Support of Shaping the Post Kyoto Climate Regime
Regional Environmental Center
March 5-6, 2009
Szentendre, Hungary
Sectoral Approaches
for post-2012 framework
Yoshinori TANAKA
First Secretary
Mission of Japan to the EU
Contents
Ⅰ．Need to assess global mitigation potential and
Sectoral Approach
Ⅱ．Japan’s Mid-term Target setting
Ⅲ．Fair and comparable commitments by developed
country Parties
Ⅳ．Promotion of mitigation actions ｂｙ developing
country Parties
Ⅵ．Summary
2
Ⅰ．Need to assess global mitigation potential
and Sectoral Approach
• To peak out global emissions in 10-20 years and to achieve
Long-term Goals, it needs to assess global emission reduction
potentials based on the scientific and technical estimates.
• In considering Annex I targets, the vision on how to pave the
way to reduce global emissions by 2050 should be shared.
Business as Usual
Required reduction level
Global
GHG
emissions
Present
Mitigation Potential Estimate
Long-term Goals
Reducing 50%
Emissions by 2050
Peak Out in
10-20 years
Mid-term
2050
3
Sectoral Approaches as methodology to assess
mitigation potential
 Sectoral Approach is useful because it enables countries to…
evaluate efforts in each sector,
identify the vision on how to pave the way to reduce emissions,
promote cooperation through technology transfer and address
leakage issues.
 With limited number of sectors, large share in the global CO2
emissions can be covered.
Source：IEA, “CO2 Emissions from Fuel combustion 1971-2005,” etc.
4
Through analyzing reduction potentials and setting indicators,
Sectoral Approaches
1. helps to compare the developed countries’ targets
2. helps to set MRV mitigation actions (intensity targets) of major
developing countries
3. accelerates global emissions reduction by supporting developing
countries through transfer of technologies and practices
CO2 emission
reduction target
Aggregate
Compare the efforts
Developed
Developed
Country Y
Country X
Residential
Residential
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Major Developing
Countries Z
Infrastructure
Automobiles etc.
Energy policy
Energy policy
MRV actions
(e.g. based on
efficiency
indicators)
Energy policy
coal-fired power generation etc.
Iron and Steel
Cement
Aluminum
International
Cooperative
Actions
e.g. APP, IISI,
IAI and CSI of
WBCSD
5
Mitigation potentials by sector in 2020
(NIES Japan)
mitigation potentials under 100 US$/tCO2 at a 5%/year discount rate
4,000
Fl uoroca rbons (HFCs , PFCs , SF6)
Muni ci pa l s ol i d wa s te (CH4)
Agri cul ture(CH4, N2O)
Fugi tive & Combus tion (CH4, N2O)
Power genera tion (CO2)
Tra s portation (CO2)
Res i dentia l & Commerci a l (CO2)
Indus try (CO2)
GHG reduction potential (MtCO2eq)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

XRW
XAF
ZAF
XLM
BRA
ARG
MEX
RUS
XE10
XE15
USA
CAN
NZL
AUS
XME
XSA
XSE
THA
KOR
IDN
IND
CHN
JPN
0
JPN
CHN
IND
IDN
KOR
THA
XSE
XSA
XME
AUS
NZL
CAN
USA
XE15
XE10
RUS
ARG
BRZ
MEX
XLM
ZAF
XAF
XRW
Japan
China
India
Indonesia
Korea
Thailand
Other South -east Asia
Other South Asia
Middle East
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
USA
Western Europe(15)
Eastern Europe(10)
Russia
Argentine
Brazil
Mexico
Other Latin America
South Africa
Other Africa
Rest of the World
In developed countries, it is important to undertake measures in the industry and
power generation sectors, but potentials in transport, residential and commercial
sectors are also large.
 In China and India with high economic growth, mitigation measures in industry and
power generation sectors are significant. In developing countries, it is also
6
effective to reduce emissions from agriculture and waste sectors.
Regional Emission Reduction Potentials in 2020
Reduction Potentials from Sectoral Technology-frozen Case
Marginal costs
Emission reduction levels
$50-$100/tCO2
12000
$20-$50/tCO2
10000
$0-$20/tCO2
<$0/tCO2
8000
6000
4000
2000
Other
developing
countries
Major
developing
countries
AnnexI &
OECD
India
China
Russia
Japan
EU-27
0
United States
sectoral technology-frozen case [MtCO2/yr]
CO2 emission reduction from
14000
Note: emission
reduction
potentials of CCS
excluded
- There are large potentials for emission reductions at negative costs and relatively lowcosts (<20$/tCO2) in the world regions.
