Post on 18-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Evolution of commitmentsunder the UNFCCC:
Involving newlyindustrialized economiesand developing countries
UNFCCC side event4 June 2003
Niklas Höhne n.hoehne@ecofys.deECOFYS, Köln, Germany
Evolution of commitments
ECOFYS Energy and Environment
• European research and consulting company
• In total 200 employees
• Offices in the Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain, Poland, Belgium
• Example projects:– “Sectoral objectives”: Sharing the EU Kyoto targets between different sectors for
the European Commission – Development of the emission monitoring guidelines for the EU emission trading
system (with FIELD, KPMG and TÜV) – Study on future international climate commitments for the German EPA
Evolution of commitments
Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries
By ECOFYS:Dipl. Phys. Niklas HöhneDr. Jochen HarnischDr. Dian PhylipsenProf. Dr. Kornelis BlokMw. Carolina Galleguillos
On behalf of the German Federal Environmental AgencyResearch Report 201 41 255Climate Change 01/03
http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/fpdf-l/2246.pdf
Evolution of commitments
Outline of the report1. Introduction
2. The need for the evolution of commitments
3. Specific difficulties
4. Equity considerations
5. Current approaches
6. Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches
7. New approaches
8. Comparison of approaches
9. Some current views
10. Recommendations
Evolution of commitments
Outline of the report1. Introduction
2. The need for the evolution of commitments
3. Specific difficulties
4. Equity considerations
5. Current approaches
6. Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches
7. New approaches
8. Comparison of approaches
9. Some current views
10. Recommendations
Evolution of commitments
Stabilization
Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
Evolution of commitments
Historic emissions
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3x 10
7 Annex I
Em
issi
ons
in T
g C
O2e
q.
Year
N2OCH4Forestry CO2Fossil CO2
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3x 10
7 Non-Annex I
Em
issi
ons
in T
g C
O2e
q.
Year
N2OCH4Forestry CO2Fossil CO2
Source: Marland et al. / Houghton et al. / EDGAR 3.2, gases added using IPCC 1995 GWPs
Annex I
Non-Annex I
Evolution of commitments
Future emissions
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
x 107 Annex I
Year
N2OCH4Forestry CO2Fossil CO2
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
x 107 Non-Annex I
Year
N2OCH4Forestry CO2Fossil CO2
19000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Em
issi
ons
in T
g C
O2
eq
.
19000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Em
issi
ons
in T
g C
O2
eq
.
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
IPCC SRES A1B scenario
Annex I
Non-Annex I
Evolution of commitments
The need for evolution of commitments
Stabilization:• For any stabilization, global emissions need to peak and
decrease steadily thereafter• The sooner the peak the lower the stabilization level
UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol• Ultimate objective: stabilization of GHG concentrations• “Common but differentiated responsibilities”• Annex I countries reduce emissions by about 5% in 2008-2012
relative to 1990• USA rejects the Kyoto Protocol
Further commitments are necessary so that:• Developed countries reduce emissions substantially• Developing countries’ emissions do not grow as much as
expected
Evolution of commitments
Outline of the report1. Introduction
2. The need for the evolution of commitments
3. Specific difficulties
4. Equity considerations
5. Current approaches
6. Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches
7. New approaches
8. Comparison of approaches
9. Some current views
10. Recommendations
Evolution of commitments
Specific difficulties
• Rules of the negotiation process
• History of the negotiations
• Time scales and inertia of the climate system
• National circumstances and resulting positions by countries and groups
Evolution of commitments
Country groups
AustraliaCanadaIcelandJapan
BulgariaEstoniaLatviaLithuaniaRomaniaSlovenia
Annex II Economies in transition
(EITs)
Annex ILiechtensteinMonaco
*: Added to Annex I only for the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol at COP7
Austria Belgium Denmark FinlandFranceGermanyGreece Ireland
New ZealandNorwaySwitzerlandUnited States of America
Italy LuxembourgNetherlandsPortugalSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom
European Union
BelarusCroatiaKazakhstan*Russian FederationUkraine
Turkey
EUApplicants
CyprusMalta
Czech RepublicHungaryPolandSlovakia
OECD
Korea Mexico
Evolution of commitments
Outline of the report1. Introduction
2. The need for the evolution of commitments
3. Specific difficulties
4. Equity considerations
5. Current approaches
6. Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches
7. New approaches
8. Comparison of approaches
9. Some current views
10. Recommendations
Evolution of commitments
Current approaches Issues to be addressed
National emissions targets (absolute or intensity targets)
OrNon-quantified target (P&Ms)?
