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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 3
1.a. Climate stabilisation
Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 4
1.b. Risk of overshooting 2°C
Source: IPCC AR4, Synthesis Report
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 5
1.c. Emission reduction efforts
Source: IPCC AR4, Workong Group III, Chapter 13, Box 13.7
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 6
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 7
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)
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 8
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 9
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 10
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 11
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)
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 12
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 13
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 14
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)
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 15
Towards 450 ppmv CO2 (550 ppmv CO2eq.) in 2020
No commitments
e.g. sustainable development policies and measures
e.g. slowing of emission growth
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 16
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 17
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 18
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 19
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 20
3.e. Multistage for 450 ppmv CO2
No commitments
e.g. sustainable development policies and measures
e.g. slowing of emission growth
Absolute reductions
~3tCO2eq/cap
~4 tCO2eq/cap
~5 tCO2eq/cap
2-5 % per year
20 to 35% below BAU
10 to 15% below BAU
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 21
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 22
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 23
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 24
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 25
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 26
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 27
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 28
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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 29
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
C&CCDCMutistageTriptychReference
-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
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 30
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
C&CCDCMutistageTriptychReference
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
C&CCDCMutistageTriptychReference
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 31
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 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 32
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 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 33
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.
5 March 2009, Szentendre, The Regional Environmental Center 34
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