Transcript Diapositiva 1 - University of Tokyo

“Mexico and Japan in the New International Agenda:
A Comparative Analysis”
Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Mexico´s
“Green Fund” Proposal
Lisa Antillón K.
Tokyo, Japan, November 20-21, 2008
CLIMATE CHANGE
• 1979- Discussion about climate
change begins in international
forums during World
Conference on Climate Change.
• 2006- United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP)
Fourth Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) states
that “Warming of the climate
system is unequivocal and
“Most of the observed increase
in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is
very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations”
• Annual growth carbon
emissions:
2000- 1%
2006-2.5%
THE WORLD TODAY
• Deserts spreading
• Floods, especially in
Northern latitudes
• Ice melting
• Seas losing their capacity to
absorb carbon emissions
• Plant and animal extinction
at faster rate than ever
THE WORLD 2030-2080
•
•
•
•
Water. Climate change will alter patterns of water availability by intensifying the
water cycle. Droughts, heatwaves and floods will become more severe in many
areas.
Food. Food production will be particularly sensitive to climate change, because
crop yields depend in large part on temperature and rainfall patterns. While
agriculture in higher-latitude developed countries is likely to benefit from
moderate warming (2 –3°C), even small amounts of climate change in regions
closer to the Equator, such as the tropics, ARID AND SEMI ARID REGIONS –where
most of the world´s poor people live- will lead to declines in yield. Declining crop
yields are likely to leave hundreds of millions without the ability to produce or
purchase sufficient food
*Ocean acidification. Adverse effects on marine ecosystems, including fish stocks,
which provide protein for 17% of the world population.
*Environmental refugees. 75% of the poorest people in the world live in rural
areas and rely on agriculture for their livelihood. They will be especially hard hit
by warmer climate. Today, almost as many people are forced to leave their homes
because of environmental disasters and natural resource scarcity as flee political
oppression, religious persecution and ethnic troubles (25 million compared with
27 million).66 Up to 200 million (2% of projected population) people may become
permanently displaced by the middle of the century due to climate change. Will
industrialized countries be willing –and able- to receive them?
THE WORLD 2030-2080
• Health. Changes in the water cycle will affect health, especially in poor
countries. Dehydration, respiratory problems, drowning and waterborne
diseases such as cholera and malaria.
• Sea level rise. Flooding of cities, agricultural lands and small islands.
Fresh water and ground water supplies will be inundated with saltwater.
• Infrastructure. Droughts, flooding and permafrost melting will affect
stability of buildings and infrastructure. Flooding made up to almost 90%
of the total losses from natural catastrophes in 2005.
• Biodiversity. Climate will change too rapidly for many species to adapt.
One study estimates that around 15 – 40% of species face extinction with
2°C of warming in highly biodiverse areas in Mexico, Central and South
America, Asia and Africa. Surge of pests.
1992
UNFCCC
Stabilize anthropogenic
green house gas (GHG)
emissions to a level
that allows ecosystems
to adapt naturally to
climate change and
ensure sustainable
economic
development
•ENCOURAGES DEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES to adopt
measures to ensure a reduction of GGE so that at the end of the
decade they would decrease their emissions to the level they had
in 1990
•Common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities for
all countries
•No measurable goals
1997
Kyoto
Protocol
COMMITS both
developed and
transition economies
to globally reduce GHG
emissions to 5.2% less
than their 1990
emissions between
2008 and 2012.
•COMMITS AND TRANSITION ECONOMIES to cover all expenses
incurred by less developed countries to control GGE, to transfer
technologies and to channel financial resources
•Countries meet their targets through
1. National Measures
2. Market based mechanisms that issue Certificates of
Emissions Reductions (CERs), each equivalent to 1 ton of
carbon:
a) Emissions trading. Annex B countries can trade carbon as
if it were any other commodity.
b) Joint Implementation. Annex B countries can reduce
carbon emissions in other Annex B countries. Cost efficient.
c) Clean Development Mechanism . Annex B countries can
implement emissions reduction projects in developing
countries.
MEXICO, A HIGH EMISSIONS INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT
COUNTRY
Mexico´s ranking worldwide:
• Among the first 25 countries with
greater emissions, GNP and
population of the world
• 13th amongst polluting countries.
• 15th amongst fossil fuel emissions
• 16th for deforestation.
• 93rdon a per capita basis with 6.4
tons (world average is 6.5)
A third of all GHG emissions are
due to environmental destruction.
As a developing country, Mexico is
not obligated to reduce its
emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol.
Mexico Special Program for Climate Change, Public Consultation, p.
25.
Ibid, p. 23
MEXICO´S VULNERABILITY
•
•
•
•
Geography:
Close to the Equator. Deserts and
grasslands encroaching on tropical and
semi tropical landmass, which results
in droughts, erosion, loss of
biodiversity and desertification.
Population distribution:
Mainly in flood-prone valleys, coasts
and large cities, uncontrolled random
settlements close to river basins and
hills.
