Kiritimati, El Niño events also bring wetter conditions in both seasons and La Niña events bring drought. El Niño is generally associated with above-normal rainfall and strong westerly winds, while La Niña is associated with below-normal rainfall and the risk of drought.

7.1.3 Climate change projections The climate of Kiribati is changing and will continue to change in the future. This trend is of great concern to Kiribati, as the increasing temperatures have a huge range of global implications. Due to the melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets and the thermal expansion of the ocean, the sea level is rising. Rainfall patterns are changing and extreme weather events will get more frequent and intense. In addition, warmer oceans that take in more carbon dioxide impact on growth and productivity of marine life – in tropical areas, the effects are particularly negative for coral reef habitats. The following subsections report on changes in climate in Kiribati – both those already observed and those predicted for the future. The table below summarizes the trends already observed in variables such as temperature, rainfall, sea level, extreme events and ocean acidification in Kiribati (Source: KJIP).


25


Source: Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan for Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management 20142023 The table below provides climate change projections for Kiribati are based on up to 18 global climate models for up to three emission scenarios – low, medium and high – and three 20-year periods – centered on 2030, 2055 and 2090, relative to 1990.


26



27


7.1.4 Vulnerability Kiribati is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and disasters. Its vulnerability is principally due to geological and physical features as well as inherent socio-economic characteristics. Climate change and disasters will have serious adverse impacts on the environment, the people of Kiribati and their livelihoods. According to climate change projections, these impacts will intensify over time. The following factors are contributing to the nation’s vulnerability to climate change and disaster risks, which apply across the various sectors: •

A high population and growth rate on South Tarawa in the Gilbert Group (50,182 inhabitants with a population density of 3,184 persons per square kilometres) as well as on Kiritimati in the Line Islands Group (5,586 inhabitants), which is due to: a high proportion of children and youth, high levels of fertility, low rates of contraceptive use, and disparities between the different islands of Kiribati (resulting in internal migration, displacement, and urbanisation) ;

•

in fast-growing urban areas, especially South Tarawa with a growth rate of 4.4% and to a certain extent also North Tarawa and Kiritimati, the population pressure and lifestyle changes have strained the already limited freshwater resources. In many areas, the freshwater consumption rates are already exceeding the estimated sustainable yield of groundwater sources (such as in the Bonriki and Buota Water Reserves on South Tarawa) ;

•

the increase in non-biodegradable waste usage in urban areas, as well as poor waste and sanitation management, result in limited access to unpolluted land and sea, degradation of land and ocean based ecosystems, and numerous isolated occurrences of diarrhoeal and vector borne diseases ;

•

traditional food systems are declining in favour of imported food, and the number of people who preserve and apply traditional knowledge is decreasing ;

•

in rural outer islands, the people have limited access to employment opportunities, effective transport, communication, and community services such as education and health. These factors, combined with a high dependency on subsistence agriculture and coastal fisheries, make rural communities more vulnerable ;

•

government revenue is declining and highly dependent on fisheries revenue (40–50%) with limited capacity to maximise the benefits of these resources ;

•

government programs, decision-making processes and budgets are centralised, with decision bottlenecks at all levels from national to local. The public finance management, reporting and monitoring system has been reviewed and changes are being implemented to meet development partner requirements for budget and sector-wide support. The development of an Island Council Strategic Plan will enhance the planning, budgeting and monitoring functions at the local government level ;

•

there are institutional challenges such as a high staff turnover rates in senior executive positions, limited sector specific training, and a lack of clarity on internal roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, there are constraints on knowledge sharing, coordination and collaboration among ministries as well as with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector, faith-based organisations and development partners. Yet, with the creation of the Ministry of Women, Youth, and Sport Affairs (MWYSA) there are increased opportunities for the community, especially women and youth, to participate in broader governance ;

•

there are knowledge, skill level and capacity gaps with regards to climate change adaptation and disaster risks throughout Kiribati society, particularly in the outer islands and among marginalised populations. A key challenge is to translate the climate science and predicted impacts into messages that the I-Kiribati population can relate to. In some instances there are cultural and religious barriers to awareness and action, such as cultural practices of guarding traditional knowledge and religious beliefs ;

•

many laws do not take into account sustainable management concerns, climate change predictions and disaster risks. Laws relevant to these topics need to be reviewed in order to mainstream such issues ;


28


•

the safety and emergency response capacities of Kiribati are limited. However, with the implementation of the NDRMP, issues such as a lack of a dedicated marine rescue service, the inaccessibility of fire trucks to densely populated areas on South Tarawa, and the lack of evacuation plans for emergencies, will be addressed ;

•

the low-lying atoll islands are already experiencing severe coastal erosion and inundation due to natural and human causes, leading to a loss of land, public and private buildings, and infrastructure. The Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environment Act may need to be enforced on major projects throughout all of Kiribati’s islands. This would help to curb the removal of mangroves and mining of sand and aggregates that contribute to erosion ;

•

in the long-term, the most serious concern is that sea-level rise will threaten the very existence of Kiribati as a nation. But in the short to medium term, a number of other projected impacts are of immediate concern. Of particular note is the question as to whether the water supply and food production systems can continue to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing population of Kiribati.

