Sector specific approaches and action

Background

The Bali Action Plan agrees that Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change will include discussions on “Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions to enhance implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1 (c), of the Convention” para 1 (b) (iv).




Quick summary
The most contentious matter within the larger rubric of mitigation, this is seen by developing countries as a convenient ploy to get sectoral commitments, which will then bind their industries to emission cuts. Norway has suggested continuing negotiations on how to include more sectors and even establish independent legally binding agreements covering some sectors. Australia endorses this, calling for establishing binding actions based on sectoral approaches for developing countries. The EU wants coverage to extend ‘to all sectors’ in ‘countries with high capa­bility’ (read: India, China, Brazil, South Africa). The real politics here lies in the attempts of developed countries to push for global sectoral standards, and use these to dilute its requirements of technology transfer. China clearly warns them not to do so: ‘the aim of cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions is to enhance cooperation between Parties at sectoral level for the purpose of promoting development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of GHG emissions control technologies, practices and processes. Any twist of this understanding or discussion under the AWG-LCA leading to global sectoral standards, benchmarks or emission reduction targets is not acceptable’.

Norway (misc.1)
It is essential that all sectors are covered to limit the increase in global mean temperatures to 2 degree Celsius. To reduce the problem of carbon leakage – from entities moving activities to regions subject to less stringent policies on reducing emissions or no policies at all -- there is a need to target emissions in sectors not covered by the current climate regime.

Norway would like a discussion on how to determine the emission cap in cases of wider coverage/extensive of the sectors. There is also a need to establish rules for continued negotiations on including more sectors and countries and the discussion of the use of transitional periods (conditional or unconditional) for countries partially or fully taking on commitments.

The international aviation and maritime transport sectors represent 5 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. This sector should be included in a new global climate regime and working groups mandated to elaborate proposals on how these sectors can be included and what commitments they should be subject to.

The ‘land use land use change and forestry (LULUCF) is an important sector in developing and developed countries. IPCC estimates that deforestation in developing countries contributes about 20 per cent of global CO2 emissions. Norway wants a better inclusion of LULUCF sector in future commitments.

The technologies of carbon capture and storage (CCS) should be recognized as a key mitigation technology.  

 A summary of positions abstracted from chair’s paper: FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/16

1. On the objective of sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, Parties proposed that such approaches and actions should

(a) Be consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and  respective capabilities (EC and its member States, Japan, MISC.4; Indonesia,  MISC.4/Add.1; Norway, MISC.5) (see also chapter II); 

(b) Enhance implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1 (c), of the Convention (China, MISC.1 and MISC.5; Indonesia, MISC.4 Add.1; G77 and China, Saudi Arabia, sectoral  approaches workshop); 

(c) Contribute to enhancing measurable, reportable and verifiable actions (Indonesia,  MISC.4 Add.1); 

(d) Involve a critical mass of Parties that account for most of the GHG
output from a  particular sector (United States, MISC.1); 

(e) Be nationally driven so that each country decides on how to implement these approaches  and actions (Saudi Arabia, sectoral approaches workshop);

(f) Be compatible with the global carbon market whenever market instruments are  introduced (EC and its member States, MISC.4); 

(g) Prevent carbon leakage and address competitiveness concerns (Norway, MISC.1;  Canada, MISC.1/Add 2); 

(h) Be a complement to national actions (United States , sectoral approaches workshop) for  developed countries (EC and its member States, MISC.4) or to national strategies and  mid-term goals (Indonesia, MISC.4/Add.1); be subordinate, and not additional, to  economy-wide targets under the Kyoto Protocol (Australia, MISC.4/Add.1); 

(i) Not replace national emission reduction targets (Japan, MISC.4; AOSIS, Bangladesh, sectoral approaches workshop) under the Kyoto Protocol/UNFCCC (Norway, MISC.5); not replace legally binding absolute emission reduction targets for all Annex I Parties  (G77 and China, sectoral approaches workshop); 

(j) Not lead to trade sanctions; to the application of single common standards to all countries  (Japan, MISC.4); to global standards or benchmarks (China, MISC.5); to emission targets  (Indonesia, MISC.4/Add.1; China, MISC.5; G77 and China, sectoral approaches workshop), trade barriers, punitive trade measures (China, sectoral approaches  workshop); to standards for developing countries (AOSIS, China, sectoral approaches  workshop); or to unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restriction of access for non- Annex I Parties to international trade (Indonesia, MISC.4/Add.1); 

(k) With regard to emissions from international maritime transport, not make flag countries, or countries that supply fuel, responsible for these emissions (Panama, MISC.5). 

