United Nations

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4
Distr.: General
26 November 2014
English only

Updated compilation of information on the mitigation
benefits of actions, initiatives and options toenhance mitigation ambition
Technical paper
Addendum
Technical examination process to unlock mitigation potential for
raising pre-2020 ambition by addressing non-carbon
dioxide greenhouse gas emissions
SummaryThis updated technical paper compiles information on the mitigation and sustainable
development benefits of actions, initiatives and options to enhance mitigation ambition,with a focus on the thematic areas of land use, urban environments, carbon dioxide capture,
use and storage, and non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions. Information for the
update was provided in literature, submissions from Parties and observer organizations, andat the technical expert meetings held during the sessions of the Ad Hoc Working Group on
the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action held in June and October 2014 in Bonn,
Germany. The technical paper builds upon the previous version of the technical paper,
contained in document FCCC/TP/2014/3 and its addendum FCCC/TP/2014/3/Add.1.
This technical paper consists of the main document and four addenda. The addenda
are focused on mitigation action in the thematic areas of land use, urban environments,
carbon dioxide capture, use and storage, and non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions.
The addenda elaborate on mitigation potential, progress, benefits, costs and barriers, as wellas on good practice policies, key opportunities and options for catalysing action in thesefour thematic areas.

GE.14-65695

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Contents

2

Paragraphs

Page

I.

Introduction .............................................................................................................

1–3

3

II.

Technical summary on non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions ..................

4–38

3

A.

Mitigation potential, progress, benefits, costs and barriers .............................

4–19

3

B.

Practices, policies and actions to unlock mitigation potential
by addressing non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions ........................

20–38

13

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

I.

Introduction
1.
This update of the technical paper on mitigation benefits of actions, initiatives andoptions to enhance mitigation ambition was requested by the Ad Hoc Working Group on
the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) at the third part of its second session. 1 The
first and second versions of this technical paper were published on 28 May and 30 October
2013, respectively, and are contained in documents FCCC/TP/2013/4 and FCCC/TP/2013/8
and Add.1 and 2.
2.
It comprises four parts: the main text, contained in document FCCC/TP/2014/13,
and four addenda, contained in documents FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.1–4. The main text
contains a summary of the main findings, substantiated by the more detailed information
provided in the addenda, which capture the content of the discussions that took place at thetechnical expert meetings (TEMs) on land use, urban environments, carbon dioxide capture,
use and storage (CCUS) and non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, held in June and October 2014 in Bonn, Germany, during the fifth and sixthparts of the second session of the ADP.2
3.
This addendum covers the discussions on non-CO2 GHG emissions and consists of
two parts, focusing on mitigation potential, progress, benefits, costs and barriers; andpractices, policies and actions to unlock mitigation potential in relation to non-CO2 GHG
emissions.

II. Technical summary on non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas
emissionsA.

Mitigation potential, progress, benefits, costs and barriers
4.
In 2010, non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions amounted
to around 12 Gt CO2 equivalent (CO2 eq) and accounted for about 25 per cent of total
anthropogenic GHG emissions, with methane (CH4) (contributing 16 per cent) and nitrous
oxide (N2O) (contributing 6 per cent) as the main contributors, as demonstrated in figure 1
below (IPCC, 2014). Other non-CO2 GHGs include fluorinated gases (F-gases), such ashydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
5.
These gases are emitted from a broad range of sectors and sources, namely: CH 4 ismostly emitted from fossil-fuel extraction and combustion, industrial processes, entericfermentation, rice cultivation, other agricultural sources, manure management and thewaste sector; N2O is mostly emitted from industrial processes, agricultural soils, manure
management and wastewater; and F-gases are mostly emitted from industrial processes (seetable 1 below) (EPA, 2014a).

1
2

FCCC/ADP/2013/3, paragraph 30(c)(ii).
Detailed information on the TEMs held in June and October 2014, including the initial summaries ofthe discussions at the meetings, is available at <http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8171.php>,<http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8170.php>, <http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8421.php> and<http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8420.php>.

3

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Figure 1
Total annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by groups of gases for theperiod 1970–2010

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Abbreviations: F-gases = fluorinated gases, FOLU = forestry and other land use.

6.
The non-CO2 GHGs have in common a higher global warming potential (GWP) thanCO2, while CH4 and some HFCs have a shorter lifetime than CO2 (IPCC, 2013; EPA,
2012). The mitigation of CH4 and most HFCs can help to reduce the global short-term
temperature rise, which might reduce the risk of dangerous climate feedbacks (IEA, 2013).
7.
The report by the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Global
Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (EPA, 2012) provides projections thatindicate that non-CO2 GHG emissions could rise to 15 Gt CO2 eq (the projections range
between 9 and 17 Gt CO2 eq) by 2030 under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario (EPA, 2012).
This level is expected to correspond to a 50 per cent increase compared with 1990 levels.
The projections are sensitive to changes in key assumptions regarding, for example, thegrowth of agricultural production as a result of increased meat consumption or changes in
consumer preferences, and market penetration of cooling equipment with HFC emissions
with a lower GWP (EPA, 2012).

4

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Figure 2
Projections of non-CO2 emissions growth by 2030, by gas

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2
Greenhouse Gases 2010–2030.
Abbreviation: GWPs = global warming potentials.

8.
The EPA report also indicates that CH4 and HFCs are expected to increase the mostand to be the largest absolute contributors to the growth of non-CO2 GHG emissions
between 2010 and 2030, as shown in figure 2 above, while N2O emissions are expected toexperience a more modest increase. HFCs are currently growing at a rate of 8 per cent per
year,3 due to their use as replacements for ozone-depleting substances that are controlled by
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (see figure 3 below),and due to the increased demand for cooling due to economic development, population
growth and projected temperature rise (EPA, 2012).
Figure 3
Observed and projected emission trends for the period 1950–2050, by gas

3

Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) technical expert
meeting (TEM) on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to
Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC), 2014.

5

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4
Source: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action technical expert
meeting on non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions; presentation by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, October 2014.
Abbreviation: GWP = global warming potential.