Governance:
High income inequality
Lack of long-term planning: changes of
land use, construction of inadequate
infrastructure, unsustainable tourism
and population centers
TABASCO FLOODS 2008: A CASE OF VULNERABILITY IN
MEXICO
• 3rd worst natural disaster after
1985 earthquake and the
combined losses from hurricanes
Wilma and Stan (2005)
• 3.8 bn. USD losses
• 29.1% of state GDP
Zapata Martí, Ricardo. Inundaciones en Tabasco. Evaluaciones
Socioeconómicas coordinadas por la CEPAL y CENAPRED
MEXICO IN A WARMER WORLD
•
Up to 40% loss of biodiversity
•
Significant loss of reefs and
mangroves
•
*Important loss of employment
related to agriculture and farming
•
* Drastic reduction of economic
growth
•
* Political instability
•
*Unprecedented migration of
Mexicans and Central Americans to
the United States and Canada
…
•
http://blog.cleveland.com/world_impact/2008/08/large_migrant.jpg
MEXICO IMPLEMENTS NATIONAL POLICIES
Strengthen hits enviro mental institutions
•
Created the Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change in 2007 to
coordinate the Special Program for Climate Change
a) Promote climate change policies within the 2007-2012 National
Development Program and the UNCCC
b) Issues Letters of Approval for Mexican projects that wish to participate
in the Clean Development Mechanism. (p. 29 PECC)
Mexico´s Environmental Objectives…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce GGE
Promote clean technologies and efficiency to generate energy
Promote energy efficiency domestic, agricultural, industrial transportation
Promote adaptation policies to climate change
Ensure equity in access to environmental goods and services
Guarantee the population´s personal and patrimonial security amid climate change
Inter-Ministerial Commission´s main objectives
MEXICO´S INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kyoto Protocol.
As a non-Annex I country, Mexico benefits from the
Clean Development Mechanism, by which developed
countries can buy Certified Emissions Reductions
(CERs), each equivalent to one ton of carbon.
Mexico has a potential to reduce 81 million tons of
CO2/year. According to current market CDM prices,
this could represent more than 480 million euros per
year.
OF a total of 1,078 CDM projects authorized to receive
CERs in 2008 for a total reduction of 216.5 million tons
of CO2/year, 105 projects will take place in Mexico,
with annual emissions of 7.3 million tons of CO2/year.
Mexico has agreement memoranda on CDM with the
Japanese Bank of International Cooperation, Germany,
Austria, Canada, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy,
Netherlands, Portugal and the Japanese Bank of
International Cooperation.
AVERIGUAR CUÁNTOS PROYECTOS SON JAPONESES.
PECC, p. 185.
National Ecology Institute of Mexico
CDM PROJECTS IN MEXICO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residues in pork and beef farms
Methane in sanitary fillings
Residual waters
Windpower
Hydroelectricity
Incinerators,
N2O mitigation in the chemical
industry
• Energy cogeneration and
efficiency
• Fugitive emissions
• Transportation
ADVANTAGES OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL´S 3 MARKET-BASED
MECHANISMS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Has successfully placed a monetary value on carbon emissions reductions
for the first time in history
• National commitments to measuring and reporting ensure transparency
and accountability
• Consequences for non-compliance include suspension
• Investments are complementary to national policies and foreign aid
LIMITATIONS OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL´S 3 MARKET-BASED
MECHANISMS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
•
•
•
•
•
Scope. Financing projects –and not programs, sectors and sub-national entities- has limited
effects
The Global Environment Facility, through its implementing agencies (UN organizations, World
Bank) makes it seem more “assistance-based” than “market-based” and possibly prone to the
World Bank´s conditionality
Concentration. 80% of the Clean Development Mechanism´s projects are concentrated in 6
less developed countries
Baselines. By ensuring that projects are not making up for non-compliance of national
legislation or companies´practices, a perverse mechanism is created by which national and
company regulations have an incentive to be kept at very low standards.
Disproportionately benefits the “Gray Agenda” versus the “Green Agenda”
The Road to Post 2012 Kyoto Commitments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bonn, Germany, May 2006. Must proceed
expeditiously towards agreement on future
commitments for Annex I Parties.
Nairobi, Kenya, November 2006. Decision to focus
in 2007 on analysis of mitigation potentials and
ranges of emission reduction objectives of Annex I
Parties.
Bonn, Germany, May 2007. Discussion of the current
status of scientific understanding and relevant
experience.
Vienna, Austria, August 2007. Adopted conclusions
on the analysis of mitigation potentials and
identification of ranges of emission reduction
objectives of Annex I Parties.
* Bali, Indonesia, December 2007. Strengthen
Convention before and after 2012. Developed
timetable in order to avoid a gap between the first
and second commitment period and effectively
implement UNFCCC in long term.
Bangkok, Thailand, March-April 2008. Workshop on
the means to reach emission reduction targets.
Bonn, Germany, June 2008. Consider the means that
may be available to Annex I Parties to reach their
emission targets and relevant methodological issues.
