Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Contribution to Periodical (66)
- Report (46)
- Working Paper (44)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (26)
- Part of a Book (5)
- Conference Object (3)
Division
Dieser Bericht ist das Resultat eines Diskussionsprozesses mehrerer Akteursgruppen zum Thema "Senken und CDM/JI", durchgeführt vom Wuppertal Institut vom September 2002 bis Juni 2003. Der Prozess wurde vom Bundesumweltministerium in Auftrag gegeben und hatte das Ziel, die nationale Debatte um Senken-Projekte zu strukturieren und so eine verbesserte politische Entscheidungsfindung zu ermöglichen. Dringend nötig wurde dies, nachdem sowohl auf nationaler, als auch auf europäischer und internationaler Ebene politische Entscheidungen ausstanden. Die Debatte hat unterschiedliche Aspekte: Zum einen besteht die Sorge, dass Senken-Projekte die wahren Ursachen des Klimawandels verschleiern könnten, zum anderen wird argumentiert, dass die Sequestrierung von Kohlenstoffdioxid nicht gleichwertig zu einer Emissionsreduzierung ist. Hinzu kommt das Problem ihrer Quantifizierung. Die Befürworter entgegnen, dass diese Probleme beispielsweise mit Hilfe des TCER-Ansatzes behoben werden können. Zusätzlich werden die sozio-ökonomischen und ökologischen Nebeneffekte von Senken-Projekten diskutiert.
CDM-Projekte ohne CDM?
(2004)
CDM-Projekte : neue Wege für die entwicklungspolitische Arbeit lokaler Initiativen in Deutschland?
(2004)
COP 10 vervollständigt CDM, bringt aber keine neue Bewegung in die internationale Klimapolitik
(2005)
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 1) took place from 28 November to 10 December 2005 in Montreal, in conjunction with the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 11). This meeting signifies a successful start into a new era of international climate policy: The Kyoto Protocol, which in the past had been sometimes declared as being dead, has become operational.
The challenges of the meeting were framed along the "Three Is", Implementation, Improvement and Innovation. The first challenge (Implementation) entailed in particular the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords, the agreements reached at COP 7 in Marrakesh that set out the detailed rules for making the Kyoto Protocol operational. The second challenge (Improvement) referred to improving the work of the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol in the near future. The third and most important challenge (Innovation) referred to the further evolution of the regime.
This article by Bettina Wittneben, Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott und Bernd Brouns provides an account of the main developments in Montreal along the lines of the "Three Is". The paper concludes with an assessment and outlook on international climate policy.
Addressing opportunities and challenges of a sectoral approach to the Clean Development Mechanism
(2005)
There is an extensive potential for GHG emission reductions in the new EU member states and the EU accession countries by improving energy efficiency, investing in renewable energy supply and other measures, part of which could be tapped by JI. However, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and especially the recently adopted "Linking Directive" is probably going to have a significant impact on this JI potential. Especially two provisions are important:
The baseline of a project has to be based on the acquis communautaire, the environmental regulations of which are substantially higher than the Accession Countries' existing ones. Projects, which directly or indirectly reduce emissions from installations falling within the scope of the EU ETS, can only generate certificates if an equal number of EU allowances are cancelled. JI is thus put into direct competition with the EU ETS. In this paper we analyse the impact of these provisions first in theory and then country by country for six Central and East European countries that recently acceded the EU or are candidates for accession. As a result, we give an overview of the potential and the limitations of JI as an instrument for achieving emission reductions in the selected Accession Countries and provide important overview information to policy makers.
Vom 28. November bis 10. Dezember 2005 fand im kanadischen Montreal die 11. Klimakonferenz (COP 11) statt. Doch diesmal kamen nicht nur die Vertragsstaaten der Klimarahmenkonvention zusammen, sondern es traten gleichzeitig und erstmalig auch die mittlerweile 156 Mitgliedsstaaten des Kyoto-Protokolls zusammen (COP/MOP 1). Neben letzten Weichenstellungen für dessen Umsetzung ging es in Montreal insbesondere darum, Verhandlungen über die Fortentwicklung der Kyoto-Verpflichtungen auf den Weg zu bringen. Ein Anlass, um Bilanz zu ziehen.
After two weeks of negotiations, climate diplomats completed the implementation of the Protocol, refined some of its instruments for implementation and agreed on processes for moving forward beyond the first Kyoto commitment period. The report by the Wuppertal Institute provides an overview and assessment of the agreements reached in Montreal.
