31 March 2018

Submission from National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES): A response to the
Talanoa Dialogue process
Summary
Based on decisions 1/CP.21 (para 20) and 1/CP.23 (para 10-11 and Annex II), this submission
provides input to the Talanoa Dialogue from the National Institute of Environmental Studies(NIES), Japan, based on our latest studies. Our inputs are related to three questions: (1)Where are we? (2) Where do we want to go? and (3) How do we get there?
As for “where are we”, our latest studies using the Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) showthat the targets of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 and 2030 are both achievable. On
the other hand, as for “where do we want to go”, there is less chance for the world to stay on
the emission pathways to realize the 2 ºC or 1.5 ºC goals, even if the targets in 2020 and 2030
are met. In particular, under the middle-of-road scenario of the shared socio-economic
pathways (SSP2), there is no plausible pathway that passes the total Nationally-Determined
Contributions (NDCs) of years 2025~2030 and still stays within the emission trajectory
towards 1.5 ºC goal.
As for “how do we get there”, We used our indicator, the C-PPI, to measure the climate
mitigation efforts of G20 countries in the past decade and also in the next decade to reach
their respective NDCs. NIES’s studies found that the G20 countries as a whole have helped
limit the growth of GHG emissions over the past decade, and they are aiming at further
limitations with the goal of reaching their respective NDCs. The efforts, however, are notenough for us to be on the emission trajectory needed to meet the temperature goals. In
addition, many countries can improve their policy implementation to increase their NDCs. If
all of the additional policies recommended in the study are implemented in all G20 countries,
emissions in the post-2020 period could be shifted downward to fill the gap between total
NDCs and the trajectory needed to meet the 2 ºC goal.

131 March 2018

1. Background
Decision 1/CP.21 para 20 states the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC decided
to convene a facilitative dialogue among the Parties in 2018. The aim was to take stock of thecollective efforts of the Parties regarding progress towards the long-term goal in Article 4.1 of
the Paris Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions(NDCs) pursuant to Article 4.8 of the Agreement. The COP, during its 23rd session, welcomed
the design of the 2018 facilitative dialogue, to be known as the Talanoa Dialogue, which waslaunched in January 2018 (decision 1/CP.23, para 10-11 and Annex II). This submission
supplies inputs to the Dialogue from the National Institute of Environmental Studies, Japan,
on the basis of the latest studies here at NIES. Our inputs are related to three questions: (1)Where are we? (2) Where do we want to go? and (3) How do we get there?

2. Where are we?
In order to assess the present greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and future GHG emission
pathways, we utilize our integrated assessment model, Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM).
AIM consists of various types of model to meet the research target, and for this study, we use
the global scale computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (AIM/CGE [Global]). Detailed
model structure of the AIM/CGE [Global] can be downloaded from the following website:
http://www.nies.go.jp/social/dp/pdf/2012-01.pdf
The simulation results show that the emission targets in 2020 and 2030 are feasible solutions.
This means that the existing targets can be achieved. The cost to attain the targets aredifferent among the countries. To achieve the NDCs in 2030, the GHG price in developed
countries are generally higher than developing countries. Simulation result also shows that
the GHG price in some developing countries in 2030 is zero or nearly zero. In other words,
some countries will be able to achieve the target without any burdens.

3. Where do we want to go?
Future GHG emissions will be decided not only by the GHG mitigation measures such as
introduction of renewable energies and energy saving technologies but also by thesocio-economic conditions including the lifestyle and infrastructure. We assess the GHG
emission pathways toward 1.5 °C or 2 °C target using the AIM/CGE [Global].
Targets proposed in NDCs are meaningful and necessary to develop low carbon society.
However, achievement of the 2 °C target will depend on the revision of NDCs and mitigation
measures after 2030. Specifically, we will have to reduce GHG emissions drastically between
2030 and 2040 in order to realize the 2 °C target, if the present NDCs is not revised. In orderto make the GHG emission pathway easy after 2030, the NDCs in 2025-2030 will have to bestrengthened. During the 21st century, the GHG emissions especially in Asia are expected toincrease. This means that the deeper mitigation measures in Asia will be more important to2

