Sharing the burden: the multistage approach Support of Shaping the Post Kyoto Climate Regime REC Workshop Developed by Ecofys presented by Zsolt Lengyel,

Sharing the burden: the multistage approach

“Support of Shaping the Post Kyoto Climate Regime” REC Workshop

Developed by Ecofys presented by Zsolt Lengyel, SenterNovem

5-6 March 2009, Szentendre, REC

5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 2

Content

1.The background snapshot : climate stabilsation goals

2.The various post-Kyoto effort sharing approaches

3.The multistage approach4.Stabilisation scenarios5.Conclusions


1.a. Climate stabilisation

Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001


1.b. Risk of overshooting 2°C

Source: IPCC AR4, Synthesis Report


1.c. Emission reduction efforts

Source: IPCC AR4, Workong Group III, Chapter 13, Box 13.7


2. Approaches

Based on one/two

principles

Sophisticated approaches

Contraction and Convergence

Common but diff. convergence

Triptych

Brazilian Proposal on hist. resp.

South North dialogue

Multistage

Sectoral approaches

Intensity targets


2.a. Contraction and Convergence

• Contraction: Agreement on a global emission pathway (e.g. towards 450ppmv)

• Convergence: Per capita emission converge until, e.g., 2050

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

Origin of the approach: Global Commons Institute www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf

For 450 ppmv CO2:

• Convergence level 2-3 tCO2eq. (Global average today ~6)


2.b. Common but differentiated convergence (CDC)

• Three stages– No commitments– “No-Lose” targets– Convergence of per capita

emission level to the same level in e.g. 40 years

• Participation threshold: – (time dependent) global

average per capita emissions

GH

G/c

ap

Time

Threshold

Höhne, den Elzen, Weiss: “Common but differentiated convergence” accepted at Climate Policy 2005

For 450 ppmv CO2:

• Convergence level ~2 tCO2eq.

• Participation at world average


2.c. Brazilian Proposal on historical responsibility

Design• Share reduction proportional to historical

responsibility• To allow growth targets: reductions below a

reference scenarioCritical issues• Calculation of historical responsibility• For growth targets reference scenario needed• Decisions on who participates neededFor 450 ppmv CO2:

• Fast participation of countries additional to Annex I, e.g. at Annex I average per capita emissions or GDP

• Ambitious reductions for reducing countries

See www.match-info.net for calculations of contributions to temperature increase


2.d. Intensity targets

• Improvement of Emissions/GDP• Decision on participation neededFor 450 ppmv CO2:

• Annex I assumed to reduce 20% below 1990 in 2020

• Intensity targets for Non-Annex I countries, if their per-capita emissions above 3 to 5 tCO2eq./cap in 2020

• Emissions/GDP improvement 1 to 2 percentage points per year better than under reference scenario


2.e. Sectoral approaches

• Emission targets are defined for all individual sectors as function of their respective output (e.g. t of steel, kWh produced, etc.). Emission trading possible

For 450 ppmv CO2:

• Annex I assumed to reduce 20% below 1990 in 2020

• Major Non-Annex I countries– Electricity: reduction in CO2/kWh by 3% per

year; energy efficiency improvements reduce growth in production by 0.5% per year

– Iron & steel: convergence in tCO2/t steel by 2025 to 0.80 (year 2000 average = 1.53)

– Cement: convergence in tCO2/t cement by 2020 to 0.60 (year 2000 average = 0.77)


2.f. Triptych

Decline to zeroLand use change and forestry

Converging per-capita emissionsWaste

Percentage reduction below BAUAgricultural

Decline to low levelFossil fuel production

Converging per-capita emissionsDomestic

Adjusted BAU production growth with limit on sources

Electricity

Adjusted BAU production growth with efficiency improvement

I ndustry

Decline to zeroLand use change and forestry

Converging per-capita emissionsWaste

Percentage reduction below BAUAgricultural

Decline to low levelFossil fuel production

Converging per-capita emissionsDomestic

Adjusted BAU production growth with limit on sources

Electricity

Adjusted BAU production growth with efficiency improvement

I ndustry

Nat

ion

alem

issi

on

tar

get

For 450 ppmv CO2:

• Convergence to efficiency 50% better than BAT in industry in 2050 • 60% emission free electricity in 2050.

• Domestic: convergence to 0.7tCO2eq/cap


2.g. South North Dialogue

Quantitative commitment

Qualitative commitment

Financial support

1. Least developed countries

- SD PAMS optional Receive payments

2. Other developing countries

- SD PAMS obligatory, co-funded

Receive payments

3. Rapidly industrializing developing countries

Limitation if funding provided

SD PAMS obligatory, co-funded

Receive high payments

4. Newly industrialized countries

Limitation SD PAMS obligatory

Co-funding

5. Annex I but not Annex II

Absolute reduction

- Low/no payments

6. Annex II Strict absolute reduction

- Make high payments

• Thresholds: CO2/GDP, GHG/cap, emission growth, cumulative emissions, GDP/cap, HDI; show members of the groups

• Adaptation commitment http://www.wupperinst.org/Sites/Projects/rg2/1085.html


2.h. Multistage

• Countries “graduate” into the next steps (based on thresholds emissions/cap, GDP/cap, human development index)

No reduction commitments

(current non-Annex I)

e.g. sustainable development policies and measures

e.g. slowing of emission growth

Absolute reductions (current Annex I)


Towards 450 ppmv CO2 (550 ppmv CO2eq.) in 2020

No commitments



Absolute reductions

Above Non-Annex I average

Above world average

Very few

1.5-4 % p.a.

