OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES, TARGETS AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

fiacc.net

The website provides also an overview of approaches on how to design a post 2012 commitment scheme. Furthermore, different types of proposed targets are discussed and some additional issues addressed, representing rather crosscutting issues for a future political debate to consider.

The term “Approach” encompasses in principle the conceptual idea of how a post 2012 system can be designed. Currently, a number of such approaches are developed by different organisations. These approaches are briefly summarised in the following section and active researchers are identified. For more information readers should refer to www. .

g Kyoto” or “increasing participation”, often the key features of

ept and only minor Continuing Kyoto: (Research is done, e.g., by WRI and Ecofys). The Kyoto Protocol provides a very flexible structure, which could incorporate many of the approaches described below. For example, the converging per capita emissions or intensity targets could be included in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Essentially, most other approaches could be called “Continuing Kyoto”.

When referring to “Continuin

the Kyoto Protocol are meant, which include:

• Maintaining two groups of countries, Annex I and Non-Annex I, assuming that gradually countries move into Annex I

• Binding absolute emissions reduction targets for Annex I countries for a basket of greenhouse gases

• Flexibility through Kyoto Mechanisms, such as emissions trading (ET), Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development mechanism (CDM)

Some also refer to a "Kyoto Plus" approach, where the main features are k

additional changes are made. Intensity targets instead of absolute targets or other minor adjustments such as "price caps" or only "positively binding targets" can be introduced as an interim measure for some or all developing countries. The critical issue of this approach is to

47 : (Research is done, e.g., by RIVM, HWWA, Ecofys). The “multistage

of yearly global emissions that lead to that

As all countries participate, those countries nvergence to a per capita

nical potential. They are also open to political

ent emissions structures of the countries. It can take into account that emissions from some sectors, e.g.

transport, are difficult to reduce (resulting in a high sector per-capita convergence level), while ensure that Annex I countries commit to sufficiently stringent targets and that some further countries move into Annex I.

Multistage Approach

approach” assumes that countries gradually move through several stages in between Annex I and Non-Annex I countries with respect to increasing stringency, as opposed to the current system of two stages (Annex I and Non-Annex I). This approach would reflect that countries today have different levels of economic development and therefore have different obligations under a future climate treaty.

The starting point for grouping countries is to assess their characteristics and to define, to what stage they best correspond. Usually a country “graduates” into the next stage, when it exceeds a certain threshold expressed in, e.g., emissions per capita or GDP per capita.

Such multistage approaches are developed by a number of organizations. One option would be to define four such stages e.g.:

1. No Commitments Stage, where countries have no binding emission obligations (as the current Non-Annex I)

2. Decarbonisation Stage, where countries will have GHG intensity targets expressed as emissions per GDP

3. Stabilization Stage, where countries stabilize their absolute emissions 4. Reduction Stage, where countries need to reduce their absolute emissions

The critical issue about this approach is to ensure that a sufficient number of countries move to higher stages. Regular review of each country's situation and assessment whether it graduates into the next stage would be necessary.

Contraction and Convergence: (Research is done, e.g., by GCI (The Global Commons Institute), RIVM, ECOFYS). With the “Contraction and Convergence” approach, all countries would agree on a global target of, e.g., 450 ppmv stable concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They would also agree on a path

concentration level (contraction). In a second step, the global emission limit for each year would be shared among all countries, including developing countries, so that per-capita emissions converge by a specific date, e.g. 2050 (convergence). The defined targets for each country can be reviewed and revised when new scientific findings require it.

This approach allows for full emissions trading.

with less allowances than needed (e.g. industrialized countries) can buy allowances from other countries that receive excess allowances (e.g. least developed countries). If stringent stabilization levels such as 450 ppmv CO2 are to be reached, co

emission level below current Non-Annex I average is needed. Consequently, benefits from transfer of resources will be limited to the least developed countries and to the first decades of operation of the system.

This approach has very simple rules. Two major issues need to be negotiated and agreed upon: the target atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the date, at which the entitlements would converge at equal per capita allocations.

Multi-Sector Convergence: (Research is done, e.g., by ECN, CICERO). The “multi-sector convergence” approach applies the principle of converging per-capita emissions to emissions of individual sectors and not on the national level (as the contraction and convergence approach). The convergence level for each sector and the date when convergence should be achieved are defined beforehand based on tech

negotiations. This approach can in principle be applied on a global scale. It can include all greenhouse emissions gases currently covered under the Kyoto Protocol.

The multi-sector convergence approach takes into consideration the differ

48 emissions more than a country with high

Bra ia and RIVM). In the negotiations of the

Kyo P amongs

imp t rature change and to share emission

red

The ap c emissions and attribute

cou change, which is subject to further research (see

n started later.

The pro nex I countries. However, it could

theoreti ries as well.