Who participates and when?
What if the commitment is not met?
What is the type of the commitment?
What is the stringency of individual
commitment?
How ?
How much?
Who?
Evolution of commitments
Outline of the report1. Introduction
2. The need for the evolution of commitments
3. Specific difficulties
4. Equity considerations
5. Current approaches
6. Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches
7. New approaches
8. Comparison of approaches
9. Some current views
10. Recommendations
Evolution of commitments
Approaches1. Continuing Kyoto
2. Intensity targets
3. Contraction and Convergence
4. Global Triptych approach (extended)
5. Multi-sector convergence approach
6. Multistage approach (FAIR)
7. Equal mitigation cost
8. Coordinated policies and measures
9. Extended Global Triptych approach
10. New multistage approach
11. Performance targets
Evolution of commitments
Assessment criteriaEcological criteria:• Environmental effectiveness: Stabilization can be reached• Encouragement of early action also without commitment
Political criteria:• Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability• Agreement with fundamental positions of major constituencies
Economic criteria:• Accounting for structural differences• Minimize adverse economic effects on the committed country
Technical criteria:• Compatible with Convention and Protocol• Moderate political and technical requirements for the
negotiations: Not too complex, data and methods available
Evolution of commitments
Equity principles
Often: Principle
Egalitarian
Approach
Per capita emission rights
Approach
Need
e.g.
Responsibility
Capability
Here:Principles
Contraction and convergence
(how, how much and who)
e.g.
Polluter pays Reductions prop. to emissions
Convention Article 3.1: “... common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities ...”
Evolution of commitments
Quantification of emissions
Quantification:• References emissions (IPCC SRES scenarios) • Emissions of all individual countries under all approaches until 2100,
assuming Kyoto (Annex I) and SRES (Non-Annex I) until 2010
Dimensions:• Global emission reduction goal:
Global emissions in 2020 +27% above 1990 for CO2, CH4 and N2O. Consistent with path that leads to 450 ppmv CO2 concentration
• Reference scenario IPCC SRES A2• Parameters of the approach (see approach)
Evolution of commitments
Approaches1. Continuing Kyoto
2. Intensity targets
3. Contraction and Convergence
4. Global Triptych approach (extended)
5. Multi-sector convergence approach
6. Multistage approach (FAIR)
7. Equal mitigation cost
8. Coordinated policies and measures
9. Extended Global Triptych approach
10. New multistage approach
11. Performance targets
Evolution of commitments
Continuing Kyoto
Chosen parameters
• Ad-hoc targets for Annex I: -20% every 10 years as of 2010
• Increasing participation if GDP/cap close to global average
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
35 000 000
40 000 000
45 000 000
50 000 000
1 9
90
2 0
00
2 0
20
2 0
40
2 0
60
2 0
80
2 1
00
Time (years)
Glo
nb
al e
mis
sio
ns
(Gg
CO
2 eq
)
Non-Annex I
Annex I
• Some countries participate as of 2020 (here Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Persian Golf States, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand)
• In 2020 +27% above 1990• Reaching around 480ppmv
CO2 2100
How ? How much?
Who?
Evolution of commitments
Continuing Kyoto7
4%
74
%
75
%
76
%
63
% 80
%
12
9%
13
3%
14
0% 1
63
%
22
4%
22
7%
21
3%
73
%
19
6%
12
7%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%U
SA
EU
Japa
n
Eas
t. E
ur.