- Reduction potentials of United States at marginal costs of below 20$/tCO2 account for a
large share (33%) of those in Annex I & OECD.
- Reduction potentials of China and India at marginal costs of below 20$/tCO2 account for
a large share (92%) in those of Major developing countries.
7
Ⅱ．Japan’s Ｍｉｄ-ｔｅｒｍ Ｔａｒｇｅｔ setting
 Japan set its Long-term target as 60-80% reduction from the
current level by 2050.
 Japan will set its quantified national Mid-term target by June
2009.
 The Mid-term Target Committee under cabinet office is;
 conducting several global models analysis based on
Sectoral Approaches especially focus on comparability of
efforts among developed countries
 assessing economical impacts by several models
 Members of the committee will place plural targets
temporarily, and offer them to the public as options.
 The government will decide Japan’s Mid-term Target based
on those options. Target will be announced taking into
consideration of the progress of international negotiations and
8
the trend of domestic public opinion.
Emission Reduction of Annex 1 countries in 2020
based on reduction targets
[Billion t-CO2]
20
18
16
GHG emissions in Annex I countries
18.7
1.4
0.4
0.6
1.3
18.0
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.4
14
3.3
Emission reduction targets of major A-I
countries in 2020
(base year)
2.1
15.8 ~ 16.1
US
(-13.8% ~ -15.9%
below 1990)
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.95 - 1.35
0%
(1990)
Other A-I
14.1
EU
-20%
(1990)
Australia
(-25% below 1990)
12
2.1
10
5.2
5.6
Canada
Japan
Russia
Japan
4.5
8
EU25
4
6.1
7.1
United States
6.1
*under consideration
Canada
Australia
2005
*GHG emissions in 2020: based on reduction targets of each country
-5%
(2000)
Other A-I
countries
1990
-20%
(2006)
2
0
+6% ~ -25%
(1990)
Russian
6
n/a
(2005 level in 2020)
n/a
(2005 level in 2020)
2020*
Source: UNFCCC (GHG emissions excluding LULUCF)
- Adding up the emission reduction targets committed by major Annex-I countries (see right table),
the total GHG emissions of Annex-I countries in 2020 will be around 15% below 1990 level.
9
Marginal costs for Annex I countries in 2020
Marginal abatement cost of CO2 [$/tCO2]
300
Japan
250
United States
EU-27
200
Annex I
150
142$/tCO2
Annex I: -25%
(CO2 –20%)
100
87$/tCO2
Annex I: -20%
(CO2 –15%)
Annex I: -15%
(CO2 –11%)
67$/tCO2
50
0
+
-30
+ -20
+ -10
0
-
10
-
20
-
30
-
40
CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion relative to in Y1990 [%]
([CO2 in 2020]-[CO2 in 1990]) / [GHG in 1990]
- Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves are different in each country.
- MAC for Japan is relatively high due to high energy efficiencies of coal power plants and in most of
the energy intensive sectors.
- In the case of equal MAC, 15%, 20%, and 25% reduction compared to 1990 level in Annex-I countries
10
will cost $67, $87, and $142/t-CO2, respectively.
future work at the Mid-term Target Committee
The committee will analyze options for Japan’s target by 2020
 which higher limit is about ＋5% compared to 1990
(or about ±0% compared to 2005)
 which lower limit is about －25% compared to 1990
(or about －30% compared to 2005)
under following 6 cases.
cf ; above figures include neither carbon sink nor CDM.
 Case1: the equipments and facilities were improved
efficiency as an extension of existing technology and
replaced at their life period
［＋6% compared to 1990 or －5% compared to 2005］
 Case2: Equal Marginal Abatement Costs(MAC) for targets
announced by other developed countries
［equal MAC for EU－20% (if it’s 1/3 would be achieved by CDM):
±0～＋7% compared to 1990 or 11～－5% compared to 2005］
［equal MAC for US±0% :
－2～＋7% compared to 1990 or －13～－5% compared to 2005］ 11
 Case3: maximum introduction of most advanced technology
which would be achievable by voluntary measures
［－4% compared to 1990 or －14% compared to 2005］
 Case4:－25% compared to 1990 by total advanced countries
and each developed countries would do equal efforts
①equal Marginal Abatement Costs for each developed countries
［－12～－1％ compared to 1990 or －22%～－12% compared to 2005］
②equal costs per GDP for reduction measures for each
developed countries
［－17～－16% compared to 1990 or －27～－26 compared to 2005］
③-25% compared to 1990 for Japan’s targets (as well as other
developed countries)
［－25% compared to 1990 or －30% compared to 2005 for all GHG
reduction］
cf ; The figures in brackets represent tentative estimates as presented at Mid-Term target
Committee on January 23rd. These estimates will be updated.