9.
Similarly to HFCs, economic development and population growth are the main
drivers for the growth in CH4 emissions, along with specific drivers such as large increases
in livestock production (especially in developing countries), and increased waste generation
rates (see figure 4 below). Countries with more advanced economies and stable or declining
populations are likely to experience a minimal growth in CH4 and N2O emissions between
2005 and 2030 (EPA, 2012).
Figure 4
Observed and projected CH4 emissions by 2005 and 2030, by subsector and by region

Source: United Nations Environment Programme. 2011. Near-term Climate Protection and Clean
Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate Forcers.

10.
N2O and CH4 emissions from agriculture are projected to grow, driven by the needto meet the growing demand for food that stems from economic and population growth, andthe need to meet sustainable development objectives, in particular in developing countries. 4
1.

Mitigation potential and practices
11.
The mitigation potential of non-CO2 GHG emissions is estimated by EPA at
1.8–3.0 Gt CO2 eq by 2030 compared with the baseline emissions in 2005 (EPA, 2012).
This mitigation potential means that efforts to reduce non-CO2 GHGs must be viewed as a
strategy that complements but does not replace CO2 emission reductions.
12.
As noted in paragraph 5 above, non-CO2 GHGs are emitted from a broad range ofsectors and sources. The available mitigation potential could be utilized through a
combination of mitigation policies and options with the engagement of multiple
stakeholders (EPA, 2014a).5 The scale of this potential varies by sector (see table 1 above).
With regard to the agriculture sector, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) provides estimates of the mitigation potential of non-CO2 GHG emissions,4
5

6

Submission from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to the ADP, 2014.
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by CCAC, October 2014.

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

which are even higher than those provided by EPA, and maintains that through a
combination of supply-side and demand-side options, up to 80 per cent of emissions fromagriculture could be reduced below the 2010 level by 2030 .6
Table 1Baseline and projected emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission reductions and mitigation potential, by
subsector
Baselineemissions in
2030
Gt CO2 eqa

CH4

1.7

2.1

16

40

58

CH4

0.6

0.8

6

10

60

NF3, F-gases, N2O

0.4

0.9

7

Refrigeration and air
conditioning

HFCs

0.3

1.6

12

30

62

Livestock

CH4 (entericfermentation); CH4, N2O(manure management)

2

3

21

3

10

Rice cultivation

CH4 (anaerobic digestion)
N2O (soils, fertilizers)

0.6

0.8

6

8

24

CroplandN2O (manure
management, fertilizers)

0.5

0.5

4

5b, c

12b, cLandfills

CH4

0.8

1.0

7

12

61

Wastewater

CH4

0.5

0.6

5

1

35

Greenhouse gas and main
source(in brackets)

Subsector

Oil and natural gas
systems
Coal mining
Industrial processes

Other sources notincluded in theanalysis by EPAd

CH4 (hydroelectricreservoirs, coal mines),
N2O (industrial
wastewater),F-gases (manufacture ofelectrical equipment)

Share oftotal nonCO2 GHGs
in 2030 (%)

16

Mitigation
potential at
no cost in2030 (%)

Mitigation
potential feasible atincreasing cost in2030 (including at
no cost) (%)

Baselineemissions in
2010,
Gt CO2 eqa

eSources:a
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
1990–2030, for baseline emissions and projections. The Global Emissions Report was published in December 2012 and uses a
combination of country-prepared, publicly available reports (UNFCCC national communications) and tier 1 methodologies provided
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to fill in missing or unavailable data.
b
As the EPA report (2014a) includes soil carbon sequestration in its analysis of non-CO2 GHGs, this analysis includes
mitigation options that affect only CO2 emissions (e.g. no tillage, 100 per cent residue incorporation). Therefore, these figures
overestimate the mitigation potential for CH4 and N2O emissions in cropland.
c
In the EPA study (2012), CH4 emissions from non-rice cropland are considered to be a net sink and are included in all
mitigation potential estimates.
dIndustrial processes includes such activities as solvents, foams, aerosols, nitric and adipic acid production, fire protection,
primary aluminium production, HCFC-22 production, semiconductor manufacturing, electrical power systems, magnesium
production, photovoltaic cell manufacturing and flat-panel display manufacturing.
eThis figure is based on 100 per cent minus the sum of all other mentioned sectors.
Abbreviations: EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency, F-gases = fluorinated gases, GHGs = greenhouse gases.

6

ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), October 2014.

7

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

13.
Cost considerations are essential when assessing mitigation potential. According to
EPA, 12 per cent of the 2005 baseline non-CO2 GHG emissions can be mitigated by 2030
at no cost or at financial gain (EPA, 2012). They can be reduced by 24 per cent at a cost
below USD 20/t CO2 eq, including mitigation potential at no cost (EPA, 2014a). The
largest mitigation potential at no cost is estimated in oil and natural gas systems (40 percent) and refrigeration and air conditioning (30 per cent), while at additional cost, thelargest potential is estimated in addition to these two sectors, also in coal mining (60 percent), as shown in table 1 above.
14.
Mitigation actions addressing non-CO2 GHG emissions are associated with cobenefits linked to the promotion of sustainable development, including its economic, socialand environmental dimensions, poverty eradication and adaptation to climate change, as
listed in table 2 below. An example of a mitigation option with significant co-benefits is theuse of household methane cookers, as described in spotlight box 1 below. This mitigation
option also improves air quality, creates energy security, provides sanitation and reduces
the demand for fossil fuels.
Table 2
Co-benefits associated with the mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
Co-benefits

Details drawn from the technical expert meeting and submissions from Parties

Economic Increased energy security
 Enhanced economic growththrough efficiency
improvements in agriculture Substantial energy efficiency
gains
 Cost savings
 Increased productivity
 Increased employment(waste)Mitigation in the energy, industrial processes and waste sectors
leads to improved access to local energy sources, energy security
and reduced dependency on energy imports. Cost savings (andsubstantial energy efficiency gains) can be achieved throughmitigation action in aluminium production, adipic and nitric acidproduction, and semiconductor manufacturing, if more energyefficient air conditioners are used, as well as through reduced
costs for food and fertilizers in the agriculture sector. Greater
efficiency in the agriculture sector (e.g. livestock management)
also leads to increased economic and productive resilience offarm systems, agricultural development and better livelihoods forfarmers.