Rus
sian
Fed
.
Res
t of
AI
Arg
entin
a
Bra
zil
Sou
th A
fric
a
Gul
f S
tate
s
Chi
na
Indi
a
Indo
nesi
a
Ann
ex I
Non
Ann
ex I
Glo
bal t
otal
BAU (IPCC SRES A2)Continuing Kyoto
Ch
an
ge in
em
issi
on
s fr
om
19
90
to
20
20
(C
O2
, C
H4
, N
2O
)
Evolution of commitments
Continuing Kyoto
Critical factors:
• Participation threshold: If lowered so that e.g. China is participating, –7% reduction of the participating countries over 10 years instead of -20%, is sufficient to reach same goal in 2020
• Reduction of participating states: 10% over 10 years instead of 20% lead to global emissions +36% over 1990
• Reference scenarios: Other IPCC SRES scenarios lead to emissions +2% to +33% over 1990
Evolution of commitments
Continuing Kyoto
Ecological criteria:• Environmental effectiveness: ++• Encouragement of early action -
Political criteria:• Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability +• Agreement with fundamental positions 0
Economic criteria:• Accounting for structural differences /• Minimize adverse economic effects +
Technical criteria:• Compatible with Convention and Protocol ++• Moderate political and technical requirements ++
Ass
ess
ment
Evolution of commitments
Contraction and Convergence• By the Global Commons Institute
• Contraction: Definition of global emission path (450ppmv)
• Convergence: Per capita emissions of all countries converge by e.g. 2050
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
35 000 000
40 000 000
45 000 000
50 000 000
1 9
90
1 9
95
2 0
00
2 0
10
2 0
20
2 0
30
2 0
40
2 0
50
2 0
60
2 0
70
2 0
80
2 0
90
2 1
00
Time (years)
Glo
ba
l em
iss
ion
s (
Gg
CO
2e
q)
Non-Annex I
Annex I
How ?How
much?Who?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Em
issi
on
s p
er c
apit
a (t
CO
2eq
./p
erso
n)
Annex I
Global total
Non-Annex I
Evolution of commitments
Contraction and Convergence• Per-capita emissions emissions
converge until 2050 on level below current Non-Annex I average
• Increase in emissions possible for some countries from 2010 to 2020 but lower than reference scenario
• Low “tropical hot air”: (10-30% of the demand) e.g. in Philippines
United Arab Emirates 56.4USA 25.3Saudi Arabia 18.3Russian Federation 16.7Annex I 15.1EU 10.8South Korea 10.4Brazil 7.5Hungary 6.7World 6.4China 4.9Non-Annex I 4.1India 2.4Egypt 2.4Burundi 0.6Source: EDGAR / UN / ECOFYS
tCO2eq./cap in 1995, all sectors incl. forestry, CO2, CH4, N2O
Evolution of commitments
Contraction and Convergence8
5%
82
%
83
%
68
%
66
%
93
%
15
8%
16
5%
16
1%
21
2%
17
6%
22
2%
18
7%
80
%
18
9%
12
8%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%U
SA
EU
Jap
an
Ea
st. E
ur.
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
.
Re
st o
f AI
Arg
en
tina
Bra
zil
So
uth
Afr
ica
Gu
lf S
tate
s
Ch
ina
Ind
ia
Ind
on
esi
a
An
ne
x I
No
n A
nn
ex
I
Glo
ba
l to
tal
BAU (IPCC SRES A2)Contraction and Convergence
Ch
an
ge in
em
issi
on
s fr
om
19
90
to
20
20
(C
O2
, C
H4
, N
2O
)
Evolution of commitments
Contraction and convergence
Ecological criteria:• Environmental effectiveness: ++• Encouragement of early action ++
Political criteria:• Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability +• Agreement with fundamental positions -
Economic criteria:• Accounting for structural differences --• Minimize adverse economic effects +
Technical criteria:• Compatible with Convention and Protocol +• Moderate political and technical requirements ++
Ass
ess
ment
Evolution of commitments
Global Triptych approach
• University of Utrecht (Blok, Phylipsen, Groenenberg)• Was one basis for the EU burden sharing of the Kyoto targets• Originally only energy related CO2 • Mix of convergence and sustainable growth
Domestic sectors
(Households, services, transport)
Converging per-capita emissions
Industry(energy intensive)
BAU production growth with efficiency
improvement
Electricity
BAU production growth with limit for renewables, CHP,
coal and gas
National emission target
How ?How
much?Who?