20 to 25% below BAU

10% below BAU

Source: Höhne, Phylipsen, Ullrich, Blok, 2005: “Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol“ http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/2847.pdf

3. Multistage: A staged future system


3.a. Stages of the multistage system (1-2)Stage 1 – No commitments: Countries with a low level of development do not have climate commitments. At least all least developed countries (LDCs) would be in this stage.

Stage 2 – Enhanced sustainable development: At the next stage, countries commit in a clear way to sustainable development. The environmental objectives are built into the development policies. Such a first ‘soft’ stage would make it easier for new countries to join the regime. Requirements for such a sustainable pathway could be defined, e.g. inefficient equipment is phased out and requirements and certain standards are met for any new equipment or a clear deviation from the current policies depending on the countries.


3.b. Stages of the multistage system (3)

Stage 3 – Moderate absolute target: In this stage, countries commit to a moderate target on absolute emissions. The emission level may be higher than the starting year, but it should be below a reference scenario. The target could also be positively binding, meaning that allowances can be sold, if the target is exceeded. No allowances have to be bought, if the target is not achieved. An incentive to accept such a target would be the possibility to participate in emissions trading.


3.c. Stages of the multistage system (4)

Stage 4 – Absolute reduction target: Countries in stage 4 receive absolute emission reduction targets (like industrialised countries now in the Kyoto Protocol) and have to reduce their absolute emissions substantially until they reach a low per capita level (essentially a fifth stage). How much each individual country has to reduce its emissions can be defined in different ways, e.g. Comparison of International Climate Policy Approaches for Post 2012 converging per capita emissions, based on the Triptych approach or based purely on negotiations. As time progresses, more and more countries enter stage 4.


3.d. Multistage approach: Strength and weaknesses

Strenghts:Gradual phase in of

countries, in line with UNFCCC spirit, taking into account national circumstances

General framework that can accommodate many ideas and satisfy many demands

Allows for gradual decision making

Trust-building as industrialised countries take the lead

Compatible with Kyoto Protocol (reporting and mechanisms)

Weaknesses:Can lead to a complex

system, requires many decisions and allows for exceptions

• Risk that countries enter too late so that some long term stabilisation options are lost

• Incentives needed for countries to participate in a certain stage

Source: Comparison of International Climate Policy Approaches for Post 2012, Niklas Höhne, Ecofys, “KyotoPlus – Papers, “, 2006 Berlin


3.e. Multistage for 450 ppmv CO2

No commitments



Absolute reductions

~3tCO2eq/cap

~4 tCO2eq/cap

~5 tCO2eq/cap

2-5 % per year

20 to 35% below BAU

10 to 15% below BAU


3.f. Possible multi-stage agreementGroup Criterion

(cut-offs are indicative)

Ambition level of commitments

Types of targets

Differen-tiation of targets

A > 9 tCO2-eq/cap

2/3 of Annex I averageAnnex I +

15 to 30% average reduction from 1990

Absolute emission ceilings

Sectoral approach

B 5 - 9 t/capbetween 1/3 and 2/3 of Annex I average

Per capita stabilization

Flexible emission targets (“no lose” or sectoral dynamic)

Individual approach

C < 5 t/cap< 4000 $/cap

Emission limitation efforts

None, but assistance to reduce

N.A.

Source: K. Blok, N. Höhne, A. Torvanger, R. Janzic, 2005: “Towards a Post-2012 Climate Change Regime”, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/id_bps098.PDF


3.g. Paramaters: from the 550 to 400 ppmv case (1)

550 ppmv case: The parameters in this case could have a realistic chance of being acceptable to many countries: Participation in stage 4 (substantial reductions) would be at the current average of industrialised countries, developing countries participate, when they reach the development (emission levels) of industrialised (Annex I) countries.

The second stage (pledge for sustainable development) would require 5% reduction below the reference scenario, the third stage (moderate reductions) would require emission to be 10% to 15% below reference.

The final stage would still be ambitious with 1.5% to 4% reduction per year.


3.h. Paramaters: from the 550 to 400 ppmv case (2)

450 ppmv case: The parameters for this case are already much more stringent and likely to be less agreeable: Participation in stage 4 (substantial reductions) would be at current world average.

The second stage (pledge for sustainable development) would already require emissions to be reduced by 10% to 15% below reference, the third stage (moderate reductions) would require reductions of 30% to 35% below reference.

The final stage would be ambitious with a 4.5% to 5.2% reduction per year.