Social Improved food security andresilience to climate change
in agriculture Improved health and safety Improved sanitation
 Improvements in building
designThe mitigation of CH4 and N2O emissions contributes toprotection of the ozone layer. Processing coal seam gas in coalmines improves health and safety conditions, while mitigation in
the agriculture sector generates health benefits. A combination of
the use of latrines and methane cookstoves in households
improves sanitation. Lastly, enhanced building codes contributeto reduced demand for cooling and improved building design.

Environmental
 Improved water quality
 Erosion control
 More efficient fertilizer use Improved agriculture andenvironmental quality
 Strengthening of ozone-layer
protection

Greater efficiency in the agriculture sector contributes to improved
water quality, erosion control and more efficient fertilizer use.
Improved agriculture and environmental quality is accomplished via
improvements in soil productivity and nutrient-use efficiency,
reduced crop losses and less disrupted rainfall patterns caused byparticle pollution from CH4 emissions, recycling of water, nutrients
and/or energy in biogas stoves, and waste collection. Lastly, N2O
mitigation in the agriculture sector leads to protection of thestratospheric ozone layer.

Sources: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2
Greenhouse Gases 2010–2030; Submissions to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform
for Enhanced Action made by the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the European Union in 2014.

8

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Spotlight box 1
Use of household cookers
Household cooker biogas technologies can effectively address CH4 emissions frommanure, pit latrines, and/or crop residues by using biogas for cooking rather thanbiomass. The International Cryosphere Climate Initiative notes in its submission to
the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) that
“this combination makes household scale manure management with methane cookers
one of the more promising mitigation methods for short-lived climate pollutants”.
There are significant co-benefits associated with this action. The World HealthOrganization reports that “household methane cookers can reduce health-damaging air
pollution by up to 90 per cent with a very low climate impact. If the digester is also
linked to a latrine, the resulting improvement in sanitation could help prevent worm
infestation, diarrhoeal disease and malnutrition”. They are widely employed in China
and South-East Asia for household cooking and lighting.
Sources: International Cryosphere Climate Initiative submission to the ADP; World HealthOrganization. 2014. Health in the Green Economy Household Energy Sector in Developing
Countries.

2.

Barriers to scaling up mitigation action and how to address them15.
Non-CO2 GHG mitigation options span across a wide range of sectors, which eachhave their own unique barriers to implementation. These barriers are divided into three
categories: socioeconomic; institutional, legislative and regulatory; and technological. They
are also specific to certain regions, evolve over time and depend on national circumstances.
The main barriers to non-CO2 GHG mitigation are listed in table 3 below.
Table 3Barriers to mitigation actions to address non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
Categories

Socioeconomic
barriers

Details drawn from technical expert meeting presentations, submissions from Parties
and relevant literature High costs related to upfront investment and capital (fossil-fuelindustry, waste management, aluminium production, landfills,
HFCs), transition to transition to low-GWP alternatives in smaller
enterprises (HFCs), recycling of substances (HFCs), and monitoring,
operation and maintenance (fossil-fuel industry, N2O emission
reductions in industry, HFCs)
 Limited access to financing or financial mechanisms that reduces the
incentive to invest in technology upgrading due to a limited numberof financial mechanisms, low carbon prices, unstable carbon markets
and absence of regulations for carbon markets
 Lack of a market for recovered CH4 and HFC alternatives with low
GWP due to the location of CH4 emission sources far from
population centres and/or a lack of distribution networks (oil and gas
production). If such a market is missing or has prices that are too
low, it is not economically feasible to reduce CH4 emissions fromventing and flaring from oil and gas production at no cost Limited community and stakeholder awareness about options to
reduce non-CO2 GHG emissions, especially in developing countries

9FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Categories

Details drawn from technical expert meeting presentations, submissions from Parties
and relevant literature

Institutional, Lack of institutional capacity, especially in developing countries,
legislative andlimiting the development of climate-friendly technologies, theregulatory barriers
upscaling of good practices and the effective implementation ofpolices in sectors with a large number of stakeholders and manydifferent subsectors (waste, nutrient management in agriculture,industry) Lack of legislation, for example lack of legislation to direct
investments in climate-friendly technologies, lack of adequate
regulatory frameworks (waste, industry) and lack of institutionalarrangements to ensure coherent action by multiple stakeholders(waste) Weak law enforcement that can obstruct the effectiveness of crosscutting complex policies (agriculture, leakage of HFCs fromrefrigeration, industry)
 Complex legislation, for example permitting schemes (waste),liability issues (waste) and regulatory barriers to the use ofalternatives to HFCs in aerosols
 Lack of guidance and poor leadership capability regarding the scopeof responsibilities, identification of key players, conflicting interestsof stakeholders and local operational limitations (waste prevention)
 Lack of training, leading to adherence to traditional practices(agriculture, industry, solvent replacement sector, HFCs), which
restrains the upscaling, application, replication and improvement of
mitigation actions and causes low capacity in the servicing sector for
new technologies (HFCs)
Technologicalbarriers

 Technical constraints of alternative technologies such as limited
availability or applicability of alternatives (e.g. HFCs with lowGWP for high ambient temperature countries), limited market
acceptability of alternatives due to mild flammability andinsufficient supply of replacement components
 Lack of innovation to overcome technical constraints of existing
infrastructure affecting the deployment of new technologies (HFCs,
fossil fuel sector). For example, the size and poor technical state oflarge natural gas transmission networks make it harder to address
CH4 leakage
 Site- and case-specific considerations, which make replication morechallenging (agriculture and HFCs)
 Lack of technology transfer to developing countries
 Ineffective recycling due to technical limitations and insufficientwaste management. Recycling of HFCs is hampered by low
recovery rates (approximately 30 per cent in Japan) and leakage inthe use of equipment

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; International Energy Agency (IEA). 2013. Redrawing
the Energy Climate Map. World Energy Outlook Special Report; IEA. 2014. Capturing the Multiple
Benefits of Energy Efficiency: A Handbook for Policy Makers and Evaluators.
Abbreviations: GWP = global warming potential, TEM = technical expert meeting.

