Workshop on Developing Country Mitigation Targets
Preliminaries
===========
Executive Secretary
- developing countries submissions on mitigation actions
- On the registry, the COP invited parties to submit proposals, asking for support
- Workshop intends to highlight diversity of mitigation actions and proposals
- Like yesterday, ES solicited inputs as to how these workshops to be conducted in the future
Cape Verde - Surprised that the workshop could not be done in other languages, which would have enabled the Francophone countries to fully participate. This explains why many Francophone countries are absent in the workshop. “As early as Bali, I kept on asking for the documents to be translated into French. It seems that climate change is only for Anglophone countries. It is something that marginalizes us.”
- ES: Translation services are not usually included in non-official negotiations. However, she and the Facilitator promised to discuss this with the LCA Chair and include this on the written report on the workshop. ES ensured that the written reports will be translated into six languages.
Brazil - On the written report, it will be better if this could be presented to the LCA and SBI. Asked the facilitator to convey the written report to these bodies. There is also a need to decide on this. However the United States said that it might be useful to convey the written report to other bodies but the workshop is primarily meant for the LCA.
- Co-facilitator: Will postpone the decision on this for later
Workshop Proper
==============
First Set of Presentations
=====================
Mexico – Under the Special Climate Change Program, a set of unilateral NAMAs between 2009-2012 and financed by the Mexican government, with minor participation of the private sector. For 2012-2030, the mid-term goal is to have a 30% GHG reduction from a baseline. By 2050, GHG reductions must be at 50%. Within its mid-term strategies are targets such as having 35% of consisting of clean power capacity by 2024– Note though that this includes nuclear and large hydropower -; 18% reduction of energy demand from the baseline by 2030 – includes the phase our of incandescent light bulbs ; establishing more than 1 million housing every year; gas flaring reduction from 9.3% to 0.6% between 2009-2024 and in forestry, net zero emission balance in forestry. Mexico has partnerships with Germany, Netherlands and the US on plans related to housing, transport (hybrid vehicles) and cement industries (green cement?). On MRV, Mexico has a set of MRVs, ranging from voluntary to compulsory reporting.
China – emphasized that international cooperation must be guided by the Convention, Bali Action Plan and in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities. NAMA must be country-driven. Under the Convention, these are also submitted on a voluntary basis. Under China’s Autonomous Domestic Mitigation Actions, China intends to lower its Cos emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45% by 2020. China will increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to 15% by 2020 (now 8%). On forestry, it will increase its coverage by 40 million by 2020. China likewise emphasized that it is still at a developing phase. According to the UN, 150 million Chinese citizens are still in poverty. Nonetheless, it tries to control its emissions through regulation and standards (the phase out of small plants, energy standard, labeling and benchmarking and energy conservation dispatch); pricing policies (differential electricity pricing for emission and energy intensive industries and reform of pricing mechanisms of oil, natural gas and electricity); subsidies and incentives (for energy savings air conditioners, lamps and vehicles); low carbon provinces and cities (8 cities); and achievements (energy intensity improved by 19.1%, energy saving by 630 Mtce, reduce emissions by 1.4 billion CO2 e.
Ghana – After Copenhagen, Ghana submitted 55 NAMAs to the secretariat. Policy brief on NAMA is being prepared. It is expected that the process would culminate to 5 NAMAs. Among the criteria Ghana has used in the development of its NAMAs include emissions reduction potential, contribution to sustainable development and financial feasibility. Other potential NAMAs include use of efficient and clean carbonization, switching to natural gas, sustainable forest management, use of energy efficienct cooking devices and increase of the share of renewable energy by 10 to 20 % by 2020. Next steps includeGHG inventory for NAMAs and REDD Plus, development of a national MRV system that is consistent with international guidelines and development of low carbon growth path, among others.
India – Intends to reduce emissions intensity of its GDP by 20-25% by 2020, excluding agricultural emissions. Assuming an 8% GDP, emissions will be 2.6T/capita in 2020 compared to 4.4 T/capita in 2005.
The is a need to increase production of steel and cement, which will be up in the future. However, India has many infrastructure needs given the size of its population. Despite rising efficiency, energy intensity is increasing. In terms of energy efficiency and energy intensity, India is comparable with the EU. Coal cess may result to US42billion but this still requires improvements. 2/3 of its light builbs are now fluorescent. 9% of energy capacity is now on renewable. Some states are working on their own action plans. Among the NAMAs of India include: national solar mission; nuclear enegy; renewable energy and green India mission.
EU 0- To Mexico, what are your expectations from public and carbon finance?, To China, the emissions in 2020 Is quite dependent on rgoiuc growth , do you make a difference between public and private finance. To Ghana, would you need the support now or something that you will need later.
New Zealand – For Mexico, could you elaborate on what you like to see on the market mechanisms in the future.
Singapore – For China, what are the underlying assumptions for the business as usual measures. For Ghana, does it have an expected cost in their NAMAs. For India, how much of the private sources would account for their NAMA.
Nepal – What is the percentage of the use of biofuels in Mexico?
Australia – For China, can you provide information on its emission target. On Co2, how is it related to GHG and other. Any plans on improving the agricultural sector?