3.i. Paramaters: from the 550 to 400 ppmv case (3)

450 ppmv case: The parameters needed for this case stretch the Multistage approach to its limits: Participation in stages 2 and 3 has to occur almost immediately for most developing countries. Already in stages 2 and 3 reductions of 20% and 30% to 35%, respectively, have to occur and countries at stage 4 have to reduce emissions drastically with 7.5% to 9% per year.


3.j. Options in a multistage setting

• Annex I: Alternatives to absolute emission reduction targets– Dynamic targets and “price caps”– Sectoral targets / sectoral emission standards– Agreements on technology development

Most of the alternatives are unlikely to be sufficient to reach the 2°C limit

Non-Annex I: incentives for participation– Sectoral targets– “No lose” targets– “Sector crediting mechanisms”– Extended CDM– “Sustainable development policies and

measures”

See also: Höhne and Lahme 2005: “Types of future commitments under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol post 2012”, Briefing paper for WWF


4.a. Delay of emission reductions

Delay of 5 to 10 years after 2010 has significant implications on subsequently necessary emission reductions to meet the same goal

Source: K. Blok, N. Höhne, A. Torvanger, R. Janzic, 2005: “Towards a Post-2012 Climate Change Regime”, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/id_bps098.PDF

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Glo

ba

l CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

(G

tC)

Reference

Delayed 2020

Delayed 2015

Multistage

-2.2%

Maximum annual reduction rate

- 3.6%

>- 10%

> -10%

450 ppmv CO2Reference: Based on SRES A1B scenario

Delayed 2020: Kyoto countries extend their targets to 2020, no action by others

Delayed 2015: Kyoto countries extend their targets to 2015, no action by others

Multistage: All countries reach Kyoto until 2010, followed by ambitious agreement for 2020 for all countries


4.b. Different stabilization levels

• The choice of the stabilization level is important

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

Annex I Non Annex I Annex I Non Annex I Annex I Non Annex I

emis

sio

ns

[% d

iffe

ren

ce f

rom

199

0]

C&C 2050 C&C 2100 Multistage Triptych Reference

400 ppmv CO2 550 ppmv CO2450 ppmv CO2

2020


4.c. Different stabilization levels

• The choice of the stabilization level is important

2050

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

Annex I Non Annex I Annex I Non Annex I Annex I Non Annex I

emis

sio

ns

[% d

iffe

ren

ce f

rom

199

0]

C&C 2050 C&C 2100 Multistage Triptych Reference

400 ppmv CO2 550 ppmv CO2450 ppmv CO2


4.d. Change 1990 to 2020 towards 450 ppm CO2

• Annex I: -10% to –30% below 1990• No participation but also no “hot air”: South Asia and Africa • Deviate from their reference: Latin America, Middle East, East Asia and

Centrally planned Asia

450 ppmv 2020

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

C&CCDCMutistageTriptychReference

450 ppmv 2020

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia


-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

- Kyoto target

Source: Höhne, Phylipsen, Ullrich, Blok, 2005: “Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol“ http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/2847.pdf


4.e. Change 1990 to 2050 towards 450 ppm CO2

• All approaches require drastic reductions• Annex I: -70% to -90% below 1990• Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I -50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

450 ppmv 2050

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


450 ppmv 2050

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia



5.a. Conclusions (1)

The parameters stretched to their limits for the low stabilization levels: 550 ppmv CO2:

– participation of Non-Annex I countries at Annex I average per capita emissions

– 45% renewables and emission-free fossil fuels in the electricity sector by 2050

400 ppmv CO2: – almost immediate participation of many Non-

Annex I countries – emission reductions of more than 5% per

year in the last stage– 85% renewables and emission-free fossil

fuels in the electricity sector by 2050


5.b. Conclusions (2)

• Annex I: the difference in reductions between stabilization targets (400, 450 and 550 ppmv) is larger than the difference between the various approaches aiming at the same stabilization target.

• Only for developing countries that participate under some and do not participate under other approaches, the differences between approaches are large. For those countries the criteria for participation are an important determinant.


5.c. Conclusions (3)

• It seems likely that any future regime will be staged in some form.

• Countries are very diverse. Hence, several types of targets are likely to exist in parallel.

• A staged or parallel setting is the most likely outcome of the sequential decision-making that is currently applied.

• The critical element of the approach is that additional countries participate early enough so that stringent environmental goals can be reached.

• Incentives for such participation (not just thresholds) have to be included into the system.


Relevant contact details for Ecofys & SenterNovem

Dr. Niklas Höhne Zsolt Lengyel

Manager Programme Advisor

Energy and Climate Strategy Energy & Climate Global Cooperation

Ecofys Germany GmbH SenterNovem

Tel: +49 221 270 70 101 Tel: +31 30 214 7829

[email protected] [email protected]

Alyssa Gilbert

International Sector Manager: Governments

Ecofys UK Ltd

T: +44 7867 524 730

E: [email protected]

Sharing the burden: the multistage approach Support of Shaping the Post Kyoto Climate Regime REC Workshop Developed by Ecofys presented by Zsolt Lengyel,

Documents

ppmv convergence

regional environmental

regional environmental

regional environmental

regional environmental

regional environmental

regional environmental

regional environmental