31 March 2018

realize the 2 °C target.
The emission pathways to achieve the goal of 1.5 °C need the more rigid condition. Under thesocio-economic condition of SSP2 (middle of the road among the 5 shared socio-economic
pathways), the emission pathway following the present NDCs targets up to 2030 falls short ofthe pathways to achieve 1.5 °C target after 2030. This result means that the present NDCs
targets are completely insufficient to achieve the goal. To attain the 1.5 °C target, the deeper
reduction in 2025-2030 all over the world will be absolutely imperative.
Realizing the 2 °C or 1.5 °C target requires not only the GHG mitigation measures but also
the appropriate socio-economic condition. Under the high carbon society, application of GHG
mitigation measures will be very difficult. To facilitate introduction of mitigation measures,the society itself needs to shift to be consistent with the low or zero carbon society. For
example, people’s preference and lifestyle will have to change in accordance with theirawareness on environment, the payback period of decision making be longer, and so on. If theenvironmentally conscious society is selected, the GHG mitigation measures will become
easier, because the various barriers including the costs to achieve the target become smaller.

4. How do we get there?
4.1 Measuring countries’ effort by C-PPIWe have designed a set of indicators called the Climate change mitigation Policy Progression
Indicator (C-PPI) to assess the sufficiency of policy implementation. The C-PPI consists of two
pillars. Outcome Indicators assess the status of countries with respect to their achievement of
actual GHG emission reductions by comparing each country’s data with those of othercountries, as well as by checking the trend of each country’s time series data. These indicatorsshow the actual quantitative emission status independent of any policy efforts taken by thesecountries. On the other hand, Action Indicators measure countries’ level of policy
implementation. GHG emissions are affected by various factors such as economic conditions
and the weather, which are independent of any implementation of climate change mitigation
policies. Action Indicators measure the level of effort related to climate mitigation policies byselecting key policy instruments that could be commonly introduced in all countries.
Although GHG emission sources vary from one country to another and the factors behind
emission growth and reduction differ tremendously among countries, several common goals
need to be shared by all countries if the world is going to achieve the long-term temperature
increase goal of either 2 °C or 1.5 °C. We selected four goals to be applied to both the Action
and Outcome Indicators: (1) decarbonizing energy, (2) improving energy efficiency, (3)minimizing demand for energy services, and (4) reducing non-CO2 GHG and land-use-related
emissions. A detailed explanation on the C-PPI methodology can be found at

http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/climatepolicy/cppi/images/2nov2016_CPPIver3.pdf.
This section presents the results of one of our studies that used the C-PPI to examine
emission-reduction efforts of the G20 countries. Together, the G20 countries generate about3

31 March 2018

80% of global GHG emissions. Taking a close look at these countries’ progress towards
developing low-emission economies is useful, not only because of their absolute share ofemissions within the global total, but also because other countries see the G20 countries as
examples. The country names are not indicated, because the aim of the Talanoa Dialogue is totake stock of the collective efforts of Parties, not to assess the effort of each individual
country.
To evaluate the relationship between level of economic development and level of achievement,
the G20 countries were categorized into three groups according to per capita GDP in 2010 inreal terms (using the average exchange rate of the local currency and US dollar of 2010):
Group 1 (countries A–H, more than US$35,000),
Group 2 (countries I–N, between US$10,000 and 22,000),
Group 3 (countries O–S, less than US$8,000).

4.2 Goal 1: Decarbonizing energy (Figure 1)CO2 emission / primary energy supply was chosen as the Outcome Indicator to measure thelevel of decarbonization of energy. Selected Action Indicators include policies to promoterenewable energy, decarbonize fossil-fuel-combustion power plants, set standards for nuclear
power plants, and decarbonize the transportation sector. For the Action Indicators, the study
rated policy implementation by using seven levels: A+, A, AB, B, BC, C, and C–. A rating of A+
means that the level of policy implementation is sufficient to place the country on the path
towards reaching the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement. A C– rating means that no policy
was found within the chosen criteria.
In the comparison of Groups 1, 2 and 3, it became apparent that the level of decarbonization
does not greatly depend on the level of economic development. Rather, it depends more on theinitial endowment of potential sources of renewable energy, such as hydropower. Most
countries within all three groups have aimed to decarbonize energy during the past decade.
Countries that set NDCs aimed at carbon-intensive energy are those that are expecting rapid
economic growth entailing increased use of coal power plants or those countries that havepreviously used mostly biomass energy and are now shifting to fossil-fuel energy sources.
These countries would be able to improve their levels of NDCs if they were able to obtain
international support to increase the energy supply from renewable energy.
In terms of Action Indicators, many Group 1 countries have already implemented a variety ofpolicies contributing to the decarbonization of energy, but other countries still have muchroom for policy implementation. To promote renewable energy, the setting of numericaltargets and the introduction of economic incentives such as feed-in tariffs were most effective
during the past decade to increase the share of renewable energy. For countries that have notyet been able to decarbonize electricity generation, decisions are urgently needed on whether
to invest in renewable energy, nuclear power, or carbon capture and storage (CCS). For
countries that have already decarbonized electricity generation, electrification in thetransportation sector and for heating buildings are likely to be areas in which further
progress can be made.