16.
Developing countries face particular challenges in replicating policies and practices
and in addressing the barriers listed above. International cooperative initiatives,summarized in table 4 below, provide assistance to developing countries to encourage themto implement more ambitious mitigation actions. For instance, CCAC assists countries inassessing the feasibility of HFC phase-down in high ambient temperature countries, while
10

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

FAO and the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) facilitate knowledge transfer on mitigationin the agriculture and energy sectors, respectively.
Table 4
Examples of initiatives with the aim of mitigating non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
Cooperative initiatives

Scope

Food andAgriculture
Organization of theUnited Nations(FAO)

FAO makes available information on non-CO2 greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions from agriculture and land use, and supports
member countries in identifying mitigation options that support
adaptation, food security and rural development goals. See<www.fao.org>

Global Research
Alliance on
Agricultural
Greenhouse Gases

The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases
is a research initiative founded in 2009 by 41 States. It aims togrow a greater quantity of food (and more climate-resilient foodsystems) without increasing GHG emissions by enhancing
international cooperation and collaboration and by investing in
agricultural research. See<http://www.globalresearchalliance.org/about-us/>Refrigerants,
Naturally!

This global initiative of several companies (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo,
Red Bull and Unilever) was established in 2004 and is committed
to substituting harmful fluorinated gases (such as CFCs, HCFCs
and HFCs) with natural refrigerants. The initiative is supportedby the United Nations Environment Programme andGreenpeace.b Its member companies have installed more than
2.5 million HFC-free refrigeration units which together avoid
more than 1 Mt of CO2 eq emissions. See<http://www.refrigerantsnaturally.com/natural-refrigerants/whymove-to-natural-refrigerants.htm>

Global Methane
Initiative (GMI)

GMI was established in 2010 as a multilateral initiative for therecovery and use of CH4 as a clean energy source. The initiative
unites public- and private-sector interests in order to build
capacity and overcome barriers to methane reduction projects
around the world. GMI builds on the existing structure andsuccess of the Methane to Markets Partnership. See<www.globalmethane.org>

Climate and Clean
Air Coalition to
Reduce ShortLived Climate
Pollutants (CCAC)

CCAC has launched large-scale initiatives such as Promoting
HFC Alternative Technologies; Reducing Short-Lived Climate
Pollutants; Agriculture Initiative; and Oil and Gas Methane
Partnership. Within these initiatives, CCAC provides scientificinformation, supports national planning, helps enhance national
capacity, raises awareness and develops case studies.e The
Agriculture Initiative aims to reduce levels of methane and black
carbon (soot) emitted during livestock and manure management,
paddy rice production, and open agricultural burning. Companies
and national governments announced new and concrete plans to
reduce methane in oil and gas production. See<http://www.ccacoalition.org/>

11

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Cooperative initiatives

Scope

Oil and Gas
Climate Initiative

This initiative was presented by the Saudi Arabian oil company
Saudi Aramco, with the objective for oil and gas companies towork together and share best practices and technical solutions toaddress climate change and sustainable energy. See<http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/INDUSTRY-oil-and-gasclimate-initiative.pdf >Alliance for
Responsible
Atmospheric
PolicyThe Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy is an industry
coalition representing more than 95 per cent of HFC productionin the United States of America and a significant majority of theuser industries. Its goal is to reduce the contribution of global
HFC GHG emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 relative to current
emission levels. This will be accomplished by advancing
technologies; improving servicing practices; increasing recovery,
reclamation and reuse; and conducting technology assessments
and workshops. See <http://www.alliancepolicy.org/>

Montreal Protocol
on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone
Layer

The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that became
effective in 1989. It was designed to protect the ozone layer byphasing out the production of numerous substances believed to be
responsible for ozone depletion. See<http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php>

17.
Engagement of international organizations, partnerships and the private sector isfacilitated by national or bilateral long-term comprehensive strategies, regulations andplans. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) could be one of such
instruments to define long-term priorities, provide incentives and mobilize funding.
Lessons can be learned from recent developments in the implementation of internationaland bilateral agreements, such as a proposed amendment to the Montreal Protocol, theChina–United States of America agreement to phase down HFCs, and a strategic dialogue
between India and the United States of America on HFC control via the Montreal Protocol
and finance, technology transfer and safety of HFC alternatives.7 These agreements could
create a worldwide market for HFC alternatives, which can accelerate their mitigation.
18.
During the TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions, the Montreal Protocol process wasreferred to by some participants as the best platform to achieve a significant reduction of
HFCs. Some developing countries raised concerns related to the timeliness of the
discussion on HFC phase-down in the light of the limited availability of affordable lowGWP technologies in high ambient temperature countries and the need to initiate thedialogue with a technical discussion, which should be conducted taking into account the
principles of the Convention.
19.
To implement the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, many developing countries
prepared, in collaboration with the Multilateral Fund and its implementing agencies such as
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the HCFC phase-out
management plans while retaining a degree of uncertainty regarding the possible
conversions to low-GWP solutions in all sectors. The lesson learned from this process isthat national comprehensive strategies, regulations and plans are instrumental to facilitate
the work of international support institutions and the engagement of the private sector.
UNIDO reminded participants that there are many ways of lowering HFC consumption andthat the number of solutions and examples of available and cheap technologies to address
7

12

ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by CCAC, October 2014.

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

HFCs is growing. However, it was also recognized at the TEMs that not all technologicaland financial solutions are able to address HFCs.

B.