7.2 Impacts of climate change Past La Niña events have shown that the impacts of droughts can be very severe in Kiribati. For example, in 1971, 1985, 1998 and 1999, annual rainfall was less than 750mm. The recent drought from April 2007 to early 2009 severely affected the southern Kiribati islands and Banaba. During this period, copra production significantly declined, depressing the outer island economies which rely on copra as a main income source. The groundwater also turned brackish and the leaves of most plants turned yellow. During the 1970–1971 drought, a complete loss of coconut palms was reported at Kenna village on Abemama in central Kiribati. The effects of climate change are felt first and most acutely by vulnerable and marginalized populations, including women, children, youth, and people with disabilities, minorities, the elderly and the urban poor. Violence against women and children is a widespread issue within Kiribati society, which can be exacerbated in times of disasters when normal social protection may be missing. In addition, the population is facing stress due to the uncertainty over their livelihood, culture and homeland. Climate variability, climate change and disaster risks, in combination with the factors that make Kiribati particularly vulnerable to them, are affecting the environment and all socio-economic sectors, including agriculture, education, fisheries, freshwater, health, infrastructure, trade and commerce. An overview of sector-specific sensitivities and existing and potential future impacts in relation to climate change and disaster risks, is presented in Table 4 (Source: KJIP, 2014).


29


Table 3 Overview of sector-specific sensitivities and existing and potential future impacts in relation to climate change and disaster risks


30



31



32



33



34


Source: Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan for Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management (20142023)


35


7.3 National development policies, plans and strategies for building climate resilience A whole-of-nation approach is being pursued by government to address the impacts of climate change and sea level rise and related environmental issues in Kiribati. Climate change and disaster risks are being addressed in policies and strategies relating to population, water and sanitation, health and environment. Similarly disaster risk management is progressively being incorporated into policies and strategies relating to fisheries, agriculture, labour, youth and education. The new Kiribati Integrated Environment Policy encourages all government programs to collect, manage and use environmental data to safeguard the environment and strengthen resilience to climate change and disasters. This section provides a summary of these policies, plans and strategies.

7.3.1 Kiribati Development Plan The Kiribati Development Plan (KDP) 2012–2015 is the overarching national development plan detailing national priorities. The KDP is linked to the Millennium Development Goals, the Pacific Plan and the Kiribati Strategy for Small Island Developing States (BPoA+10). The KDP has six broad key policy areas (KPAs). Climate change is incorporated into KPA 4 on environment, providing the link to the KJIP. The key objective of KPA 4 is to facilitate sustainable development by mitigating the effects of climate change through approaches that protect biodiversity and support the reduction of environmental degradation by the year 2015.

7.3.2 National Adaptation Programme of Action The National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) (2007) sets out a 3 year plan for urgent and immediate actions in the Republic of Kiribati to begin work in adapting to climate change. The goal of the NAPA was to contribute to and periodically complement a long term framework of adaptation through identifying immediate and urgent adaptation needs that are consistent with national development strategies and climate change adaptation policies and strategies. The objective is to communicate in a simplified way the identified immediate and urgent adaptation needs of Kiribati, which is also relevant to the national communication obligation required by the UNFCCC. These adaptation needs are identified through a participatory, consultative and multidisciplinary planning process. The NAPA outlines 9 priority projects valued at US$11.983 million to address short-term (3 years) needs in critical sectors (water, coastal zone management, agriculture, coastal infrastructure) and to strengthen national adaptive capacity and information systems.

7.3.3 National Framework for Climate Change and Climate Change Adaptation The National Framework for Climate Change and Climate Change Adaptation (April 2013) establishes a framework for an effective national response to address the impacts of climate change that requires that climate change and climate change adaptation assume a prominent role within the national development planning process. This process is comprised of five main parts that include long range policy and strategy statements, namely: Kiribati Development Plan (KDP), annual GoK Budget, multiyear budget framework and Ministry Operational Plans (MOPs) and Public Enterprise Business Plans (PEBPs). This document extends the 2005 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy which was developed as part of the World Bank funded Kiribati Adaptation Project. Under this strategy the following five headings outline Kiribati action to strengthen its capability to meet the challenge of climate change.