4

31 March 2018

Group 2

Group 3

Action Indicator

Outcome IndicatorGroup 1Figure 1: Outcome and Action Indicators for Goal 1 (decarbonizing energy)

4.3 Goal 2: Improving energy efficiency (Figure 2)

Final energy consumption/GDP was chosen as the Outcome Indicator to measure level ofenergy efficiency improvement. Policies to improve energy efficiency in the industrial,building, and transportation sectors were chosen as Action Indicators.
The Outcome Indicator showed that all countries have been aiming at improving energy
efficiency during the past decade. All countries have also set NDCs that aim at further
improvement in the post-2020 period, but the rate of improvement is likely to slow down inmany countries. A comparison across Groups 1, 2, and 3 reveals that some countries in Group
2 have been able to make minor improvements in the past decade, even though their per
capita GDPs are much higher than those of countries in Group 3. The Action Indicators forGroups 2 and 3 also showed a subtle difference in the level of policy introduction, meaning

5

31 March 2018that Group 2 countries could place effort into introducing policies to improve energy efficiency
to achieve and deepen their NDCs in the post-2020 period.
Various policies have been found to be effective in improving energy efficiency. These include
introducing reporting and reviewing processes for energy-intensive industries, implementing
building codes (including for wall and window insulation), and regulating inefficient old
automobiles. Labeling is one of the most popular policies that has already been put in place inmost countries. Increasing the price of energy is also an effective tool to incentivize
improvements in energy efficiency, and reducing energy subsidies is an effective policy inmany developing countries. In the future, these regulatory policies need to be upgraded in all
countries to reach NDCs aimed at greater improvements in energy efficiency. Even among
Group 1 countries, the level of policy implementation was found to vary from one country toanother.

Group 2

Group 3

Action Indicator

Outcome IndicatorGroup 1Figure 2: Outcome and Action Indicators for Goal 2 (improving energy efficiency)

6

31 March 2018

4.4 Goal 3: Minimizing demand for energy service (Figure 3)

Final energy consumption/person was chosen as the Outcome Indicator to measure level ofdemand for energy services. Policies to minimize energy demand were selected from theindustrial, building, and transportation sectors as Action Indicators.
Only Group 1 countries have made progress in energy consumption per capita in the last
decade, although progress is slow even in these countries. Countries in Groups 2 and 3 haveactually increased per capita energy consumption in the last decade. Although this may
partially be necessary to meet basic human needs in poor countries, it is not necessarily thecase in countries with a per-capita GDP near that of Group 1 countries. Some countries inGroup 2 are not expected to be able to decrease their demand for energy service in the next
decade. Even in many Group 1 countries, additional decreases are not expected in their NDCs.
All countries, except those in Group 3, need to improve their NDCs to seek additional
decreases in this area.
Less policy implementation was observed for this goal than for the previous two goals inalmost all countries. This means that all countries need to implement additional policies
aimed at decreasing demand for energy services. In particular, some of the countries in Group
2 need to implement policies in this area to achieve lower NDCs. Unlike in other Goals, there
was no clear consistency between level of policy implementation and level of outcome in eachcountry. This means improvements in this area require not only climate-related policies but
packages of policies that cut across various policy areas such as urban planning andeducation.
Examples of key policy areas that are important in decreasing the demand for energy services
include increasing combined heat and power (CHPs) systems in industrial parks and urban
areas to make the best use of waste heat; increasing consumer awareness by informing
consumers of their own energy consumption through the use of, for example, smart meteringand visualization of energy consumption; and improving urban planning to reduce thedemand for automobile transportation. Policies such as increasing energy prices for
consumers can be introduced simultaneously with policies that offer relevant alternatives tostimulate behavioral changes. For example, an increase in the price of gas should be more
effective when public transportation is convenient, affordable and safe.