Grave concerns with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have increasingly surfaced in the international climate policy arena. The sectoral approaches described in this paper may be a way to address some of the shortcomings of this Kyoto mechanism. The paper outlines the criticisms that have been raised against the CDM as well as the conflicting interpretations of a sectoral approach and examines in how far it might resolve the mechanism’s perceived shortcomings. Furthermore, it outlines issues that need to be resolved when implementing a sectoral approach: distributing costs and benefits, defining the sector and its baseline, ensuring additionality and tackling procedural issues. A sectoral approach can enable countries to guide their structural development but it also opens up a gap between public and private investment that needs to be addressed before conflicts arise. Sectoral CDM activities may be able to lower transaction costs for projects that otherwise cannot compete in the CDM market and might even pave the way to sectoral greenhouse gas limitation targets in developing countries by establishing the necessary infrastructure for data collection. However, a sectoral CDM cannot be mistaken for a panacea. Some of the mechanism's problems remain, which highlights the need to establish additional instruments to support Southern countries in furthering sustainable development and embarking on a low-emission trajectory.
The sectoral clean development mechanism : a contribution from a sustainable transport perspective
(2007)
The United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi came at the end of a year where public awareness of climate change had reached unprecedented heights. Nonetheless, the conference proceeded with its usual diplomatic ritual, apparently unaffected by time pressure. While it did see some progress on important issues for developing countries such as the Adaptation Fund, the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation to Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), on questions regarding the future of the regime it proved to be at best a confidence-building session that served to hear further views. More serious work on the future of the regime must therefore be expected of the next Conferences of the Parties.
This article by Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott, Rie Watanabe and Bettina Wittneben summarises the results of the conference.
From Clean Development Mechanism to sectoral crediting approaches : way forward or wrong turn?
(2008)
Sinnvolle Weiterentwicklung oder Holzweg? : Sektorale Ansätze für den Clean Development Mechanism
(2008)
The international climate negotiations have seen endless struggles between countries from South and North for almost 17 years, ever since the initiation of negotiations by the International Negotiation Committee (INC) for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 3rd meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP 13 / CMP 3) held in Bali in December 2007 (the Bali conference) could mark the beginning of a rapprochement. Parties agreed on initiating a new "Ad-hoc working group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention" (AWG-LCA) that aims to negotiate a post-2012 agreement with participation of all parties, including the US and developing countries, by the end of 2009 at COP 15 / CMP 5 in Copenhagen. This article examines the outcomes of the Bali conference, focussing on the negotiations regarding post-2012, flexible mechanisms, financial mechanisms, technology transfer and deforestation. Finally, the article concludes that the Bali Conference saw a significant shift in the battle lines, a rearrangement of positions and alliances that might well announce a decisive new era in global climate policy and provides a real chance to agree on an effective and workable post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen.
What is the significance of the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali? The formal outcomes, especially the "Bali Action Plan", are described and commented on, along with the challenges for negotiating a post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen during 2008 and 2009. The article concludes that the outcome of the Bali meeting is insufficient when compared to the nature of the challenge posed by climate change. However, it can nevertheless be considered a success in terms of "Realpolitik" in paving the way for the negotiations ahead, because some real changes have been discerned in the political landscape. The challenges for the road towards Copenhagen are manifold: the sheer volume and complexity of the issues and the far-reaching nature of decisions such as differentiation between non-Annex I countries pose significant challenges in themselves, while the dependency on the electoral process in the USA introduces a high element of risk into the whole process. The emergence of social justice as an issue turns climate policy into an endeavour to improve the world at large - thereby adding to the complexity. And, finally, the biggest challenge is the recognition that the climate problem requires a global solution, that Annex I and non-Annex I countries are mutually dependent on each other and that only cooperation regarding technology in combination with significant financial support will provide the chance to successfully tackle climate change.
Proposals for contributions of emerging economies to the climate regime under the UNFCCC post 2012
(2008)
Under the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities” (Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC) non-Annex I parties have so far been exempted from emission limitation or reduction commitments. However, the pressure is mounting on those countries, especially major emitting developing countries, to contribute actively to the mitigation of climate change. Participation by these developing countries in a future international climate regime is often called for, but it is usually unclear how and how much these countries should participate, what kind of support they need and in which sectors. This project aims to provide a more detailed view on six countries to understand how they could best make a contribution to the regime and how they could best be supported in limiting their greenhouse gas emissions.
