National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Scenarios Learning from Experiences in Developing Countries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Scenarios Learning from Experiences in Developing Countries A report by the Danish Energy Agency, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the UNEP Risø Centre, based on contributions from experts in Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam 2 Foreword Successful policy-making hinges on robust analysis of expected future developments. Planning for climate change policy is no exception: understanding likely future trends in greenhouse-gas emissions is important not only for domestic policy-making but also for informing coun- tries’ positions in international negotiations on climate change. To this end, many countries have developed scenarios describing plausible future trends in emissions. Generally, the most important among these scenarios is the baseline or business-as-usual scenario, which aims to characterise future emissions on the assumption that no new climate change policies will be adopted. Greenhouse gases are emitted as a result of many different types of economic activity. As a result, prepar- ing emissions scenarios involves making decisions and assumptions concerning many different underlying drivers of emissions, ranging from political factors to the type of modelling tools used. Such decisions are often governed by constraints on resources, including skills, information and funding. Naturally, these constraints, and how they affect climate change policy-making, vary from country to country. National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Scenarios: Learning from Experiences in Developing Countries 3 It is not surprising, therefore, that existing approaches While perhaps desirable from the point of view of the to developing national baseline scenarios are highly international climate change regime, the establishment of disparate. Yet this diversity is increasingly at odds with universally-applicable guidelines for developing baseline developments in the international negotiations under scenarios is likely to be technically difficult and politically the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate challenging. Given these constraints, this report aims Change. Since 2011, emissions reduction pledges put rather to contribute to a better understanding of the forward by Parties are formally recognised under the issues and challenges involved in drawing up baseline Convention. Some Parties have pledged quantified emis- scenarios, by documenting and drawing lessons from the sions reductions and actions for 2020 relative to their breadth of existing practices in a range of countries. This baseline scenario. This means that the expected mag- existing diversity is both a key asset for gradually increas- nitude of the overall global mitigation effort and, hence, ing the robustness of baseline scenarios, but also the the likelihood of achieving the agreed goal of limiting reason for a lack of comparability. We hope that this work global warming to 2°C, depends in part on the way those shows the value of improving transparency in baseline baseline scenarios are calculated. Consequently, improv- scenarios and we invite governments and other stake- ing international understanding of those scenarios and holders to continue to share experiences in this area. achieving a minimum level of comparability is important. Kristian Møller Simon Upton John Christensen Deputy Director General, Director, OECD Head, UNEP Risø Centre Danish Energy Agency Environment Directorate 4 Acknowledgements This publication has been made possible thanks to signifi- cant in-kind contributions from experts in ten developing countries – Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam – who were willing to share their experiences in establishing national baseline emissions scenarios at seminars and workshops and by writing up the reports included in Part 2 of this publication. Sincere thanks go to the authors of the country contributions: • Brazil: Emilio Lèbre La Rovere (Professor, Energy and • Kenya: Fatuma M. Hussein (Ministry of Environment Environmental Planning, at COPPE/UFRJ - Institute and Mineral Resources). of Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering, • Mexico: Lucía Cortina Correa and Iliana Cárdenes Federal University of Rio de Janeiro). (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, • China: Liu Qiang and Jiang Kejun (Energy Research Semarnat). Institute, ERI, National Development and Reform • South Africa: Thapelo Letete, Harald Winkler, Bruno Commission). Merven, Alison Hughes and Andrew Marquard • Ethiopia: Wondwossen Sintayehu (Energy Research Centre, ERC, University of Cape Wondemagegnehu (Environmental Protection Town). Agency). • Thailand: Chaiwat Muncharoen (Thailand Greenhouse • India: Atul Kumar and Ritu Mathur (The Energy and Gas Management Organisation). Resources Institute, TERI). • Vietnam: Tran Thuc, Huynh Thi Lan Huong and Dao • Indonesia: Syamsidar Thamrin (National Planning Minh Trang (Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Agency, Bappenas). Environment in Vietnam). National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Scenarios: Learning from Experiences in Developing Countries 5 We would also like to thank Liz Stanton (formerly Copyright © 2013: The Danish Energy Agency (DEA), Stockholm Environment Institute, now Synapse Energy) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and who contributed at different stages of the publication Development (OECD) and the UNEP Risø Centre (URC). process. Further, we are very grateful for the valuable comments received from the following reviewers: Alexa This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part Kleystueber (Chile Ministry of Environment); Marta and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes Torres Gunfaus (ERC, University of Cape Town and without special permission from the copyright holder, Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios [MAPS] project); provided acknowledgement of the source is made. DEA, Kiyoto Tanabe (Institute for Global Environmental OECD and URC would appreciate receiving a copy of any Strategies, Japan); Jane Ellis (the Organisation for publication that uses this publication as a source. No use Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD); Katia of this publication may be made for sale or for any other Simeonova, Sylvie Marchand and Babara Muik (United commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in writing from DEA, OECD and URC. UNFCCC); Charlie Heaps (Stockholm Environment Institute); Christa Clapp (Thomson Reuters Point Disclaimer Carbon); Todd Ngara and Jørgen Fenhann (UNEP The designations employed and the presentation of the Risø Centre); and Kelly Levin, David Rich and Jared material in this publication do not imply the expression of Finnegan (World Resources Institute). Reviewers com- any opinion whatsoever on the part of DEA, URC, OECD mented on the draft report in their respective personal ca- or OECD member countries concerning the legal status pacities. Trevor Morgan (Menecon Consulting) reviewed of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, and edited the final draft of Part 1 of the report. Language or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or bounda- revisions in Part 2 of the report were made by Josephine ries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily Baschiribod. represent the decision or the stated policy of DEA, URC, OECD or any OECD member country, nor does citing Jacob Krog Søbygaard, Peter Larsen, Sixten Rygner of trade names or commercial processes constitute Holm and Ulla Blatt Bendtsen (all Danish Energy endorsement. Agency), Andrew Prag (OECD) and Daniel Puig (UNEP Risø Centre) wrote Part 1 of this report. The Danish ISBN (printed version): 978-87-7844-989-4 Energy Agency, the OECD and the UNEP Risø Centre ISBN (online version): www 978-87-7844-987-0 provided financial and in-kind contributions for this work. April 2013 Contact e-mail address: [email protected] 6 Table of Contents Foreword .......................................................................2 Acknowledgements .......................................................4 Key terminology .............................................................8 Acronyms ......................................................................9 Main findings ...............................................................10 Part 1: Synthesis report Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................14 Chapter 4: Data management ...................................38 Role of baseline scenarios ...........................................16 Emissions inventories ..................................................38 Relevant existing literature ...........................................17 Socio-economic data and emissions factors ................40 Related initiatives .........................................................17 Institutional arrangements Structure of the report .................................................17 and capacity constraints ..............................................42 Chapter 2: Model choice and use .............................18 Chapter 5: Transparency and inclusiveness Types of models .........................................................18 in developing baseline scenarios .........................44 Existing versus purpose-made models ........................22 Stakeholder involvement ..............................................45 Land-use sector emissions modelling ..........................23