Practices, policies and actions to unlock mitigation potential byaddressing non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions
20.
Replication of good practices, policies and actions requires recognition andadjustments of policy design to the national circumstances of a country, sector or
stakeholder. For successful implementation of non-CO2 mitigation options, it is important
to consider the following success factors, which are essential to overcome barriers andachieve significant co-benefits:(a) For the agriculture sector, these factors include the identification of activities
with synergies between food security, adaptation and mitigation. 8 For stakeholder
involvement and education on new farming practices, it is necessary to design strategies fordisseminating knowledge among farmers and local communities, and draw from thetraditional knowledge base of local communities; 9(b) For the industry sector, these factors include maintaining or increasing thecompetitiveness of industrial products in the marketplace, which is essential to prevent
companies from relocating to countries with less stringent emission reduction standards(IPCC, 2014). For developing countries, a healthy balance between resource endowments
and technology developments is essential for successful industrial development (IPCC,
2014);(c) For HFCs, these factors include synergy with safety considerations andstandards, and with the development of markets for alternative refrigerants.10 For the
implementation of low-GWP (and low-cost) HFC alternatives, this includes adjustments inthe manufacturing process and adaptations of use-patterns (i.e. changes in servicing), which
are different for each application.11, 12
21.
An overview of the practices, policies and actions which contribute to the mitigationof non-CO2 GHG emissions is provided in this chapter and in tables 5–7 below. Mitigation
options are described by gas and by sector, and are complemented by an overview of thecross-cutting measures to address each gas.
22.
Mitigation options to address CH4 emissions are implemented in the fossil-fuelextraction and combustion, agriculture and waste sectors (see table 5 below). Mitigation
actions related to CH4 emissions from fossil-fuel extraction and combustion aim at
overcoming high initial investments and enabling market creation through the provision offinancial incentives. An example of such action is the Coal Mining Abatement Technology
Support Package established in Australia, with a capitalization of 80 million Australian
dollars (AUD) from government and business, focusing on emissions from flaring, predrainage, ventilation and avoidance. There are many examples of development anddemonstration of new technologies to capture and use fugitive CH4 emissions from coalmining, including in India, Mexico and the United States of America.
8

Submission from FAO to the ADP, 2014.
Submission from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies to the ADP, 2014.
10
Submission from the European Union (EU) to the ADP, 2014.
11
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel of the Montreal Protocol, October 2014.
12
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric
Policy, October 2014.
913

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

23.
CH4 emissions from agriculture are abated through improved management ofagricultural land (e.g. rice irrigation) and livestock (e.g. feeding, breeding and manure
management). Examples of good practice policies are provided by China and thePhilippines on irrigation practices in rice paddies (UNEP, 2011). For example, the practiceof draining rice paddies in China led to a reduction in CH 4 emissions from rice fields ofabout 5 Mt CO2 eq/year during the period 1980–2000. In addition, research, development
and demonstration projects deliver new technologies to reduce CH 4 and N2O emissions. For
example, New Zealand has established the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre,
an internationally renowned centre for research and development, which works on
mitigation solutions in the agriculture sector. Australia has developed the Carbon Farming
Initiative where farmers can earn credits by reducing CH 4 (and N2O) emissions from land
and livestock.
24.
The mitigation of CH4 emissions from waste could be achieved through integrated
waste management systems, including waste prevention, separation, reuse and recycling(IPCC, 2014; UNEP, 2011). The cross-sectoral policies could be complemented by specificpolicies aimed at reducing emissions from specific sources, for example CH4 emission
reductions from landfills. Examples of good practice policies aimed at landfill and waste
management were shared by Australia, the European Union (EU), Mexico, South Africa
and the United States of America at the TEM. In Mexico, a public–private initiative on therecovery of gas from landfills has led to a reduction in CH4 emissions of 1.7 Mt CO2 eq
since 2010. Australia’s Emission Reduction Fund (with a capitalization of AUD 2.55
billion) is set to provide economic incentives for economy-wide emission reductions.
Effective landfill policies leading to proven [emission?] reductions, as implemented inAustralia, the EU and the United States of America, are showcased in spotlight box 2
below.
Spotlight box 2
Greenhouse gas emission trends in the waste sector in Australia, the European
Union and the United States of America
The European Union landfill directive (1999/31/EC) caused a doubling of energy
production from municipal solid waste between 2000 and 2009. During the period
1990–2010, net greenhouse gas emissions from landfills in the United States ofAmerica decreased by approximately 27 per cent due to better waste composition,
increased landfill gas collection and combustion, and increased rates of waste
recovery and recycling.a During the same period, Australia’s landfills emitted about
18 per cent fewer emissions.b
Sources:aIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
b
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action technical expert
meeting on non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions; presentation by the International Solid Waste
Association, October 2014.

25.
In addition to sector-specific mitigation actions, several cross-cutting actions havebeen initiated by Parties and partnerships. For example, the Global Methane Initiative andthe recently initiated World Bank Pilot Auction Facility for Methane and Climate Change
Mitigation (PAF) represent innovative initiatives to address CH4 emissions (see table 5
below). PAF is an innovative climate finance initiative by the World Bank Group with a
USD 100 million target capitalization. This pilot facility could be replicated by other

14

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

financial institutions, such as the Green Climate Fund, and has the potential to besignificantly scaled up.13 Australia’s Emission Reduction Fund and Carbon Farming
Initiative are other examples of cross-cutting actions that enable market creation and deliver
incentives to mitigate CH4 emissions.
26.
Mitigation options to address N2O emissions are implemented mostly in theindustrial processes (e.g. fertilizer production and adipic acid production) and agriculture
sectors (e.g. fertilizer application) (see table 6 below). A large mitigation potential in nitricand adipic acid production can be effectively achieved through financial mechanisms, forexample clean development mechanism (CDM) projects. Brazil has achieved a 50.5 percent reduction in industrial N2O emissions through CDM projects (see spotlight box 3
below). Other examples of economic instruments used in industry are the European Union
Emissions Trading System; the application of this system resulted in an 85 per centreduction in N2O emissions from nitric acid plants between 1990 and 2013,14 and the
Climate Action Reserve, implemented in North America to stimulate voluntary carbon
offset credits by companies; as a result of the operation of the Reserve, the Potash Corp
invested in reduction catalysts in its United States fertilizer plant.
Spotlight box 3
Mitigation of N2O emissions from adipic acid production
Until 2009, clean development mechanism/joint implementation (CDM/JI) projects
were instrumental in reducing N2O emissions from adipic plants worldwide. It wasestimated that about 95 per cent of the mitigation potential could be achieved per plant.
However, the incentives provided through the CDM/JI projects led to a more rapid
production growth above the global average in countries hosting CDM projects.
Therefore, the European Union adopted a regulation to ban emission reductions fromnew plants through CDM projects. As a result, N2O emissions have increased again
since 2009. The figure below provides projections of global N2O emissions (expressedin Mt CO2 eq) from adipic acid production up to 2020.
Existing plants face challenges in covering the operational costs associated with N2O
mitigation. It was recognized that a price signal is needed to relaunch the reduction of
N2O emissions and to reach record low levels. This could be achieved through the
CDM, a new market mechanism or a cap-and-trade system.
Worldwide N2O emissions from adipic acid production up to 2020

13

ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the World Bank Group on its Pilot Auction
Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation, October 2014.
14
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the International Fertilizer Industry
Association, October 2014.