Die CDM/JI-Initiative des BMU : für mehr Engagement in internationalen Klimaschutzinvestitionen
(2008)
UN-Klimagipfel bereitet Boden für Kopenhagen-Abkommen : Beschlüsse von Poznan finden geteiltes Echo
(2009)
While the number of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is expanding rapidly, there currently are relatively few transport projects in the global CDM portfolio. This article examines existing CDM transport projects and explores whether sectoral approaches to the CDM may provide a better framework for transport than the current project‐based CDM. We ask: Would a sectoral approach to the CDM promote the structural change and integrated policymaking needed to achieve sustainable transport policy, making it hence more desirable than the framework of the current project‐based CDM? We conclude that it is possible to design sectoral transport activities within clear project boundaries that fit into a framework of a programmatic or policy‐based CDM. Although we are able to ascertain that transport policy research yields several modelling tools to address the methodological requirements of the CDM, it becomes apparent that sectoral approaches will accentuate transport projects' problems regarding high complexity and related uncertainties. The CDM may need new rules to manage these risks. Nonetheless, sectoral approaches allow the scaling up of activities to a level that affects long‐term structural change.
Also in the global South, transport already significantly contributes to climate change and has high growth rates. Further rapid motorisation of countries in Asia and Latin America could counteract any climate efforts and aggravate problems of noxious emissions, noise and congestion.
This Paper aims at connecting the need for transport actions in developing countries to the international negotiations on a post-2012 climate change agreement. It outlines the decisions to be taken in Copenhagen and the preparations to adequately implement these decisions from 2013. Arguing, that a sustainable transport approach needs to set up comprehensive policy packages, the paper assesses the substance of current climate negotiations against the fit to sustainable transport. It concludes that the transport sector's importance should be highlighted and a significant contribution to mitigation efforts required.
Combining the two perspectives lead to several concrete suggestions: Existing elements of the carbon market should be improved (e.g. discounting), but an upscale of the carbon market would not be an appropriate solution. Due to a lack of additionality, offsetting industrialised countries' targets would finally undermine the overall success of the climate agreement. Instead, a mitigation fund should be established under the UNFCCC and financed by industrialised countries. This fund should explicitly enable developing countries to implement national sustainable development transport and mobility policies as well as local projects. While industrialized countries would set up target achievement plans, developing countries should outline low carbon development strategies, including a section on transport policy.
Aufgrund der asymmetrischen Struktur von Ursache und Wirkung (historische Hauptverursacher im Norden, besondere Verwundbarkeit des Südens) und aufgrund der schnell aufholenden Entwicklung der Schwellenländer sind vor allem die Nord-Süd-Beziehungen ein entscheidender Faktor bei der Bewältigung des Klimaproblems. Die "alten", traditionellen Industriestaaten werden die sich industrialisierenden Staaten des Südens nur dann zu eigenen Minderungsleistungen bewegen können, wenn sie - neben eigenen ambitionierten Reduktionen - auch in hohem Maße die Minderungsmaßnahmen im Süden finanzieren und die ärmeren Staaten bei der Anpassung unterstützen. Technologische Unterstützung und Finanzierung sind deshalb bei der internationalen Klimakonferenz (COP13) in Bali im Jahr 2007 zu einem Kernprojekt für die post-2012-Verhandlungen geworden.
Selbst konservative Schätzungen rechnen mit mehreren Dutzend Milliarden US-Dollar für die Minderung des Treibhausgasausstoßes und für Anpassungsmaßnahmen pro Jahr. Es ist daher nötig, bei der Finanzierung der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels nicht allein auf staatliche Mittel zu setzen, sondern auch private Mittel verstärkt mit einzubeziehen.
Diese Kurzstudie, die für das Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) Anfang 2008 erstellt wurde, bietet eine Aufstellung und Bewertung der bestehenden Finanzierungsoptionen auf multilateraler (und zum Teil bilateraler) Ebene, sowie eine Darstellung von in der Planung befindlichen Instrumenten und innovativer Vorschläge für neue Formen der Zusammenarbeit von staatlichen und privaten Akteuren.