2. On the nature of cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, Parties proposed: 

(a) Strictly focusing on enhancing the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1 (c), of the Convention (China, sectoral approaches workshop); promoting the development,  deployment, diffusion and transfer of technology and enhancing sectoral cooperative  actions (China, MISC.1 and MISC.5; G77 and China, Saudi Arabia, sectoral approaches  workshop); 

(b) Making broad use of sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions: 

  1. Establishing sectoral agreements (Canada, MISC.1/Add.2) or voluntary global sectoral agreements in energy-intensive industries (Turkey, MISC.5); 
  2. Using a sectoral bottom-up approach to set ambitious and feasible national  emission reduction targets for developed countries (Japan, MISC.4 (the  submission identifies steps to establish comparable national emission reduction  targets)); ensuring comparability of efforts using indicators such as energy  efficiency or GHG intensity (Japan, MISC.5);
  3. Using a sectoral bottom-up approach to accelerate mitigation actions in  developing countries (Japan, MISC.4 (the submission identifies steps to assess  deviation from business as usual in major developing countries));
  4. Establishing binding actions based on cooperative sectoral approaches for those Parties without a binding national target (Australia, MISC.4/Add.1); 
  5. Establishing mid-term targets based on national initiatives and measures in various sectors; developing a “sectoral system of national commitments”,  including a set of target parameters of “clean development” subject to international verification (Russian Federation, MISC.5); establishing a “sectoral  system of target quantitative indicators” (Uzbekistan, MISC.1). 

3. On selecting sectors, Parties proposed: 
(a) A comprehensive sectoral coverage (Norway, MISC.5); 

(b) Giving priority to specific sectors (Maldives, MISC.1; Japan, MISC.4 (the submission identifies three categories of sectors)). Priority areas shall be identified sector by sector and technology by technology (China, MISC.5).

4. Sectors mentioned by Parties include

  1. Energy or power generation (Bangladesh, MISC.1; Republic of Korea, sectoral  approaches workshop); coal-fired power generation (Japan, MISC.4 and MISC.5;  AOSIS, sectoral approaches workshop); energy efficiency (India, sectoral  approaches workshop); 
  2. Iron and steel (Japan, MISC.4 and MISC.5; Republic of Korea, sectoral  approaches workshop); 
  3. Cement (Japan, MISC.4 and MISC.5; AOSIS, Republic of Korea, sectoral  approaches workshop); 
  4. Residential/commercial (Japan, MISC.5); 
  5. Aluminium (Japan, MISC.4 and MISC.5; Republic of Korea, sectoral approaches  workshop); 
  6. Transport (Bangladesh, MISC.1); road transport (Japan, MISC.4 and MISC.5;  AOSIS, sectoral approaches workshop); 
  7. Chemical industry (Republic of Korea, sectoral approaches workshop);
  8. Pulp and paper (Republic of Korea, sectoral approaches workshop); 
  9. Forestry (Bangladesh, MISC.1); LULUCF (Japan, MISC.5); 
  10. Agriculture (Japan, New Zealand, MISC.5); 
  11. Waste (Japan, MISC.5). 

5. On the scope of sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, Parties proposed

(a) Adopting approaches and actions that could apply at the national, regional or global levels (EC and its member States, MISC.4); 

(b) Following a domestic focus on economic sectors (as opposed to an “industry” one)  (Argentina, MISC.5); 

(c) Establishing an independent legally binding agreement for some sectors (Norway,  MISC.1 and MISC.5); using sectoral approaches to target emissions that are not included  in national totals (EC and its member States, MISC.4; Australia, MISC.4/Add.1).  Addressing, in particular, emissions from international transport (Norway, MISC.1 and MISC.5; EC and its member States, MISC.4; Australia, MISC.4/Add.1), for example, agreeing on an emission target on total GHG emissions from international shipping and  inviting IMO to develop a legally binding regime (Norway, MISC.2).