Evolution of commitments
Extended global Triptych approach
Domestic (CO2)
Industry (CO2)
Electricity(CO2)
Nationalemission target
Converging per-capita emissions
BAU production growth with efficiency
improvement
BAU production growth with
limit on sources
WasteCH4 and
N2OCH4 and
N2O
Stabilization at 100%
Agriculture
Converging per-capita
emissions to 0%
Forestry
Evolution of commitments
Global Triptych Approach
68
%
74
%
76
%
72
%
50
%
81
%
12
4%
13
0%
11
4% 1
40
%
19
6%
23
1%
70
%
19
2%
12
3%
30
8%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%U
SA
EU
Japa
n
Eas
t. E
ur.
Rus
sian
Fed
.
Res
t of
AI
Arg
entin
a
Bra
zil
Sou
th A
fric
a
Gul
f S
tate
s
Chi
na
Indi
a
Indo
nesi
a
Ann
ex I
Non
Ann
ex I
Glo
bal t
otal
BAU (IPCC SRES A2)Global TriptychExtended global Triptych
Ch
an
ge in
em
issi
on
s fr
om
19
90
to
20
20
(C
O2
, C
H4
, N
2O
)
Evolution of commitments
Triptych approachResults:
• Significant reductions in Annex I countries, especially EITs (Higher reductions than under convergence)
• Significant emission growth in developing countries (for some higher growth than under convergence)
• Differences are less significant, if non-CO2 gases and other sectors are included
Critical factors
• Assumptions of future production growth
• Convergence year and level for domestic sectors
Evolution of commitments
Triptych
OriginalExtended
Ecological criteria: Energy CO2 all GHG
• Environmental effectiveness: ++ ++• Encouragement of early action 0 0
Political criteria:• Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability + +• Agreement with fundamental positions + +
Economic criteria:• Accounting for structural differences + ++• Minimize adverse economic effects + +
Technical criteria:• Compatible with Convention and Protocol + +• Moderate political and technical requirements - -
Ass
ess
ment
Evolution of commitments
New multistage approach
• Four stages:
Nobinding
commitments
Pledge for sustainable
development
Moderate reduction below
BAU
Reduction
• Threshold for upward movement: emissions per capita• Countries can only move upwards • As of 2010 movement only to stage 3 then to stage 4• Stage 4: 20% reduction in 10 years
• Stage 2 is difficult to quantify (here SRES B1)
How ?How
much?Who?
Evolution of commitments
New multistage approach• Several countries jump directly to stage 3 and 4 (here Venezuela,
South Africa, Persian Gulf States, South Korea and Singapore)
• Only a few countries move upwards from 2020 onwards: Once on the sustainable path, emissions per capita do not rise
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
35 000 000
40 000 000
45 000 000
50 000 000
1 9
90
1 9
95
2 0
00
2 0
10
2 0
20
2 0
30
2 0
40
2 0
50
2 0
60
2 0
70
2 0
80
2 0
90
2 1
00
Time (years)
Glo
ba
l em
iss
ion
s (
Gg
CO
2 e
q.)
