|
|
|
|
Index | Editor's note | Interviews | Discussion Platform | Project analysis | Downloads |
- go back -
Stakeholder Views on Future Climate Change Mitigation Efforts
This article summarises the main strategies and approaches under discussion for future mitigation efforts and investigates what (continued) role existing instruments (i.e. the project-based mechanisms) could play, which negotiation forums and mitigation approaches might be used and whether different systems may be linked.
These issues are elaborated on based on preliminary results of a stakeholder survey conducted by EcoSecurities and supported by Oxford Climate Policy, during the first quarter of 2007. About 100 stakeholders have been approached (of which 50% has responded to date) on their views and expectations, ranging from climate policy experts, NGOs, policy makers and the private sector. A more detailed analysis of the survey results will follow later this year in the context of the UNFCCC SBSTA/SBI meetings and Carbon Expo in May.
Different proposals for a post-Kyoto regime have been published and discussed. The strategies and approaches can be summarised in quantified emission reduction targets with emission trading and non-target based approaches, which articulate different types of commitments. Binding emission targets can be based on the continuation of the currently adopted Kyoto-style absolute emission targets or based on flexible types of emission targets (e.g., dual targets, dynamic targets, positively binding targets, price caps, etc.). The main non-target based approaches proposed include technology development and transfers, sectoral (i.e. intensity based instead) agreements, policy based approaches, equity and development, as well as financial measures.
90% of stakeholders interviewed support the continuation or expansion of absolute and binding emission reduction targets as it has been designed under the Kyoto Protocol. 37% of respondents that favour such a future climate policy framework support a mixed approach, i.e. shaping a consecutive climate change regime, so that a target based approach exists parallel to voluntary or non-emission reduction target based approaches in order to involve as many participants as possible to reach the ultimate goal of the Convention.
The absence of a clear perspective on what kind of international climate regime will be in place post-2012 already represents a set of uncertainties for policy makers, different industrial sectors and most importantly, for the carbon-finance sector. 15% of all interviewees highlight the necessity to find any kind of agreement(s) whereas almost 20% voted for the importance of a simple and efficient system or to achieve the overall goal of mitigating emissions no matter how this is achieved.
The lack of clear guidance on the role of the CDM post-2012, for example, is already affecting related investment decisions, e.g., certain project types are preferred due to their short term carbon credit gains. 38% out of the 90% respondents in favour of binding targets with a continued role for the KP flexibility mechanisms emphasise the need for reform of the CDM. In addition to almost half of all interviewed stakeholders wishing sectoral elements, almost a quarter of all interviewees highlighted the need for streamlined and simplified procedures and 17% of all respondents the need for considering sustainability aspects.
Some support the idea of a multi-dimensional approach. Negotiation and implementation of future climate policy regimes with mitigation and adaptation efforts in different arenas and with different actions taking place under different frameworks, is already happening and gaining support among those that see no other way to effectively address climate change mitigation timely. Technology (transfer) based approaches are seen to play a more important role (favoured by 64% of all respondents) compared to sectoral agreements, which are seen as a possibility as well and deemed important by half of the interviewed stakeholders.
More than 60% of the respondents see the UNFCCC still as the major negotiation forum, although a third of respondents believe negotiations should take place in forums outside the UNFCCC (8%), or others influencing the UNFCCC (17%) or wish to see the G8 or G8+5 as a (future) major driver (6%). Asked about the reality of where negotiations and potentially major decisions are being made and subsequently being conveyed into the climate policy community the picture changes slightly.
Less than half of the respondents see the UNFCCC and its negotiation and decision-making bodies as the major forum (45%) whereas almost a third (29%) sees forums outside the UNFCCC as the major negotiation and decision-making circles influencing the UNFCCC. A mere 4% regard the G8/G8+5 or forums completely outside the UNFCCC as major drivers on this theme. Almost half of all interviewees see the emergence of parallel climate regimes (e.g. Asia-Pacific Partnership and other voluntary or non-binding initiatives) as desirable and acknowledge their increasing importance and role with respect to addressing climate change.
The emergence of national and sub-national emission trading schemes has raised the issue of linking those schemes to achieve more ambitious and balanced efforts for GHG emission reductions whilst also promoting economic efficiency through the use of similar instruments and a common currency. 80% of all participants in the survey consider linking of other (sub)national or regional trading systems with the EU ETS as desirable and almost half (46%) could see a role for project-based mechanisms, such as the CDM. This would certainly have technical and legal consequences to be solved due to the EU ETS being based on a compliance system with binding targets, whereas some of the other trading systems only share certain elements with the EU ETS, i.e. flexibility or offsetting mechanisms.
For project developers or suppliers as well as buyers of carbon credits , the survey results reflect three important messages:
the majority supports a continuation of Kyoto-style absolute emission targets;
the CDM is seen as a crucial element of such a continuation of an emissions reduction scheme with binding targets; and
two thirds of all interviewees believe there will be no gap between the completion of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and a second commitment period or another future climate change regime.
It will be interesting to see whether at all and how the international climate community (i.e under the UNFCCC umbrella), will respond or rather incorporate the various other, alternative mitigation routes that have emerged or emerge, be they voluntary or of other non-binding nature with respect to emission reductions.
For more information, please contact:
Mr Robert Tippmann
Ecosecurities
robert@ecosecurities.com
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue December 2006
CFL Projects under the CDM?
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue October 2006
Dutch Advisory Council Favours Security Council for Climate
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue April 2006
Mr Esteve Corbera on AIJ Forestry Evaluation and Implications for CDM A/R Projects
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue December 2005
Mr Axel Michaelowa and Mrs Katharina Michaelowa on Sustainable Development and the CDM
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue October 2005
Mr Jusen Asuka and Mr Tadashi Okimura on the Quality and Price of Carbon Credits
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue July 2005
Mr John O. Niles on the CCB Standards
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue April 2005
Mr Jason Anderson on Efficiency Standards
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue December 2004
Mr Wytze van der Gaast and Mr Joris Laseur on Unilateral CDM
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue October 2004
Mr Donald Goldberg and Mr Kevin Baumert on Action Targets
Mr Andreas Oberheitmann and Mr Manuel Frondel on CDM in China
Discussion Platform in previous JIQ Issues
...not yet available...
|
|
|