More and more countries are incorporating the instrument of emissions trading into their national climate policies. This emerging mosaic of emissions trading schemes (ETS) raises the question of whether they should be linked with each other. From an economic point of view, linking of domestic schemes is supposed to increase the economic efficiency of carbon markets. In addition, linking is also expected by some to yield substantial political benefits in terms of the evolution of the UNFCCC/Kyoto regime. However, these optimistic prospects are based on a best-case scenario where all major countries establish environmentally effective emissions trading systems and then link them with each other. Real-life politics might develop rather differently. This paper therefore examines to what extent the current status of emissions trading in industrialised countries provides a basis for reinforcing and moving forward the international climate regime through linking domestic ETS. After comparing emerging emissions trading schemes from an institutional perspective, it emerges that not only emissions trading is at a very early stage in most countries, in addition the emerging systems are probably going to be designed very differently from the EU ETS. While for some design features such as the coverage design differences do not matter, there are some areas where the plans in many non-EU countries look crucially different from the EU system. The outlook for a linked international ETS is therefore currently still very uncertain. Given this state of affairs, the EU should pro-actively engage with the non-EU countries to try to harmonise their developing national emissions trading schemes with the EU ETS, widely disseminate the lessons it has learned from the EU ETS, strongly make the case for environmental integrity and at the same time make clear that systems that want to link to the EU ETS will need to meet certain quality criteria.
The current emissions trading debates in the EU and the USA were examined and the prospects for creating a transatlantic carbon market were analysed. A future US Emissions Trading Scheme (US ETS) may be designed very differently from the EU ETS, raising questions of compatibility. Crucial differences relate to the stringency of targets, the recognition of offsets, and price control mechanisms. These differences flow directly from the different policy and economic perspectives on emissions trading and climate policy in the USA and the EU. The two sides should therefore seek a way forward that reconciles potentially different climate policies. For example, the USA and the EU should consider an effort to harmonize carbon prices, and US legislation could phase out cost-containment mechanisms after some time period. Finally, both US and EU policies should have mechanisms that allow periodic recalibration, which would allow each to adjust to new technology, react to developing-country climate policies, and learn from each other. In the longer term, this would allow both sides to strive for greater policy convergence, either through linked trading systems, harmonized prices, or a transition from harmonized prices to linkage.
The barriers to linking greenhouse gas cap-and-trade schemes are assessed, based on an analysis of existing and emerging trading schemes, including those in the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EU. The feasibility of different forms of linking and the time frames for their implementation are examined. In particular, the barriers to direct bilateral linking are considered. It was found that only a few direct bilateral links will be viable in the short term, due to the divergent policy priorities of different nations and regions, reflected in critical design features, such as costcontainment measures. However, in the short term, cap-and-trade markets will very likely be indirectly linked via unilateral links to the CDM or new crediting mechanisms, which may be adopted within a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. In order to ensure a harmonization of critical design elements in the mid to long term, early institutional cooperation may become necessary. Necessary policy steps and the appropriate institutional framework for such harmonization and, overtime, further integration of trading schemes are briefly delineated.
Das 2°C-Ziel auf der Kippe
(2009)
Achieving sustainable mobility in developing countries : suggestions for a post-2012 agreement
(2009)
In December 2009, countries meet in Copenhagen to establish a new global climate agreement. This article links the need for reducing transport-related greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries with the current international climate negotiations. Arguing that a sustainable transport approach requires comprehensive policy packages, it assesses the suitability of current climate negotiation proposals in promoting sustainable transport. The project-based approach under the current climate regime incentivises neither comprehensive sustainable transport and mobility policies, nor sufficient numbers of local projects. Current proposals to increase efforts by developing countries, to reform the Clean Development Mechanism, and to create new emission trading mechanisms are promising but still have to overcome several obstacles. One obstacle involves how to properly assess the impact of actions while maintaining streamlined procedures. The authors conclude from their analysis that the best way forward would be to establish an international mitigation fund with a dedicated transport window financed by industrialised countries. This fund would enable developing countries to implement national policies and local projects. Developing countries would outline low-carbon development strategies, including a sectoral strategy for low-carbon transport.
Towards an effective and equitable climate change agreement : a Wuppertal proposal for Copenhagen
(2009)
This paper presents comprehensive proposals for the post-2012 climate regime: the scale of the challenge, emission targets for industrialised countries, increased actions by Southern countries, financing, technology, adaptation and deforestation. The proposals are based on ongoing research by the Wuppertal Institute.