15

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4
Source: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action technicalexpert meeting on non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions; presentation by Solvay, 2014.

27.
In the agriculture sector, effective and replicable actions to reduce N2O emissions
focus on the efficient or reduced use of nitrogen-based fertilizers through financial
incentives and regulatory control on the nitrogen content in fertilizers, as well as on
fertilizer amounts and the timing of their application. An example of polices aimed at
reducing N2O emissions from rice paddies is provided by China, which was achieved atleast in part by providing training to farmers on fertilizer application, for example on theappropriate dose, formulation, time and placement of fertilizers to demonstrate fertilizer use
efficiency.15
28.
Another example of an effective mitigation policy is the introduction of taxes on thenitrogen content in synthetic fertilizers introduced by Sweden. Also, the EU nitrates
directive (91/676/EEC), which limits the use of nitrogen fertilizers and animal manure innitrate-vulnerable zones, is a good example of a regulatory and control policy.
29.
Nutrient management is one of the priority areas of the World Bank Group’s
investments in agriculture, which have increased from USD 4.1 billion in the period 2003–
2005 to USD 10 billion in the period 2013–2015; half of these investments target
improvements in nutrient management. An example of a policy at the subnational level isthe provision of financial incentives to farmers through offset credit schemes, such as the
Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction Protocol for Carbon Offsets in Alberta, Canada. Thissystem aims to reduce N2O emissions from fertilizer use, manure management and crop
residues. New Zealand demonstrated an efficient approach to nutrient management in theform of a farm-level nutrient management model that can estimate both GHGs and productlifecycle emissions on farms.16
30.
Mitigation options to address F-gas emissions are implemented mainly inindustries producing solvents (HFCs), HCFC-22 production (HFCs), magnesium
production (SF6), foams (HFCs) and primary aluminium production (PFCs). Good practice
policies include the promotion of innovative technologies and the phasing-out of obsolete
technologies, for example stricter regulations and technology upgrading (see table 7
below). One of the examples presented at the TEM demonstrates the lessons learned in
Norway where, through the implementation of regulations, an 80 per cent reduction in PFC
emissions in aluminium industry has been achieved since 2008 following the phasing-out of
absolute technologies and their replacement with new technologies.
31.
Voluntary initiatives by industries are another means of reducing emissions, as
demonstrated by the first voluntary emission reduction goal of the World Semiconductor
Council, aimed at reducing PFC emissions to 10 per cent below the 1995 baseline level by
2010 and to 30 per cent below the 2010 baseline level by 2020.
32.
The Board Resolution on Sustainable Refrigeration by the Consumer Goods Forum
mobilizes resources to begin phasing out HFCs used for refrigeration as of 2015 andreplace them with natural refrigerant alternatives. Policies that provide a financial incentive
are exemplified by Spain, where a progressive tax on F-gases, including SF6 and PFCs,
stimulates recycling and the prevention of leakage.
33.
Policies and actions to reduce F-gas emissions in the cooling sector are mostly
aimed at reducing leakage, increasing recycling and promoting alternative cooling agents

15
16

16

ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the World Bank Group, 2014.
Submission from New Zealand to the ADP, October 2014.

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

with lower GWP.17 The reduction of cooling demand can be achieved, for example, by theuse of district heating or cooling; ‘green’ roofs; reducing the compactness of buildings inurban areas; modified design goals and engineering specifications for buildings; radiation
management on roofs; water source heat pumps; spatial planning; and cooling networks.
The last few years have shown a rapid development of low-GWP cooling agents, which are
increasingly applied, for example, in mobile air conditioners and the foam blowing
industry. This is the result of regional and subregional HFC policies, which have createdfavourable market conditions.18
34.
For example, Denmark has introduced taxes on F-gases combined with a ban on
certain applications and the promotion of alternatives. This has led to a reduction in F-gas
emissions by two thirds in 2010 compared with 2000. The EU has issued a directive(2006/40/EC) that bans the use of vehicle refrigerants with a GWP above 150 in all new
vehicles from 2017. An EU law to promote the eco design of air conditioners with afinancial bonus for low-GWP refrigerants also provides an incentive to reduce F-gas
emissions.
35.
Japan has introduced an Act on the rational use and proper management of HFCs
aimed at a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 and a 52 per cent reduction by 2025.
The promotion of low-GWP alternatives is exemplified by policies in the EU, Norway andthe United States of America. The latter promotes the use of safer alternatives to HFCs,
providing funding opportunities for HFC alternatives, banning some of the most harmful
HFCs for which lower-risk alternatives are available and implementing F-gas emission
reduction targets for passenger cars.
36.
Several examples touch on cross-cutting actions aimed at reducing F-gases. For
example, at the TEM, China presented its plans for HFC phase-down in multiple sectors
through its national Climate Change Action Plan.19 Another example is the cross-sectoral
EU regulation 842/2006 on F-gases dating from 2006 (which aims to reduce F-gases inrefrigeration, air conditioning and insulation foams) to be superseded by new EU regulation
517/2014 from 1 January 2015 that introduces more stringent measures. The new EU
legislation aims at reducing F-gas emissions by two thirds by 2030, compared to 2005, bystrongly promoting low-GWP alternatives to high-GWP F-gases. According to the EU, its
HFC policies could help to avoid 5 Gt CO2 eq of emissions by 2050 and could lead to a
global price reduction in HFC alternatives. In addition, the Green Public Procurement
within the EU ensures that public authorities in Europe use their purchasing power to makean important voluntary contribution to emission reductions.20 Finally, an example of crosssectoral policies and actions is provided by Spain, which has a national tax on F-gases andvoluntary agreements with industrial sectors producing aluminum for the reduction of PFC
emissions, and suppliers of electrical equipment and electricity and distribution companies
for the reduction of SF6 emissions.
37.
Cross-cutting measures complement sectoral policies and are aimed at removing
systemic institutional barriers. The development of integrated management approaches
covering a broad range of sectors and stakeholders can help to align stakeholders’ prioritiesin, for example, the waste sector and educate farmers in smallholder agriculture.