Norway – For Mexico, a large part of reduction potentials results to negative cost. What are the barriers in implementing their programs.
US - All parties are obliged to come up with their targets under the Convention. What are the assumptions for your PAU? Have you identified any lessons on MRV. For China, how did you compute your carbon emission? For India’s lands, does it r=tagrt land use etc.
Senegal – For China, Indonesia and India, wat are the cost of yiug NANAs
Kenya – For Mexico, they seen to be avoiding the media the preparation of the Namas.
Response
========
Mexico
- The media was key in the consultations
- Private sector participation in the first part of the shorter goal is not as important as we expect.
- Insitutional arrenagements are key because it is cross-cutting.
- Relying on its interim Climate Change program, including one on REDD.
- We are pushing for institutional arrangements for MRV, with the creation of a spate force for short term. Mexico is in a process of moving M nationally and working through international cooperation on the V.
- Lessons learned from the construction of the baseline: We passed through two exercises (including review), which expanded the discussions with the private sectors. Spoke with OECD on international guidance on baselines.
- But there are also regulatory barriers, lack of financial instruments for SMEs in participating in energy efficiency actions, unlike CDM.
- On the use of biofuels, there are no actions on biofuels which have been quantified since policies are generally cautious over the use of biofuels. However, Mexico has some plans on biomass.
- On market mechanisms, we found a lot of barriers in the cycle of CDM, which must be simplified. We are in favor of advancing new mechanisms as well as balance in terms of financing, whether unilaterally as a country or the Green Fund. We have serious questions on how developing countries could find a balance between international finance and market mechanisms.
- Public budget has mainly financed NAMAs, with very limited contribution from CDM.
China
- On GDP growth, there are different predictions. But the aspirational target from 2010 – 2013 is 7%.
- On the basis of cost, there is limitation to credit access.
- On scope (gases), dependent on the data available and assessed.
- The concept of the BAU is confusing as affirmed by the IEA?
- On the mechanism, to increase the mitigation targets, there is a need to discuss new mechanisms
- There are programs also in capturing methane.
India
- On supported and non-supported NAMA, this has yet to be seen, depends on a range of issues. If there are more direct financial assistance, then this will help.
- On agricultural, better resource use, especially water – This will decrease agricultural emissions.
- On media, it is important for them to be involved.
Ghana
- On the support Ghana needs, technical support. Currently the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands is providing some technical support.
Second Set of Presentations
=======================
Korea – Has “National Strategy for Green Growth,” In 1990, Korea’ s GHG 305.4 and in 2007, 620. 84.7% of emissions comes from the energy sector, particularly power, industry and transportation. In Copenhagen, Korea announced that it will aim for a 30% reduction below BAU by 2020, with the assumption that energy-efficient technologies will continue to develop. 80 hearings were conducted to come up with GHG reduction goals. An inventory and research center was established in June 2010 and eventually Korea’s GHG emissions and energy target management scheme --- which now covers 61% of GHG emission of the country Korea also set up the Global Green Growth Institute as a way of sharing best practices.
Peru – In 2000, Peru emits 120 million tones, with the deforestation in the Amazon being the main source. Improvement in agriculture and urban solid waste management are among the areas being considered for mitigation. Voluntary targets for 2021 (centenary of Peru) include zero net emissions in LULUCF, energy mix with up to 40% from renewable sources and reduction of emissions from urban solid waste disposal. Challenges remain the social economic issues such as poverty, interculturality, fragile ecosystems, behavioral inertia (habits especially on accessing resources from forests), national priorities, and on the other hand, quantifying emissions and removals on CO2 in Amazon forests, methodological issues, capacity building, MRV and REDD+roles. Other challenges include in-country institutional arrangements and NAMA definition, external support and costs calculation particularly on REDD+ and CDM.
AOSIS – Among the intensive climate change impacts to AOSIS includes the accelerating sea level rise, flooding and droughts. Unfortunately pledges on the table remain inadequate. 2020 is an important mitigation marker because after that mitigation will be very expensive and difficult. SIDs are nonetheless prepared to contribute, despite resource constraints – carbon neutrality (Maldives, PNG), absolute reductions below base year (Antigua and Barbuda, Marshall Islands, PNG), reductions below BAU (Singapore), and enhancing existing efforts (Mauritius), etc. We should also develop guidelines in submitting NAMAs to the registry --- which are simple, transparent (even on assumptions and calculations), enable tracking of global progress and allow for flexibility for LDCs/SIDs.
Singapore – Accounts for less than 0.2 of global emissions, highly fossil fuel dependent (alternative energy disadvantaged, solar energy remains intermittent for a densely populated island) and export-driven economy. It has no fuel subsidies. But it has aimed for clean and green development since independence. Since Copenhagen, Singapore has targeted 7-11% reduction in GHG below BAU levels in 2020, as part of its 16% pledge. Additional measures will be planned once a legally binding agreement is in place. All mitigation measures will be domestically funded. Strategies are focused on energy efficiency, public transport, resource efficient buildings, research and develop,ent into clean energy and adopt less carbon intensive fuels.
No comments:
Post a Comment