36


These are: •

Mitigation - aim to improve energy efficiency and enhance the use of renewable energy both on the main islands and in the outer islands ;

•

integration of climate change and climate change adaptation into national planning and institutional capacity – aim to integrate climate change adaptation considerations into Kiribati Development Plan (KDP), annual GoK Budget, multi-year budget framework and Ministry Operational Plans (MOPs) and Public Enterprise Business Plans (PEBPs) ;

•

external financial and technical assistance - have international climate change funds channelled directly into the mainstream activities of line Ministries involved with climate change adaptation as direct budget support as a national priority ;

•

population and resettlement – aim to reduce the vulnerability of Kiribati to increasing physical risks caused by climate change by establishing host country agreements to governmentsponsored and self-sponsored emigration to resettle I-Kiribati overseas and assist the inevitable migration of the population, due to climate change as and when this eventually arrives;

•

governance and services – aim to improve policy coordination and planning on climate change adaptation, strengthen capacity of government to implement climate change adaptation measures, and build improves technical services capacity to address risks from climate change;

•

survivability and self-reliance – ensure that risks associated with climate change and the intellectual and practical processes for the planning for the consequence of climate change are undertaken at the earliest opportunity.

7.3.4 Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management The Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management (KJIP) (2014) has been developed to reduce the vulnerabilities to the impacts of climate change and disaster risks and to coordinate priorities so that investments will derive maximum value. The KJIP is part of the commitments Kiribati made under the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (PIFACC), the Regional Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Management endorsed by the Pacific Leaders in 2005 and the Pacific Islands Meteorological Strategy (PIMS) approved in 2012. The KJIP is consistent with these three inter-related regional frameworks, specifically in terms of the national priorities for actions. As party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Government sees the KJIP as its National Action Plan on climate change. Similarly, the KJIP is contributing to the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015) under the United Nations International Strategy on Disaster Risk Management (UNISDR) and the Climate Services priorities of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The vision of the 9-year KJIP (2014 – 2023) is: •

I-Kiribati unique culture, heritage and identity are upheld and safeguarded through enhanced resilience and sustainable development.

The goal of the KJIP is to increase resilience through sustainable climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction using a whole of country approach. To reduce vulnerabilities and respond to observed and likely impacts of climate change and disaster risks, the KJIP identifies 12 major strategies, as follows: •

Strengthening good governance, policies, strategies and legislation ;

•

improving knowledge and information generation, management and sharing ;

•

strengthening and greening the private sector, including small-scale business ;

•

increasing water and food security with integrated and sector-specific approaches and promoting healthy and resilient ecosystems ;


37


•

strengthening health-service delivery to address climate change impacts ;

•

promoting sound and reliable infrastructure development and land management ;

•

delivering appropriate education, training and awareness programmes;

•

increasing effectiveness and efficiency of early warnings and disaster and emergency management ;

•

promoting the use of sustainable renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency ;

•

strengthening capacity to access finance, monitor expenditures and maintain strong partnerships ;

•

maintaining the sovereignty and unique identity of Kiribati ;

•

enhancing the participation and resilience of vulnerable groups.

Each strategy has one or more key actions, sub-actions, outcomes and performance indicators (outcome- and output-based) to address climate change and disaster risks in response to the identified vulnerabilities and impacts. Detailed strategic plan with key actions, sub-actions, results and performance indicators, lead and support agencies and partners associated with each strategy, are provided as an Annex to the KJIP. All strategies and actions in the KJIP are inclusive of vulnerable groups, considering gender, youth and children, the elderly and people with disabilities.

7.4 Past, ongoing and proposed Adaptation projects and programmes The Kiribati government first became aware of climate change and sea level rise in the early 1990’s, and requested scientific advice on whether there was any real cause for concern about sea level rise. The earliest studies could not provide information in that regard, but they were useful in making the Kiribati government more aware and knowledgeable about its geophysical environment and ecosystems, and sea level changes over the geological time span. Subsequently but still during the early 1990s, more detailed studies were undertaken. A study area on a small island in Tarawa suggested certain areas to be liable to flooding from storm surges. This has been vindicated during storm surges in the 2000s. A study of Kiritimati Island, which is the largest atoll in Kiribati and indeed in the world, indicated that the land had been rising. These studies, however, did not provide or take into account any sea level rise scenarios.

7.4.1 National communication under the UNFCCC The Kiribati Initial National Communication was submitted to the UNFCCC in 1999 as one of the outputs of the Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Programme to which Kiribati participated. Since the completion of the Initial National Communication, several studies and assessments have been undertaken by various international institutions on various vulnerable sectors relevant to climate change in Kiribati. These studies are important undertakings to highlight key vulnerabilities in Kiribati which require adaptive actions. These have been outlined in the Second National Communication.

7.4.2 National Adaptation Programme of Action Funding for various enabling activities to be undertaken by LDCs was established in a decision of the UNFCCC, including the development of National Adaptation Plans of Action. Kiribati participated in the development of the NAPA and working with UNDP completed its NAPA document and submitted it to the UNFCCC in 2007.