17

Submission from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to the ADP, 2014.
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric
Policy, October 2014.
19
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by China, October 2014.
20
The point system used to identify the most sustainable products or services assigns bonus points tomedical freezers with refrigerants with a GWP<10.
18

17

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

38.
In summary, several policies and actions are crucial to enabling the significant
mitigation of non-CO2 GHG emissions. They include:(a)sources;

Policies to promote recovery, capture, reuse and leakage of CH4 from several(b)

Integrated waste management policies;(c)

Policies and practices aimed at a more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers;(d)Development of techniques and policies to improve sustainable land andlivestock management;(e)Creation of market conditions for technology development, transfer anddeployment of climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs;(f)

Voluntary emission reductions from industry.

Table 5
Policy options menu for the mitigation of CH4 emissions
Select policy options

Select specific examples

Sector: fossil-fuel extraction, production and transport
Degasification and recovery of
methane from venting in coalmines

 Australia – coal mining abatement technology support packagea
 India, Mexico and the United States of America – pilot projects
on the mitigation of coal-mine emissionsb

Recovery, capture and use of
fugitive CH4 emissions from theoil and gas sector

 Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate
Pollutants (CCAC) Oil and Gas Methane Partnershipc
 Global Methane Initiative – multiple countries and organizations
 Oil and Gas Climate Initiatived

Reduction of gas leakage fromtransmission pipelines

 Russia – Gasprom energy conservation programmes Global Methane Initiative – multiple countries and organizations

Sector: agriculture
Livestock management,
including feeding and breedingpractices Australia – Carbon Farming Initiativee and Emission Reduction
Fund European Union (EU) – Common Agricultural Policyf New Zealand – Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre
and Primary Growth Partnershipg

Sustainable manure
management, including throughon-farm manure management
systems, better application
methods and treatment
technologies

 CCAC Agriculture Initiative; workstream on livestock andmanure management - multiple Parties and non-State actors:
 Global Methane Initiative, Agriculture Subcommitteei - multiple
Parties and non-State actors
 EU nitrates directive, 2010
 United States Environmental Protection Agency - AgSTAR
programmehIntermittent aeration ofcontinuously flooded ricepaddies China – practice of draining rice paddiesj
 Philippines – alternated wet–dry irrigation of rice paddiesk

Sector: waste
Integrated waste management18

 EU – waste management legislation (waste framework directive(75/442/EEC) and landfill directive (1999/31/EC)), leading to a
reduction of methane through better waste managementl
 South Africa – legislation on integration of air pollution andclimate policies

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Select policy options

Select specific examples

Waste reduction, recycling andreuse Germany – implementation of the EU policy on packaging
through its Ordinance on the Avoidance and Recovery of
Packaging Waste

Landfill management, including
methane capture and energy
recovery for heat and electricity
generation

 Australia – Emission Reduction Fund with a capitalization of
2.55 billion Australian dollars covers costs on delivery ofabatementm
 Mexico – public–private partnership gas recovery from landfillsn
 United States of America – successful reduction of emissions
from waste and landfills, including through landfill air
regulationso World Bank – Pilot Auction Facility for Methane and Climate
Change Mitigationp, q

Note: Many of the policy options and examples provided in this table are taken from the presentations madeduring the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action technical expert meeting on noncarbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions, held in October 2014. Detailed information on this meeting is available at<http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8420.php>. Many examples reference ongoing activities at the local and national
levels. The list is not exhaustive and the examples are for informational purposes only.
Sources:a
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) technical expert meeting (TEM)
on non-CO2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; presentation by Australia, October 2014.
b
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Near-term Climate Protection and Clean Air
Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-lived Climate Forcers. Available at:<http://www.unep.org/pdf/Near_Term_Climate_Protection_&_Air_Benefits.pdf>.
cUnited Nations. 2014. Press release: “Industry leaders, including energy companies, forge partnerships toadvance climate solutions and reduce short-lived climate pollutants”. Available at:<http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/INDUSTRY-PR.pdf>.
dUnited Nations. 2014. Press release: “Industry leaders, including energy companies, forge partnerships toadvance climate solutions and reduce short-lived climate pollutants”. Available at:<http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/INDUSTRY-PR.pdf>.
e
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by Australia, October 2014.
f
Submission from the European Union (EU) to the ADP, 20 May 2014.
g
Submission from New Zealand to the ADP, June 2014.
h<http://www.epa.gov/agstar/>.
i<https://www.globalmethane.org/agriculture/index.aspx>.
j
UNEP. 2011. Near-term Climate Protection and Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-lived
Climate Forcers. Available at: <http://www.unep.org/pdf/Near_Term_Climate_Protection_&_Air_Benefits.pdf>.
kUNEP. 2011. Near-term Climate Protection and Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-lived
Climate Forcers. Available at: <http://www.unep.org/pdf/Near_Term_Climate_Protection_&_Air_Benefits.pdf>.
lSubmission from the EU to the ADP, 14 October 2014.
m
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by Australia, October 2014.
n
UNEP. 2011. Near-term Climate Protection and Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-lived
Climate Forcers. Available at: <http://www.unep.org/pdf/Near_Term_Climate_Protection_&_Air_Benefits.pdf>.
oIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Available at: <http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/>.
p
Submission from the World Bank Group to the ADP, 20 March 2014.
q
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the World Bank Group Annex on its Pilot Auction
Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation, October 2014.

