Climate change mitigation in emerging economies: From potentials to actions Side event COP 19 19 November 2013

Florian Mersmann, Wuppertal Institute

Marion Vieweg, Climate Analytics

Hanna Fekete, Ecofys

Research questions and approach

1st report:

>How ambitious are the pledges of the different emerging economies?

> Pledges compared to recent trends (BAU)

> Pledges compared to mitigation potential

> Pledges compared to comparable efforts based on equity principles

>How do the pledges and mitigation potential relate to the global

emissions pathway needed to limit global temperature increase to 2°C?

Current report:

>How well are countries set up to tap identified mitigation potentials and

thus achieve their pledges?

> Institutionally

> In defining low carbon strategies

> In implementing NAMAs and other policies and measures

>Which barriers exist to fully tap potentials and where can international

support help to overcome these?

Institutional set-up for climate change

> GHG mitigation recognised as cross-cutting issue

> Main responsibles: Environment ministries, involvement of

relevant sector ministries

> Set-ups vary in:

– Role of high-level government: hierarchy

– Intuitional bodies for policy coordination

– Stakeholder involvement: Regional governments, experts, civil

society, businesses etc.

– Oversight and ownership of responsibilities

Institutional set-up for climate change: South Africa

Strategies for GHG mitigation

> All six countries have developed strategies that are related to

climate change mitigation, although they are not necessarily

labelled as ‘low carbon’ strategies

> Very different approaches to strategy development in the

analysed countries - from inclusive stakeholder processes to top

down processes

> Different levels of embedding of strategies in ‘mainstream’

development and growth strategies

> Most countries have integrated mitigation and adaptation

strategies with varying focus

> Mitigation strategies largely address those areas with the largest

potentials - with some gaps

Policies and actions for GHG mitigation

> Translation of strategies into concrete policies and actions is at

very different stages in the six countries

– Often individual sectors are more advanced, mostly the ones

with the largest potentials

– Effectiveness of activities can often not yet be evaluated

because policies are still under development or have just been

implemented

> Some of the countries are frontrunners in various fields

– Mexico: implementation of the first financed NAMA

– Brazil: National funds for climate action

– China + South Korea: establishment of emissions trading

systems

Example - Mexico

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Efficiency of pow

er plants

Decrease of distribution losses

Com

bined heat and pow

er in energy supply

Carbon capture and storage in energy supply

Fuel switch to other fossils in energy supply

Increase use of nuclear energy

Non-bio renew

ables in energy supply

Use of sustainable bioenergy in energy suppy

Decrease of fugitive em

issions from

oil and gas

Energy efficiency of processes

Alternative production routes

Carbon capture and storage in industry

Use of sustainable biofuel in industry

Fuel switch to other fossil fuels in industry

Reduction of non-CO2 process emissions

Reductions of emissions from

waste and

wastewater

Integrated urban planning

Modal shift

Efficiency improvements in transport

Fuel switch in transport

Low energy housing

Efficiency of appliances

Use of sustainable biofuels in buildings

Re-/afforestation

Decrease deforestation

Reduction of non-CO2 em

issions from

livestock

Reduction of non-CO2 em

issions from

agricultural

soils

Reduction in MtCO2e/a in 2020

Low end of potential High end of potential

Focus of NAMAs

Focus of policies and measures

Remaining barriers to effective mitigation

> Example: Energy efficiency of industrial processes in China

Potential in

2020

MtCO2e/a*

Coverage as

priority in

national strategy

and targets

Policies to tap

potential

Remaining

barriers

Opportunities

for

international

support

120 - 570

Focus in FYP, Climate action plan of the industrial field

- Top-1 000/ TOP-10 000 programme, - Closure of small, inefficient plants

- Top-down setting of targets - Lack of enforcement - Lack of capacity and access to capital especially in small companies

Sharing of best-practice regarding benchmarking in industry

Identified challenges

> Broad dissemination of knowledge on mitigation opportunities

– Creation of knowledge on opportunities

– Enabling finance solutions

– Integration in other planning

– Enabling technology solutions adapted to local circumstances

> Improvement of quality and availability of technologies

– Provision of attractive alternative to conventional patterns

– Insurance of environmental integrity

> Closer cooperation of sectors and of government levels

– Coherent and comprehensive implementation of high level

targets

– Synergies in planning, implementing and monitoring projects

Where can international support help?

> Targeted expert training, knowledge networks and information

clearing houses

> Support of tailor-made solutions and learning from good practice

> Financial instruments to decrease risk

> Strengthening of UNFCCC institutions for technology, finance and

capacity

Key conclusions from qualitative analysis

> All countries have built up institutional capacity and

coordination as well as MRV expertise over the last years

> All countries have defined strategies for low carbon development,

although the level of implementation varies between

countries, but also within countries between sectors

> Countries share a clear deficit in broad dissemination of

information especially in sectors where a large number of

stakeholders need to be involved

Brazil China India Mexico South Africa South Korea

Forestry sector

implementation

well advanced

but recent

changes make

outlook

difficult.

Frontrunner in

establishing

national funds.

Strategies and

actions are well

advanced,

coherent and

tackle relevant

sectors. Further

dissemination

of knowledge

and awareness

needed

Ambitious

strategies for

renewable

energies.

Additional

human

resources could

support

stronger

implementation

Examplatory

comprehensive

institutional

and strategic

setup.

Past

implementation

slow but further

action is under

preparation.

Ambitious

political

framework, but

implementation

lagging.

Carbon tax

under

development

Strong top-down approach by former administration, commitment of current administration not yet clear. Ambitious ETS design, but not yet finalised

Thank you for your attention!

Contacts

Hanna Fekete, h.fekete@ecofys.com

Florian Mersmann, florian.mersmann@wupperinst.org

Marion Vieweg, marion.vieweg@climateanalytics.org

Full reports are available online

Emerging economies - potentials, pledges and fair shares of

greenhouse gas reduction, April 2012:

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/emerging-

economies-potentials-pledges-fair-shares

Climate change mitigation in emerging economies: From potentials

to actions, November 2013:

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/climate-change-

mitigation-in-emerging-economies

Key conclusions from pledge and potential analysis

> Immediate action is necessary by both developed and

emerging economies: With every year delay in action, the

reduction potential by 2020 diminishes

> Support from developed countries is needed: For some

countries, the mitigation potential goes significantly beyond what

the results of various effort sharing approaches imply

> Data availability is low and uncertainty is high making it

difficult to evaluate and compare countries.

Brazil China India Mexico South Africa South Korea

Level of

ambition of

pledge unclear

due to high

uncertainty of

BAU and

underlying

assumptions on

forestry

Pledge less

ambitious than

some effort

sharing

approaches;

likely to be

overachieved

with national

policies

Pledge close to

BAU but in line

with effort

sharing

approaches;

likely to be

overachieved

Pledge

ambitious

against

potential and

effort sharing

approaches

Pledge

ambitious

against

potential and

effort sharing

approaches,

but uncertainty

range limits

evaluation

Pledge ambitious against most effort sharing approaches; limited information on potential