38


7.4.3 Kiribati Adaptation Project Concurrently with the preparation of the NAPA, Kiribati welcomed a World Bank initiative to start the Kiribati Adaptation Project (KAP) with co-finance from Government of Japan. The initial phase of KAP under the World Bank focused on the preparation of Adaptation Project Implementation Plan for the second phase, and studies that were considered necessary to guide and inform a multi-year program on adaptation. The second phase of KAP, that is KAP II, was completed in 2011 with many technical assessments produced on the coastal vulnerability relative to sea level scenarios, droughts information, water planning, design of coastal protection leading to the construction of some coastal protection structures, rainwater harvesting and construction of a community infiltration gallery in North Tarawa, and other improvement works on South Tarawa water supply. The Kiribati Adaptation Program- Phase III (KAP III) builds on KAP II best practices in designing and implementing adaptation measures in water and civil works. The Project will implement physical investments and capacity building; emphasize community consultation/participation; and leverage other donor activities in pursuing climate resilient investments. It is expected that the project will move quickly to the implementation of investments on the basis of the extensive technical and analytical work already carried out during the preparation and implementation phase of KAP II. KAP III activities represent both climate change adaptation and natural hazard disaster reduction measures. In particular, expansion of the ground water reserves is crucial to managing severe droughts which impose severe public health risks on Tarawa and require national emergency response. The proposed shoreline protection investments mitigate the effects of erosion of assets in the coastal zone, e.g. roads, and retain the width of water reserves to sustain freshwater lenses. KAP III main activities include: (i) improvements to water resource use and management with primary sub components of groundwater abstraction system; water reticulation including leakage detection; upgradation of water supply at Tungaru Hospital; community awareness about water conservation; feasibility of developing treated water resources in South Tarawa; water legislations, etc. (ii) enhancement in costal resilience with primary emphasis on continuation of shoreline protection works in South Tarawa; and advisory support and asset management of coastal infrastructure; (iii) institutional strengthening; and (iv) project management. Funds for these adaptation projects have been from a variety of bilateral and multi-lateral sources.

7.5 Adaptation capacity, engagement of private sector and civil society in Adaptation 7.5.1 National capacity self-assessment In 2007, Kiribati participated in a GEF-funded National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) to evaluate capacities for the implementation of the Rio Conventions, including the UNFCCC. Kiribati NCSA activities were part of the regional project implemented by SPREP, with the objective of: •

Identifying priority capacity issues for action within the thematic areas of climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation ;

•

assessing capacity needs of Kiribati within and across the thematic areas so as to be able to address the issues ;

•

linking capacity-building actions addressing the issues to broader environmental management and sustainable development frameworks, that is, mainstreaming.


39


A report on the thematic area of climate change was produced. The Report documents that the first climate change project undertaken by Kiribati government that focused on capacity building was the US funded Climate Change In Country Studies. Key outputs of the project included: •

Institutional strengthening for climate change planning within the Environment and Conservation Division ;

•

the setting up of a Climate Change Study Team ;

•

capacity building in understanding important resources such as the fresh ground water lens;

•

analysis of local climate data for comparison with global situation as given in IPCC Assessment Reports ;

•

incentives for officials to make efforts to understand certain IPCC Technical Reports.

7.5.2 Climate Change Study Team Members of the Climate Change Study Team included representatives of key sectors such as meteorological services, water, land management, mineral resources, fisheries, public health, agriculture, energy, economic planning, and education. The private sector was represented by the USP Kiribati Centre. It was chaired by the most senior official of the Environment and Conservation Division, with a project coordinator being a member. Capacity building continued under the Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Programme (PICCAP). Under this programme, the Climate Change Study Team (CCST) had a more focused agenda of preparing an Initial National Communication. Training modules on Vulnerability and Adaptation assessment became available from regional universities (Waikato University and the USP) which were attended by Kiribati nationals. A greenhouse gas inventory for 1994 was attempted and was included in Kiribati Initial National Communication. After the completion of the PICCAP the Climate Change Study Team was temporarily inactive. However, the team was revived under the NAPA and KAP I projects. The NAPA and KAP I activities envisaged two committees for their management: the first is to provide policy direction for the projects, and the second to act as a technical committee. An Adaptation Steering Committee was formalized to give policy directions for the two projects, whilst the CCST deal with the technical works of the projects. Due to a NAPA initiative, international advisors for the KAP were able to provide current climate tools for generating climate change scenarios. These scenarios were adopted in the Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Strategy that Cabinet approved. Prioritization criteria for NAPA proposed activities were also developed with the guidance of the advisors. In this way activities of the two projects were able to be harmonized.