19

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Table 6
Policy options menu for the mitigation of N2O emissions
Select policy options

Sector: industrial processes
Reducing N2O emissions fromindustry through financial
incentives, mechanisms andvoluntary agreements

Select specific examples







Brazil – clean development mechanism projectsa
European Union (EU) – European Union Emissions Trading
Systemb
Netherlands – Reduction Programme for Non-CO2 Gases (targetof
8–10 Mt CO2 eq emission reductions by 2020, or a reduction of
50 per cent below the 1990 level)c
North America – voluntary carbon offset creditsd

Sector: agriculture
Integrated sustainable land
management

 Indonesia – five-year plan of the Ministry of Forestrye

Efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers  China – training and capacity-buildingf
through regulations and training of  EU – nitrates directiveg
farmers New Zealand – Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre,
Primary Growth Partnership and farm-level nutrient managementh World Bank Group – investments in agricultural improvements innutrient managementi
Reducing N2O emissions fromsoils through financial incentives

 Canada – Alberta Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction Protocol For
Carbon Offsetsj
 Sweden – tax on the nitrogen content of synthetic fertilizersk, lNote: Many of the policy options and examples provided in this table are taken from the presentations madeduring the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action technical expert meeting on noncarbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions, held in October 2014. Detailed information on this meeting is available at<http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8420.php>. Many examples reference ongoing activities at the local and national
levels. The list is not exhaustive and the examples are for informational purposes only.
Sources:a
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) technical expert meeting (TEM)
on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by Brazil, October 2014.
b
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the International Fertilizer Industry Association(IFIA), October 2014.
c<http://www.unep.org/ccac/Partners/CountryPartners/Netherlands/tabid/131837/Default.aspx>.
d
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the IFIA, October 2014.
e
Submission from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies to the ADP, 30 May 2014.
f
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the World Bank Group, October 2014.
g
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Available at: <http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/>.
hSubmission from New Zealand to the ADP, June 2014.
i
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the World Bank Group, October 2014.
j
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to theFifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:<http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/>.
k
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to theFifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:<http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/>.
l
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the World Bank Group, October 2014.

20

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4

Table 7
Policy options menu for the mitigation of fluorinated gas emissions
Select policy options

Select specific examples

Sector: industrial processes
Creation of market conditions
for technology development,
transfer and deployment ofclimate-friendly alternatives tohigh global warming potential(GWP) hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs) and perfluorocarbons(PFCs)









Responsible management ofexisting equipment and better
design of future equipment inorder to minimize leaks






Encouraging uptake of climatefriendly alternatives to reducereliance on high-GWP HFCsi









Denmark – taxes on fluorinated gases (F-gases) combined with abanaEuropean Union (EU) – law to promote eco design of air
conditioners used in small motor vehicles and the F-gas
regulation that covers all other applications in which F-gases areuseda
Norway – PFC regulations (phase-out and replacement)b
Spain – tax on F-gases including SF6 and PFCs,a national tax on
F-gases and voluntary agreements with industrial sectors,a taxes
on F-gases combined with a refund for recovered or eliminatedgasa
PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor
Industry (United States Environmental Protection Agency,
World Semiconductor Council)c, d
EU – EU directive on mobile air-conditioning, which bans theuse of vehicle refrigerants; EU directive on recycling of wastefrom electronic equipment containing F-gases; European
Management and Audit Scheme for organizations; the Green
Public Procurement voluntary instrument;a, e a project (withfunding of EUR 5 million) to address the waste treatment of
HFCs in the Asia-Pacific regiona
Japan – Act on the rational use and proper management of
HFCsf
United States of America – Voluntary Aluminum Industrial
Partnershipg
Voluntary initiatives: Consumer Goods Forum Board Resolution
on Sustainable Refrigerationh
China – HFC phase-down programmes, including capacitybuilding to collect and report HFC emissions data; mobilizationof financial resources for further actions to phase-down HFCs;
research, development and deployment of environmentallysound, effective and safe alternatives and technologies; andmultilateral agreements to phase down HFCsj
EU – legislation on F-gases from 2006, to be superseded by new
legislation from 1 January 2015 that introduces more stringent
measures (promotion of low-GWP alternatives to high-GWP
HFCs)kUnited States of America – promoting safer lower-GWP
alternatives to HFCs; providing funding opportunities for HFC
alternatives; banning some HFCs; including F-gases in emission
reduction targetsl
Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate
Pollutants – projects to support the preparation of HFC
inventories, the establishment of standards, and theimplementation of demonstration projects, as well as capacitybuilding activities

Note: Many of the policy options and examples provided in this table are taken from the presentations madeduring the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action technical expert meeting on noncarbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions, held in October 2014. Detailed information on this meeting is available at21

FCCC/TP/2014/13/Add.4<http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/8420.php>. Many examples reference ongoing activities at the local and national
levels. The list is not exhaustive and the examples are for informational purposes only.
Sources:aSubmission from the European Union (EU) to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for
Enhanced Action (ADP), 14 October 2014.
b
ADP technical expert meeting (TEM) on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by Hydro Norsk, October
2014.
cWorld Semiconductor Council. 2012. World Semiconductor Council Best Practice Guidance of PFC Emission
Reduction. Available online since 7 October 2014 at<http://www.semiconductorcouncil.org/wsc/uploads/Final_WSC_Best_Practice_Guidance_26_Sept_2012.pdf>.
dUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (2014b). 6 October 2014. Available at<http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/basic.html>.
e
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the EU on regulating fluorinated gases (F-gases),
October 2014.
f
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry
Association, October 2014.
g<http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/fgases.html>.
h
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by CCAC, October 2014.
i
Submission from the United Nations Environment Programme to the ADP, 2014.
j
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by China, October 2014.
k
ADP TEM on non-CO2 GHG emissions; presentation by the EU on regulating F-gases, October 2014.
lFact Sheet: Obama Administration Partners with Private Sector on New Commitments to Slash Emissions ofPotent Greenhouse Gases and Catalyze Global HFC Phase Down. 16 September 2014.

22