Non-Annex I
Annex I
Critical factors• Thresholds• Definition of “pledge for
sustainable development”• Reductions for stage 3/4
• Not critical: the Reference scenario, higher emissions lead to higher stage
Evolution of commitments
New multistage approach
Ecological criteria:• Environmental effectiveness +
+• Encouragement of early action +
Political criteria:• Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability +
+• Agreement with fundamental positions +
Economic criteria:• Accounting for structural differences +• Minimize adverse economic effects +
Technical criteria:• Compatible with Convention and Protocol +• Moderate political and technical requirements +
Ass
ess
ment
Evolution of commitments
Quantitative comparison
Under all approaches
• Significant reductions by Annex I countries
• Development of emissions of Non-Annex I countries below reference scenario
Evolution of commitments
Qualitative comparison
Approach Criterion
Po
ssib
le
wei
gh
tin
g
Co
nti
nu
ing
K
yoto
Inte
nsi
ty t
ar-
get
s
Co
ntr
acti
on
an
d c
on
ver-
gen
ce
Glo
bal
Tri
p-
tych
(C
O2
on
ly)
Mu
lti-
sect
or
con
verg
ence
ap
pro
ach
Mu
ltis
tag
e ap
pro
ach
(F
AIR
)
Eq
ual
mit
iga-
tio
n c
ost
Co
ord
inat
ed
Po
licie
s an
d
mea
sure
s
Ext
end
ed
glo
bal
Tri
p-
tych
New
mu
lti-
stag
e
Per
form
ance
ta
rget
s
Environmental criteria 3 + 0 ++ + ++ + 0 + + ++ +
Environmental effectiveness ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ +
Encouragement of early ac-tion by Parties that do not yet have binding commitments
- - ++ 0 + / -- ++ 0 + +
Political criteria 3 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 0 + ++ 0
Equity principles + 0 + + + ++ 0 - + ++ +
Agreement with fundamental positions of major constituen-cies
0 + - + 0 + - 0 + + 0
Economic criteria 2 0 0 - + + + ++ - ++ + ++ Accounting for structural dif-ferences between countries / / -- + + + ++ - ++ + ++
Minimizing adverse economic effects + + + + + + ++ - + + +
Technical criteria 1 ++ 0 ++ 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 Compatibility with UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol
++ + + + + + + 0 + + +
Moderate political and techni-cal requirements of the nego-tiation process
++ - ++ - - + -- - - + -
Evolution of commitments
Conclusions• Substantial reduction in developed countries are
necessary in all approaches, for 450 ppm higher reductions than those in the Kyoto Protocol
• Early involvement of developing countries is necessary (Need to “get it right the first place”)
• Many approaches and variations on future action are available– No single one satisfies all requirements– a good mix may be a compromise
Evolution of commitments
Conclusions II
How ?
How much?
Who?
• Work from current flexible structure• Multistage or menu
• Several types of targets• Types of targets for DCs that limit emissions but not
economic growth (e.g. intensity, standards, SD, P&Ms, performance targets, non-binding)
• OR: Contraction and Convergence
• Differentiation/allocation of emission targets not solved• Possibly Chair’s proposal (based on e.g. convergence or
Triptych) modified by negotiations• Need for comparable, reviewed, public data on all
countries
• No threshold indicator will suit every country (however recommended: emissions/capita)
• Self-identification with incentives to be in a certain group
Evolution of commitments
Recommendations• International, informal dialogue(s)
– For scientists and policy makers, on scientific basis and possible approaches
• Trust building– Stress the need for substantial reductions in developed countries as
prerequisite (national long-term targets?)– Reduce emissions in developed countries – Actively participate in the CDM– Make available the agreed financial resources– Work with the USA to come back on board– Communicate successes
• Work towards definition of an interim global target for 2020/2030– If agreement on 450 or 550 ppm CO2 is not possible– “At which level of global emissions in 2020 do we loose the option of
450 ppm?”
• All Parties need to be prepared to evaluate targets– Comparable, reviewed, public data on all countries needed
Evolution of commitments
Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries
By ECOFYS:Dipl. Phys. Niklas Höhne (n.hoehne@ecofys.de)Dr. Jochen HarnischDr. Dian PhylipsenProf. Dr. Kornelis BlokMw. Carolina Galleguillos
On behalf of the German Federal Environmental AgencyResearch Report 201 41 255Climate Change 01/03
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/fpdf-l/2246.pdf