7.5.3 Capacity building initiatives Other capacity building initiatives have been undertaken over the years with support from a variety of development partners. The Climate Change Unit (CCU) of the ECD have benefited from regional trainings on various tools for assessing and planning for climate change impacts. In connection with the ADB consultancy on mainstreaming environmental concerns, a two day workshop was conducted for CCST members on climate change scenario generation based on past trends and incorporating global scenarios. Many members of the CCST and ECD staff attended a more recent training on the science of climate change and available tools and information on climate prediction and mainstreaming. Additionally, efforts have been made to strengthen the meteorological services. Through an Australian regional project, the Meteorological Division has been strengthened in its capacity to develop and issue climate predictions. More meteorological stations were upgraded through KAP II and these will be supplemented by KAP III.


40


Since the submission of the Initial National Communication in 1999, there had been observed growing interests by academic and international organisations on Kiribati future vulnerabilities to the adverse impacts of climate change. This was evidenced by the number of Vulnerability and risk assessment conducted on specific sectors in Kiribati. These studies form part of a critical body of information that inform not only the Government of Kiribati in terms of their adaptation approaches but also the regional and international communities. The strengthening of regulatory measures for the management and conservation of the environment is recognized as a key form of adaptation. With this in mind, the Kiribati government has strengthened the Environment Act of 1999 in a superseding Act. In addition, there are a number of other pieces of legislation which have implications for environmental management. The KJIP has indicated that it will be necessary to have a more detailed review of these legislations with a view to harmonize their effects for more effective environmental management and to build climate resilience. The NCSA report indicated that although broad-based stakeholder consultation has been undertaken under the various adaptation programs and initiatives, public awareness and some mechanisms to communicate on timely basis climate and climate change information to the general public is still required. Attempts have been made but not on a continual basis and without well designed approach and clarity on target audiences, and contents. The NCSA report indicates that the approach of the Government to addressing capacity caps is to address the root causes of those gaps. The Report identified the following gaps in capacity to manage risks including (1) better understanding the science of climate change, the root causes of which are: •

Insufficient awareness and media programs on CC ;

•

insufficient dissemination of CC information to the public ;

•

non-inclusion of climate change in national curriculum ;

•

technical problems at Met. Office ;

•

lack of meteorology information ;

•

lack of skills to carry out V&A ;

•

poor Performance or incompetence of staff working on climate change planning and management.

With respect to vulnerability to climate change the root causes are: •

Insufficient funding ;

•

insufficient human resource ;

•

lack of legislation ;

•

uncontrolled beach mining ;

•

destruction of mangroves ;

•

negligence to replant Mangroves ;

•

illegal construction of poor design of seawalls and causeways ;

•

lack of skills to carry out V&A ;

•

poor Performance or incompetence of staff ;

•

lack of understanding on designs/technologies ;

•

limited vision to foresee climate change related impacts ;

•

insufficient data.


41


On climate change adaptation the root causes identified are: •

Insufficient data collection on vegetation ;

•

insufficient data collection on land use and changes ;

•

uncontrolled land use;

•

insufficient awareness and media programs on climate change adaptation ;

•

insufficient funding ;

•

insufficient human resource ;

•

lack of legislation ;

•

uncontrolled beach mining ;

•

insufficient data.

The Kiribati National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) project presents a concise summary of key capacity issues affecting national ability to adequately manage risks from climate change, including: inadequate information management, limited financial resources, limited capacity to communicate, educate and raise awareness on key issues and influence behavioral change, limited coordination and integration amongst agencies and stakeholders to address environmental and climate change issues, weak enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, limited capacity to access development opportunities, limited mainstreaming of environmental and climate change issues into national strategies, plans and programmes, limited use of traditional knowledge and practices in environmental management and limited capacity to cope with reporting requirements of the conventions. The report ends with a presentation of the main capacity development actions needed to address the cross-cutting environmental and capacity issues. The Pacific Adaptation Strategies Assistance Programme – Kiribati National Stocktaking and Stakeholder Consultations Report (October 2011) indicates that although previous adaptation project undertaken in Kiribati have built some level of capacity to manage climate change and sea level rise issues, these efforts are often hampered by the following: •

Lack of technical capacity and capabilities ;

•

lack of reliable data and information relevant for informing adaptation decision-making ;

•

lack of or low level of climate change and sea-level rise awareness at the community or village level ;

•

lack of leadership across the various sectors ;

•

lack of predictable resources to supplement the needs ; compounded by,

•

growing complexity of emerging political climate change issues.

The Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management (KJIP) (2014) reports that the following capacity constraints are still to be addressed: •

Only a few sectors have transferred strategic actions to address climate and disaster risks into their annual Sector Operational Plans and Ministerial Plans of Operations and budgeting ;

•

policies and strategies relating to human resource development, minerals and foreshore development, private sector development, investment, transport, communications, tourism and minerals do not explicitly consider climate change and disaster risks ;

•

most laws need to be reviewed as, with the exception of the Disaster Management Act 1995, they do not regulate responses to climate change and disaster risks and impacts.

The KJIP lists the following capacity-building interventions as short-term priorities:


42


Table 4 Capacity-building interventions


43



44


7.5.4 Gaps in national, sector and community-level adaptation and climate resilience programs Most national policies and strategies such as NAPA, KJIP, and others emphasise the importance of engaging the widest possible circle of stakeholders (including NGOs, CSOs and the private sector) in order to achieve their environmental objectives. Kiribati Government is supporting NGOs and CBOs in the elaboration of national strategies and plans. However the current national implementation mechanism has not ensured the greater synergy in the implementation, of community-based adaptation and climate resilience programs in alignment with national strategies and planning frameworks, so to effectively leverage the potential CSO and village communities’ perspectives and engagement.

7.5.5 National planning frameworks In each of these national planning frameworks therefore, a community-based adaptation approach should be employed to target a critical constituency or village of small scale localised actions which represents a critical contribution to the implementation and achievement of these national Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management policies and strategies. Since 2007, a local NGO has been operating the GEF Small Grants Programme for Kiribati and has implemented 11 community-based climate adaptation (CBA) projects with 11 village communities. Ideally, the concept of the GEF Small Grants Programme CBA would be most appropriate for upgrading into a national community-level adaptation and climate resilience programme – to ensure successful and effective implementation.

7.5.6 Options for innovative and coordinated financing The Government of Kiribati needs to explore options for innovative and coordinated financing to implement the KJIP from varied sources such as multilateral and bilateral donors and regional and national funding mechanisms; using tools such as the Pacific Climate Change Finance Assessment Framework. Innovative financing approaches and operations need to be explored, including options such as microfinance, levies, subsidies, soft loans, emergency funds, sovereign insurance, contingent credit, catastrophe bonds, and intergovernmental risk. Additionally, the Government of Kiribati needs to build national capacity to facilitate direct access to international climate change financing including the Green Climate Fund so as to ensure that financing for climate resilience is country-owned and directed towards priority national needs. International climate change financing is one of the most important aspects of the world’s efforts to address the climate change challenge. In order to catalyze the efforts in developing countries, it is critical to strengthen climate resilience, curb greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development. Timely climate financing can also strengthen trust among countries and generate progress in the negotiations taking place within the context of the UNFCCC. The Copenhagen Agreement concluded by delegates at the 15th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed: •

That "scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries... to enable and support enhanced action" ;

•

that developed countries would raise funds of $30 billion from 2010-2012 of new and additional resources ;

•

on a "goal" for the world to raise $100 billion per year by 2020, from "a wide variety of sources", to help developing countries cut carbon emissions and enhance adaptation measures. The establishment of a Green Climate Fund, as an operating entity of the financial mechanism, would "support projects, programs, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation and adaptation."


45


To this end, a High Level Panel of Experts was convened by the United Nations to identify sources of international climate change financing under the Copenhagen Agreement. Reaching the $100 billion annual goal will likely require a mix of sources, both existing and new public sources as well as increased private flows. Grants and highly concessional loans are crucial for adaptation in the most vulnerable countries, such as the least developed countries, Small Island Developing States, South East Asia and Africa. Strong commitments to domestic mitigation and the introduction of new public instruments based on carbon pricing are important for mobilizing climate financing, both public and private. With the current collapse in global oil prices, instruments based on carbon pricing are seen as particularly attractive because they both raise revenue and provide incentives for mitigation actions. It is anticipated that new sources of international climate change financing will be channeled through, amongst other structures, the Green Climate Fund mentioned in the Copenhagen Agreement.

7.5.7 Modalities for climate change Adaptation financing Proposed modalities for direct access by countries as outlined in several recent documents approved by the Boards of the Adaptation Fund and Green Climate Fund, are to be considered as Kiribati aspires to have direct access to these Funds in order to support the high incremental costs associated with implementing climate change adaptation and mitigation measures defined in the KJIP. In particular, modalities and guidelines adopted by the Green Climate Funds relating to the legal and institutional structure of National Implementing Entities (NIEs) and Executing Entities (EEs), and modalities to facilitate access by the private sector in applicant countries should be considered. Capacity requirements concerning the implementation of fiduciary, social and environmental safeguards that must be addressed by National Implementing Entities, determine that agencies such as the Ministry of Finance is well positioned to seek designation under the Green Climate Fund. This should be considered as an urgent priority in order to gain direct access to the levels of international climate change financing required to implement the KJIP. Other well-established sources of international climate change financing under the UNFCCC include the operational programs of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Additionally, a variety of international agencies (including international development banks and United Nations agencies) and bi-lateral development agencies together with international non-governmental organizations are increasingly assuming climate change financing as part of key operational activities thereby increasing the range and scope of climate change financing – see below.