Poznan, Poland, December 2008. Expected to reach
agreement on plan of action regarding future
commitments; advance on “shared vision” for a new
climate change regime.
* Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009.
Expected to define commitments of the Kyoto
Protocol´s second period beginning in 2012.
MEXICO´S POSITION ON KYOTO AFTER 2012
• Clear actions are required of all
states under the principle “common
but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capacities”.
• Annex I countries must reduce
greenhouse gas emissions between
25 and 40% of their 1990 level by
2020 in order to achieve maximum
historical levels in the next 15 to 20
years.
• Supports the intensive use of
market mechanisms
• Reducing GHG emissions will
require large-scale funding
STRENGTHENING KYOTO BY CREATING
THE WORLD FUND AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE (GREEN FUND)
JUSTIFICATION:
• Mitigation and adaptation to climate change will only reach a relevant scale through
adequate financing
• Would support countries and activities that have not been able to benefit from the Kyoto
Protocol
HOW MUCH SHOULD COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTE?:
General Principles:
1. Polluters Pay
2. Equity. All human beings have a right to benefit from the Earth´s environmental services
3. Efficiency. Economic development must be associated to decreasing GHG emissions
4. Capacity. All countries should face climate change according to their respective capacities.
Indicators:
1. Greenhouse gas emissions
2. Population
3. GNP
GREEN FUND. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
1. INCLUSIVENESS
“MUST EVOLVE FROM WORKING MOSTLY IN HIGH-EMISSIONS DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES TO INCLUDE ALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES”
Argument
• 80% of CDM projects
concentrated in 6 countries
• Since it refers to projects
and not national sectors or
programs, what country
these projects are in is
unimportant.
Counter-Argument
• Easier to monitor a small
number of high-impact
countries
GREEN FUND. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
2. SCOPE OF FINANCING
“MUST EVOLVE FROM PROJECTS TO SECTORS, PROGRAMS AND
SUBNATIONAL ENTITIES”
Argument
• “In order to increase the
impact of CDM,
beneficiaries should include
national sectors, programs
and sub-national entities”
Counter-Argument
• It has been proven that
funding grand development
schemes results in a dilution
of efforts and money, a lack
of transparency and
accountability.
• Projects are easier to
monitor and measure
GREEN FUND. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
3. INDEPENDENCE
“The Fund should be independent and democratic and will not result
in more bureaucracy”
Arguments
•
•
•
•
The Global Environmental Facility (GEF),
an “independent financial entity”,
implements all programs (including CDM)
through UN and World Bank
organizations. Therefore, resources
allocation is influenced by their
“conditionality”.
An independent fund would enable the
““common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capacities”
principle to materialize.
Resources are allocated through a
previously-agreed formula that takes into
account principles and indicators
This is not a Less Developed Countries
Forum
Counter-Arguments
• So far, the GEF´s, UN´s and
World Bank´s performance
in measuring, monitoring
and allocating funds has
been what is expected.
Why risk it?
GREEN FUND. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
5. BASELINE
“Baselines result in a perverse mechanism that promotes legal and practical
immobility ”
Argument
• It is a perverse incentive
because in order for
projects to be approved,
they must prove that they
aren´t substituting for
practices or legislation that
host parties should be
implementing. This keeps
standards low.
Counter-Argument
• True. Countries would
probably have to install
“watchdogs” to monitor
practices and legislation to
make sure not only that
they are progressive, but
that they don´t become
backward. Would that be
expensive?
GREEN FUND. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
6. GREEN AGENDA
“CDM should pay proportionate attention to the Green Agenda”
Argument
•
•
•
•
In order to diminish GHG it is
important to preserve and create
carbon sinks
Out of 1,078 CDM projects, only 1
is for the Green Agenda
(reforestation)
An average 17% of GHG are due to
deforestation and land use changes
(33% in Mexico)
The Green Agenda has a
multiplying effect: prevents
deforestation and land
degradation, conserves water and
crops crops, prevents migration,
political instability, threats to
democracy
Counter-Argument ?????????
GREEN FUND. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
“Strengthening the Green Agenda empowers developing and less
developed countries”
Argument
• Developing countries are
repositories of the world´s forests
and biodiversity, which provide
environmental services (carbon
sinks, water factories) and
contribute to world peace and
stability.
• If these important contributions
were valued, developing
countries could, for once, become
DONORS instead of RECIPIENTS of
aid/investments.
• A more balanced power equation
in the world
Counter-Argument
• To be discussed…
Conclusions
Rethinking the Green Fund
•
•
•
•
The adoption of the Green Fund by the Kyoto Protocol Parties
could become more feasible if:
CDM and JI continue to be project-based. Thus, the Fund
would increase in depth and breadth
All countries should contribute according to the “common but
differentiated responsibilities and capabilities” principle
Least developed and most vulnerable countries should receive
larger funding
The Green Agenda should be equally important as the Grey
Agenda
UNFCC Annex I and Kyoto Protocol Annex B countries
PECC, Ministry of the Environment of Mexico