Triptyc s done, e.g., by Utrecht University, ECOFYS, RIVM). The Trip h share emission allowances among a group of countries, based on sectoral considerations. The approach can theoretically be applied to any group of

fferences in standard of living, in fuel mix for the ion of electricity, in economic structure and the competitiveness of

internationally-orie clude deforestation

and emi

ssions of the sectors are treated differently: For electricity production and industrial ction, a growth in the physical production is assumed together with an improvement in

pro r economic development. For the

‘dom s s into account

the n

The allo llowance for each country.

Only on ets, to allow countries the

flex it ective emission reduction strategy.

The ri ty of Utrecht to share the

emi o Kyoto Protocol within the

Eur

Com i ions: (Research done by Research

Cen of Social Sciences (CASS), China).

mitment to human development with low emissions” approach draws a line between luxury goods of human beings and associated emissions. Having a decent living

stan r tments to

red se gas emissions lies

with t asic needs and thus generate

GHG em Unr o and x

that wo which would not.

emissions in other sectors, e.g. from landfills, are relatively easy to reduce (resulting in low sector per-capita convergence levels). Under the multi-sector convergence approach, a country with high landfill emissions has to reduce

transport emissions.

zil n Proposal: (Research is done, e.g., by IVIG

to rotocol, the Brazilian government suggested a method to share emission reductions t countries. It was proposed to attribute responsibilities to countries according to the of their historical emissions on the surface tempe

ac

uction efforts proportional to their historical contribution.

a complex analysis to identify histori proach requires

ntry's contributions to temperature , www.match-info.net). In general, co

MATCH untries with a longer process of industrialization

and thus a longer record of greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater share of responsibility for emission reductions than countries where industrializatio

posal was originally designed for covering An cally be applied to other count

h Approach: (Research i tyc approach is a method to countries.

The Triptych approach originally distinguished three broad emission sectors: the power sector, the sector of energy-intensive industries and the 'domestic' sectors (e.g. residential and transport emissions). The selection of these sectors was based on a number of differences in national circumstances raised in the negotiations that are relevant to emissions

ission reduction potentials: di and em

generat

nted industries. The approach was later extended to include also in ssions of methane and nitrous oxide.

The emi produ

duction efficiency. This takes into account the need fo

e tic’ sectors, convergence of per-capita emissions is assumed. This take co verging living standard of the countries.

wances of the sectors are added up to a fixed national a e national target per country is proposed, no sectoral targ ibil y to pursue any cost-eff

T ptych approach was originally developed at the Universi ssi n allowances of the first commitment period under the opean Union.

m tment to Human Development with Low Emiss e for Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy tr

The “com basic and

da d and meeting human being basic needs would not result in taking on commi uce greenhouse gases. The problem with anthropogenic greenhou

in he consumption of luxury goods that go beyond the b issions that are not necessary.

lved in thi

es s approach is the line between basic and luxury consumption and thus basic lu ury GHG emissions. In addition, those products and services need to be identified,

uld be acceptable under a decent living standard and

49 Som o

of discu ns, treaties,

the u tation.

In th fo ction 5.2).

ding targets, positively binding

In a it , information is provided on the

web hapter 5):

OF INSTITUTIONS

The pro olders to contact active

inst io cessible on the

eb odically when

comes available:

re (EDRC), South Africa onde (ENDA), Senegal Asi

a s (IGES), Japan

• Government of Japan

Environment Institute, Korea

he Institute for Development (MIND), Sri Lanka ntal Studies (NIES), Japan

Europe

tal System Research, University of Kassel, Germany ntre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels

•

• Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)

• ECOFYS

• Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Italy

e ther issues are listed on the website under “Approaches” that refer to broader topics ssion such as different types of targets, the structure of future negotiatio

eq ity issue and vulnerability and adap

e llowing, different proposed types of targets are discussed (for details see se

• Absolute binding emission reduction targets

• Flexible emission targets (dynamic targets, non-bin targets, dual targets, price caps, sector targets)

• Coordinated policies and measures

• Enhanced coordinated technology RD&D efforts

• Extended CDM

• Sustainable Development First

dd ion to different concept designs and types of targets site on the following crosscutting issues (for details see C

• Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations

• Vulnerability and adaptation

• Equity

• Structure of negotiations 2.4 OVERVIEW

ject team compiled a list of institutions to allow stakeh

itut ns in either guiding processes or developing approaches. The list is ac site as a means to facilitate network operation. The page is updated peri w

new information be Africa

Energy and Development Research Cent Dévelopment du Tiers-M Environement et

a

• Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS)

• Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Japan

• Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India

• Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), PR Chin

• Institute for Global Environmental Studie

• Korea

• Munasing

• National Institute for Environme

• Pelangi, Indonesia

• The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), India

• Centre for Environmen

• Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Germany

• Ce

• Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, (CICERO), Norway

Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Physical Resource Theory, Sweden

Energy Research

50

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Lat

•

•

North A

•

•

•

• ory, USA

• McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University Washington, D.C.

• d Policy of Global Change, USA

nge (PEW), USA

Interna

•

•

•

2.5 INT

Im Dokument Climate Change (Seite 48-52)