6. On concrete sector-specific actions Parties proposed
(a) Increasing technology deployment and enhancing technology research and development  (R&D) in key sectors; enhancing technology cooperation and technology oriented  agreements on a sectoral basis
(China, MISC.1 and MISC.5; EC and its member States,  MISC.4; G77 and China, Saudi Arabia, sectoral approaches workshop)

(b) Promoting the transfer of best practices and best available technologies at the sectoral level (Mongolia, MISC.2/Add. 1; Japan, MISC.4; Indonesia, MISC.4 Add.1);

(c) Implementing domestic sectoral policies (EC and its member States, Japan, MISC.4); 

(d) Addressing emissions from specific sectors through direct regulation-like technical standards (Iceland, Norway, MISC.1), caps (Norway, MISC.1; EC and its member States,  MISC.4) or benchmarks (Iceland, MISC.1; EC and its member States, MISC.4); 

(e) Developing strategies, guidance and programmes for sectors (China, sectoral approaches  workshop);  

(f) Establishing norms on packaging, reuse and recycling, and national non-binding energy efficiency programmes, supported by a fund (India, sectoral approaches workshop); 

(g) Implementing sectoral projects, including pilot ones (Iceland, MISC.1). 

7. On instruments and delivery/support mechanisms, Parties proposed:

  1. Emissions trading on a sectoral basis (EC and its member States, MISC.4);  sectoral crediting mechanisms (Canada, MISC.1/Add.2; EC and its member  States, MISC.4; Japan, MISC.5; Republic of Korea, sectoral approaches  workshop), including ETS (Norway, MISC.5); 
  2. Sectoral no-lose mechanisms (EC and its member States, MISC.4) or targets  (Australia, MISC.2/Add.1); no-lose sectoral crediting baselines (South Africa, MISC.5); 
  3. Programmatic and/or sectoral CDM based on efficiency standards (Republic of  Korea, MISC.2 and sectoral approaches workshop); supplementing the CDM  using benchmarking (Australia, MISC.2/Add.1);
Post a comment
 
  ON THE NEGOTIATING TABLE
  Shared vision
Mitigation
REDD
Sectoral approach
Adaptation
Technology transfer
Finance
  OUR POSITIONS
  Agenda for Poznan pdf
Pressure point pdf
What's on the table pdf
C is for unclean pdf
Just framework pdf
  2009 is full of promise
Sunita Narain, January 1, 2009

I spent a week at the climate change conference in Poznan, and realized the world is in deep trouble and deeper denial.
More
Climate inaction
January 1, 2009
The climate talks in Poznan failed on all counts. The US was found missing in post-election inaction; climate-champion EU was squabbling over the economic pain of taking action; developing countries found themselves talking amongst themselves about what needs to be done to cut emissions.
More
Interview:
It makes perfect sense to integrate the green dimension
January 1, 2009
Guy Ryder, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confedaration, went to Poznan to attend his first UN climate meet. He sees green opportunity in the financial crisis. Pradip Saha caught up with him
More
Press Release
December 04, 2008
CSE charts an agenda for action in Poznan, calls for tough action to reduce emissions and an agreement based on equity
More
 
 
 
  Loaded communication
Hot Air
C for Change
WWW
Abbreviated Future (AF)
 
  Visit our sites
  Centre for Science and Environment
http://www.cseindia.org
  Down To Earth
http://downtoearth.org.in/
  Write to:
  Pradip Saha
psaha@cseindia.org
  Contact info
  Centre for Science and Environment
41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area,
New Delhi. India - 110062
Tel: +91-11 29955124, 6394, 6399
Fax: +91-11 29955870; 29955879
E-mail: cse@cseindia.org