46


Figure 10 Sources of Climate Change Financing (www.climate fundsupdate.org)

With the approval of the KJIP, the country now has the opportunity to secure climate change financing from a variety of sources, each having their own funding priorities and modalities of operation.

7.5.8 Adaptation costs The Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management (KJIP) (2014) reports that the overall gross indicative resource costs to implement the KJIP over the period 2013–2023 are estimated to be AUD 103,107,161. Of this total, it is estimated that financial cost constitutes 96% of overall costs while the in-kind contributions constitute 4%. The costs by strategy are summarised in the table below. Table 5 Estimated cost of adaptation by strategy

Total cost in (AUD)

In %

Strategy

6,697,308

6

Strategy 2

5,555,248

5

Strategy 3

4,932,242

4

Strategy 4

4,693,577

4


47


Total cost in (AUD)

In %

Strategy 5

472,747

2

Strategy 6

52,476,513

50

Strategy 7

7,478,480

7

Strategy 8

4,508,477

4

Strategy 9

15,340,322

11

Strategy 10

354,340

2

Strategy 11

180,532

1

Strategy 12

417,375

2

Total

103,107,161

100

The implementation of the KJIP is to be financed through already existing strategies ranging from national budgets and other internal sources to overseas development assistance, additional climate change funding and humanitarian aid.

7.6 Loss and damage As part of the Cancun Adaptation Framework, the UNFCCC COP initiated, in 2010, consideration on approaches to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Following two years of deliberations on this issue, COP19 (November 2013) established the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts, as the main vehicle under the Convention to promote the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner (See decision 2/CP.19 for the details). The Loss and Damage Mechanism fulfills the role under the Convention of promoting implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, pursuant to decision 3/CP.18, in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner by undertaking, inter alia, the following functions: •

Enhancing knowledge and understanding of comprehensive risk management approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including slow onset impacts, by facilitating and promoting ;

•

action to address gaps in the understanding of and expertise in approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including, inter alia, the areas outlined in , paragraph 7(a) ;

•

collection, sharing, management and use of relevant data and information, including genderdisaggregated data ;

•

provision of overviews of best practices, challenges, experiences and lessons learned in undertaking approaches to address loss and damage.


48


Strengthening dialogue, coordination, coherence and synergies among relevant stakeholders by: •

Providing leadership and coordination and, as and where appropriate, oversight under the Convention, on the assessment and implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change from extreme events and slow onset events associated with the adverse effects of climate change ;

•

fostering dialogue, coordination, coherence and synergies among all relevant stakeholders, institutions, bodies, processes and initiatives outside the Convention, with a view to promoting cooperation and collaboration across relevant work and activities at all levels.

Enhancing action and support, including finance, technology and capacity-building, to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, so as to enable countries to undertake actions pursuant to decision 3/CP.18, paragraph 6, including by: •

Providing technical support and guidance on approaches to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, including extreme events and slow onset events ;

•

providing information and recommendations for consideration by the Conference of the Parties when providing guidance relevant to reducing the risks of loss and damage and, where necessary, addressing loss and damage, including to the operating entities of the financial mechanism of the Convention, as appropriate ;

•

facilitating the mobilization and securing of expertise, and enhancement of support, including finance, technology and capacity-building, to strengthen existing approaches and, where necessary, facilitate the development and implementation of additional approaches to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, including extreme weather events and slow onset events.

In exercising the above functions, the Loss and Damage Mechanism will, inter alia: •

Facilitate support of actions to address loss and damage ;

•

improve coordination of the relevant work of existing bodies under the Convention ;

•

convene meetings of relevant experts and stakeholders ;

•

promote the development of, and compile, analyse, synthesize and review information ;

•

provide technical guidance and support ;

•

make recommendations, as appropriate, on how to enhance engagement, actions and coherence under and outside the Co invention, including on how to mobilize resources and expertise at different levels.

The COP will review the Loss and Damage Mechanism, including its structure, mandate and effectiveness at COP22 (2016) with a view to adopting an appropriate decision on the outcome of this review. Apart from earlier economic assessments undertaken under the KAP and KAP II, work on the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner has not been initiated in Kiribati.


