Niklas Höhne [email protected] ECOFYS, Köln, Germany

Evolution of commitmentsunder the UNFCCC:

Involving newlyindustrialized economiesand developing countries

UNFCCC side event4 June 2003

Niklas Höhne [email protected], 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 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


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


Stabilization

Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001


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


Source: Marland et al. / Houghton et al. / EDGAR 3.2, gases added using IPCC 1995 GWPs

Annex I

Non-Annex I


Future emissions

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

x 107 Annex I

Year


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

x 107 Non-Annex I

Year


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


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








7. New approaches



10. Recommendations


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


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








7. New approaches



10. Recommendations


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?








7. New approaches



10. Recommendations


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


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


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 ...”


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)


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


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?


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

)


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


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


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


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


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

)


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


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?


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


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

)


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


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


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?


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


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


Quantitative comparison

Under all approaches

• Significant reductions by Annex I countries

• Development of emissions of Non-Annex I countries below reference scenario


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

++ - ++ - - + -- - - + -


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


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


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 under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries

By ECOFYS:Dipl. Phys. Niklas Höhne ([email protected])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

Niklas Höhne [email protected] ECOFYS, Köln, Germany

Documents

Transcript of Niklas Höhne [email protected] ECOFYS, Köln, Germany