(energy-related CO2 of 2020－energy-related CO2 of 1990)／GHG of 1990
or
(energy-related CO2 of 2020－energy-related CO2 of 2005)／GHG of 2005
12
Ⅲ．Fair and comparable commitments
by developed country Parties
● a quantified national emission reduction commitment of each developed
country Party should be indicated as the total volume of its GHG emissions
along with reduction rates from plural base years to understand each Party’s
mitigation efforts in a more appropriate way.
Quantified emission
reduction reduction reduction reduction
party limitation and reduction rates from rates from rates from rates from
commitment (Gg-CO2e) 1990(%)
2000(%)
2005(%)
2007(%)
A
B
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
●Commitments: to be set in a manner which ensures comparability based on
analysis on mitigation potentials
 indicators: sectoral energy efficiency and GHG intensity
 due consideration to
 the marginal abatement costs
 total abatement costs as percentage of GDP
●Adequancy of commitments: to be evaluated with regard to domestic
mitigation efforts, separately from mitigation by utilizing flexibility mechanisms.
13
 Reduction target of each developed country should be set on the basis
of each country to ensures comparability of its mitigation efforts of each
country.
(Countries may, individually or jointly, fulfill their agreed reduction targets.)
14
●
Ⅳ．Promotion of mitigation actions ｂｙ
developing country Parties
develop its voluntary national action plan including policies and measures.
major developing country Parties:
 ensure that
• economy-wide GHG emissions or energy consumption per GDP
• GHG emissions or energy consumption per unit in major sectors
from 2013 to 20XX do not exceed their respective assigned amount.
Iron and Steal Cement
party kg-CO2e/
kg-CO2e/
ton-crude steel ton cement or
MJ/t-clinker
A
B
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Aluminum Power
generation
kg-CO2e/
ton-primary
aluminum
xxx
xxx
Road
transport
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
 provide a prospect of total volume of its emissions as a reference.
 are verified their MRV data and information by Experts.
15
Sectoral Crediting Mechanism for major developing countries
 Specify the figures “GHG emissions per unit” or “energy
consumption per unit” in major sectors (e.g. power
generation, iron and steel, cement, aluminum) .
In order to reduce uncertainties of the projection as much as
possible, intensity should be used as a target in principle.
 major developing countries should be obliged to achieve
intensity targets and the nature of targets should be binding.
 DCs will receive credits in case they achieve a higher
efficiency than their targets.
16
Establishment of an Advisory Group for Sectoral Technology
Cooperation (AGSTC)
AGSTC can contribute to both transfer and development of the key
technologies.
– Consists of representatives of industrial community and experts (IEA,
etc) by each sector
– Analyze the current situation of development and transfer of the
technologies by each sector.
• For development: government R&D budget, international
roadmaps for key tech., latest development outcomes,
international cooperation activities
• For transfer: the BAT, the BP, reduction potentials, barriers and
solutions
– Formulate advice for further actions by each sector based on the
analysis
– Regularly report on outcomes to the COP/equivalent body
APP or other
regional or
sectoral P-P
partnership
Global
Industrial initiative
WSA, IAI,
WBCSD
COP
•AGSTC
 Power generation
 Iron and Steel
 Cement
SBI
SBSTA
 Aluminum
 Transport
etc.
Ⅵ．Summary
1. In order to achieve a global long-term goal, it is necessary to assess
global mitigation potentials, taking into account emission reduction
opportunities and mitigation costs.
2. Comparability of efforts among all developed country Parties should
be ensured with indicators such as GHG/energy intensity, marginal
abatement costs and total abatement costs as percentage of GDP.
3. Sectoral approaches can support national efforts of developing
countries through identifying BAT/BP and promoting effective
transfer of them through analyzing reduction potentials.
4. Japan, jointly with the EC and Poland, will hold an international
workshop on mitigation potentials, comparability of efforts and
sectoral approaches on 23-25th March before the AWGs in Bonn
and it is expected to discuss mitigation potentials and indicators for
ensuring comparability of efforts among developed country Parties.
18