49


7.7 Adaptation technology needs and obstacles Under the UNFCCC, support has been provided to developing countries to undertake national Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs). The purpose of TNAs is to assist developing countries to identify and analyse their priority technology needs, which can be the basis for a portfolio of environmentally sustainable technology (EST) projects and programmes. This may facilitate the transfer and access to ESTs and know-how. Technology needs assessments (TNAs): •

Are a set of country-driven activities that identify and determine the climate technology priorities of developing countries ;

•

involve stakeholders in a consultative process to identify barriers to technology transfer and measures to address these barriers ;

•

may address soft and hard climate technologies, identify regulatory options, develop financial incentives and build capacity. It is apparent from the UNFCCC website (see http://unfccc.int/ttclear/templates/render_cms_page?s=TNR_cre) that Kiribati has not yet filed its TNA report. Consideration should be given to undertaking such an assessment based on work undertaken under the KAP I and KAP 11 projects.

Section 8. Annexes 8.1 Annex 1: Grid Emission Factor Calculations Grid emission factor (GEF) calculations are taken from historic diesel use and generation (MWh) data from the Public Utilities Board and Energy Statistics of 2005-2011. Grid emission factor calculations normally involve calculating the ‘build’ and ‘operating’ generation. The operation margin is diesel generators, since PV represents only around 1% of grid supplied electricity. Given the limited options for Kiribati, the only likely option for BaU electricity expansion is diesel generators. PV is an option, but given grid stability restrictions, additional PV beyond that already planned would require additional investments in storage or grid management, and therefore cannot be considered BaU. For the purpose of calculating emission reductions for the INDC, the grid emission factor is taken as diesel generation. Calculating the GEF is based on reported diesel use and MWh produced for the period 2005-2011, assuming complete combustion of diesel and standard density and energy content based on factors given in the Statistics Yearbook published by SPC and GoK.

Grid Emission factor calculations Year Ml ADO ktCO2e MWh tCO2/MWh 2005 5.91 15.50 16.95 0.91 2006 6.24 16.37 16.39 1.00 6.29 16.50 19.33 0.85 2007 2008 5.88 15.42 18.18 0.85 2009 5.81 15.24 18.01 0.85 5.74 15.05 17.81 0.85 2010 2011 5.79 15.19 17.32 0.88 AVERAGE Grid Factor: 0.88 The average GEF calculation is based on stoichiometric conversion with assumed complete combustion of diesel. This gives a relatively high value of 0.88 tCO2e/MWh, reflecting gen-sets not running in optimal range, and significant transmission and distribution losses.


50


8.2 Annex 2: Proposed outer Island activities Below is a brief summary of the activities proposed for off-grid electricity production, with estimates of financial resources (in AUD) required: •

Activity 1 – Solar PV mini grid system for Southern Kiribati Hospital (2.4 million) - design, procure and install off-grid PV systems for the Southern main hospital (265 kWp) to a level to support the fully equipped needs to operate the hospital (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 2 – Outer Island Clinic solar system rehabilitation ($ 230,000.00) - design, procure, and install 58 systems in total on 20 outer Islands to provide power for lighting and for HF communication radio (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 3 – Mereang Taabwai Secondary Schools solar PV mini-grid ($500,000.00) - design, procure and install off-grid PV systems (20 kWp) for the school to a level to support a fully equipped computer lab, dormitory lighting, refrigerator/freezers, office equipment and audiovisual equipment (funded/under implementation) ;

•

Activity 4 –Junior Secondary School (JSS)system.($285,000.00) - design, procure and install off-grid PV systems for lighting and Charging Laptop computers of 2 classrooms and staff room in all JSS in the Outer Islands (410 Wp each) (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 5 –Solar Home System for Households.(1.5million) - procure and install 3900 solar home system to cover up all remaining households in the Outer Islands. The system will provide basic lighting, phone and radio charging which will improve social-economic condition in the Outer Islands (funded/under implementation) ;

•

Activity 6 – Outer Island Council solar PV mini grid system ($710,000.00) - design, procure and install off-grid PV systems (5 kWp each) for island council administrative centres in the Gilbert and Line Groups (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 7 – Outer Island Fish Centres ($610,000.00) - design, procure and install off-grid PV systems for the Fish Centres (3.75 kWp each) in all the Islands to a level to support a fully equipped centres lighting, refrigeration and other equipment (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 8 – Desalination Plant for vulnerable rural community. ($115,000.00) – 19 systems for 12 community systems for solar water desalination plant will be procured and installed on 9 selected Islands. This activity will improve quality of life in households by providing portable water supply to the most vulnerable Islands in Kiribati (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 9 – Outer Island Police Station solar system rehabilitation ($60,000.00) - 23 solar systems (120 Wp each) will be procured and installed in all of the outer Islands for communication, lighting, etc at the Police stations and an additional 8 Police posts (not yet fully funded) ;

•

Activity 10 – Solar PV system for non-government vocational institutions: CCL Manoku and Alfred Sadd Institution ($500,000.00) - design, procure and install off-grid PV systems (10 kWp) for each community institution to support the institution daily activities (funded/under implementation).


51