Transcript Considerations on Developing Countries Voluntary Emission

Lessons from Argentina
Voluntary Commitment
Climate of Trust Side Event at COP8
New Delhi - 28/10/02
Daniel Bouille - Osvaldo Girardin
Bariloche Foundation
1
Presentation Outlines
• Retrospective analysis of the
Argentine Voluntary Commitment
• Main elements related to the target
• Current Status of the proposal
• Lessons learned
2
Context
• International
– Increasing pressure on
Non-Annex I countries
to assume compromises
– Specially coming from
the “Umbrella Group”
– Byrd-Hagel
Resolution(7/97)
• Actions must be take in
“key developing
countries”
• Clinton Administration
conditions to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol
• National
• No Alignment
Group/OECD/NAFTA
• Foreign Policy: Alignment
with USA (“relaciones
carnales”)
• Clinton visit to Argentina
(10/1997)
• Bariloche Declaration
– To establish targets for
all countries
– To implement
environmental joint
actions
– To create an specific
3
Office for Joint
Implementation
Target Taxonomy
• General Issues
–
–
–
–
Dynamic
GDP/Agro Activities
Econometric Approach
Past and Future Analysis
• Alternatives
– Absolute Target
– Emission Intensity
– Root Emission Intensity
• Considering
– No Hot Air
• How and Why
– Ep(t)= K *  GDP(t)
• K=(1-) Er (BAU)/ 
GDP(t)
• = 0,1
• K= 151,2
– Emission Intensity
Reduction
• 10% Medium scenario
Tautology?
– Feasibility of Commitment
4
Results
(Thousands Tons of Carbon)
Scenario
Low GDP – Low Agro
Medium GDP – Medium
Agro
High GDP – High Agro
Low GDP – Medium Agro
Low GDP – High Agro
Medium GDP – Low Agro
Medium GDP – High Agro
High GDP – Low Agro
High GDP – Medium Agro
EBAU(t)
95582
105219
RE(t)1
Absolute
-4823 (-5.0%)
4814 (4.6%)
RE(t)2
Intensity
8033 (8.4%)
4635 (4.4%)
RE(t)3
Root
1888 (2.0%)
4854 (4.6%)
122272
96023
102365
104778
111561
115490
115931
21867 (17.9%)
-4382 (-4.6%)
1960 (1.9%)
4373 (4.2%)
11156 (10.0%)
15085 (13.1%)
15526 (13.4%)
-242 (-0.2%)
8475 (8.8%)
14816 (14.5%)
4194 (4.0%)
10976 (9.8%)
-7025 (-6.1%)
-6584 (-5.7%)
11542 (9.4%)
2329 (2.4%)
8671 (8.5%)
4413 (4.2%)
11196 (10.0%)
4759 (4.1%)
5200 (4.5%)
5
Target Justification and Weakness
Justification
(Specially Environmental Authorities)
• Contribution to Kyoto
Protocol Implementation
• Low Competitiveness for
Argentina in CDM
• Access to other Mechanisms
• To look for a “third way”
• Business Opportunities
Weaknesses
(Private Sector, Others Official
Authorities)
• No strategic framework
• No governmental
coordination
• Optimist estimation of
business opportunities
• Implementation barriers
• Political conflicts (G77
and China)
• Optimist estimation of
potential future gains of
being an “USA friend”
6
• Isolated action
Stakeholders Opinion
– In favor: Environmental Secretary Functionaries; Some
NGO´s, Some Multinational Firms
– Not agree: Energy Industry, Industrial Sector, Academic
Groups, Business Sectors, Other Governmental Organisms
(Energy, Industry, Transport, Foreign Affairs).
– Main arguments to disagree: no democratic process, no
local environmental objectives included (co-benefits), no
priority from the national perspective, absence of in deep
analysis of opportunities, in a hurry decision, no sufficient
base studies to assess the consequences, inadequacy of the
type of target itself, additional costs and reduction of
competitiveness, no coherence with regional partners
positions (Mercosur), decision took at the end of the
administration, absence of awareness, no recognition of the
past efforts, absence of an integral analysis and plural
debate,...
7
The Decision Making Process to define
the Target
•
•
•
•
•
Leadership: Environmental Secretary
Ad hoc Commission to define type and level
Public Sector Functionaries Participation
Private Sector as an Advisory Committee
Technical Group to elaborate the type and level
•
•
•
•
Diagnosis
Prospective BAU
Mitigation options
Type and level of the target
• Civil Society Role
8
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Political Framework: “a First World Country”?
International pressure role and Foreign Policy
Significant obstacles and barriers (KP-UNFCCC)
Cooperative and Consensus action?
Ad-hoc proposal, difficult to be use as model
Long term Government Policy needed
Sustainable Development Framework (equilibrium)
Cross Cutting Issue: agreement and consensus
– No consensus at Government level
– Political decision under international pressure as insufficient
– Awareness and Priority to Global Environmental Issues
• Seriousness of the proposal
9
Issues influencing Emission Intensity Level and Evolution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level of GDP, GDP Structure and GDP per capita
Degree of Development
Dynamic of the GDP (growing, stable, decreasing)
Energy supply Structure (by sources)
Energy Consumption Structure (by sectors)
Role of Commercial and Non-Commercial Energy
Energy intensity of dynamic activities
Emission intensity of dynamic activities
Variables that influences dynamic of emission intensity activities
Legal and Regulatory Framework
Behavior of decision makers
Energy prices
Degree of openness of the economy
Deregulation/re-regulation reforms
Demographic Structure and density
Rural/Urban population relation
Country area
Location of energy resources and energy consumption
Income distribution
Social and cultural issues
....
10