7

31 March 2018

Group 2

Group 3

Action Indicator

Outcome IndicatorGroup 1Figure 3: Outcome and Action indicators for Goal 3 (decreasing demand for energy services)

4.5 Goal 4: Reducing non-CO2 GHG and land-use-related emissions (Figure 4)

Non-CO2 gases emission/person was used as the Outcome Indicator to measure the level ofeffort to reduce non-CO2 GHG (methane, nitrous oxide, and f-gases) emissions. The rate ofchange of forest area was selected to measure land-use-related emissions. It should be notedthat less data on emissions and NDCs were available for these gases, and thus, levels
indicated in Figure 4 are tentative for many countries. Policies related to methane emissions
from the agriculture, mining, and waste disposal sectors, and those related to emissions of
f-gases, were selected as Action Indicators to measure actions to reduce non-CO2 GHG
emissions. Policies related to target setting for forest areas, forest management, andprocurement of sustainable wood products were used as Action Indicators to measure
forest-related activities.
In most countries, emissions of non-CO2 gases remained relatively the same in the past8

31 March 2018

decade, and the same situation is projected in the next decade. As for forest coverage, somecountries have maintained positive percentage throughout the last decade, meaning thesecountries continued increasing forest area at a certain rate throughout the decade. In someother countries, the rate is stable at nearly zero (meaning forest unchanged). Only one
country in Group 1 was able to change decreasing trend (negative level) into increasing trend(positive level).
Per-capita emissions of non-CO2 gases are not necessarily affected by a country’s level of
economic wealth. Rather, they were affected by the level of activities of certain industries that
emit large amounts of non-CO2 GHGs, such as agriculture and fossil fuel industries. Forest
coverage change was also not related to level of economic wealth.
The height of each Action Indicator (bottom half in Figure 4) reflects the share of emissions
and sequestrations within total national emissions. In the comparison of Action Indicators
shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, some countries’ emissions in these sectors account for asignificant percentage of national emissions, but almost no policies are being implemented tomitigate methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Although tackling non-CO2 GHG emissions isa challenging task, it is indispensable to reach the long-term goal set by the Paris Agreement.
Key policies to reduce non-CO2 gases include collection of methane from fossil fuel extraction
plants and land-fill waste disposal sites. Policies to reduce f-gases are introduced mostly inGroup 1 countries, mainly because they are major f-gas users. In general, there are very few
number of policies to reduce non-CO2 gases compared to policies aimed at other three Goals.
We observed a strong linkage between forest coverage change and implementation offorest-related policies. Countries that set absolute numerical targets for afforestation area orfor number of trees to be planted were able to increase afforestation or decrease deforestation.
Target setting and subsidizing tree-planting activities appear to be an effective policy packagethat works as an incentive to increase and maintain forest coverage.

9Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Action Indicator

Outcome Indicator (forest)

Outcome Indicator (non CO2)31 March 2018

Figure 4: Outcome and Action Indicators for Goal 4 (reduce non-CO2 GHG emissions andincrease sequestration by land-use change)

1031 March 2018

4. Conclusions
This study investigated the three questions posed by the Talanoa Process. From the modelingexercise, it was found that the emission targets for years 2020 and beyond are achievabletargets. On the other hand, there are less chances for the world to stay on the emission
trajectory towards the 2 ºC or 1.5 ºC goals, even if the targets in 2020 and 2030 were met.
Especially, there is no plausible pathway that passes the total NDCs of years 2025~2030 andstill stay within the emission trajectory towards 1.5 ºC goal. This means the NDCs for theseyears need to be further deepened for the world to reach the 1.5 ºC goal.
With the aim of looking for linkages between policy implementation and emissions, thesestudies investigated the actions taken by, and GHG emission trends of, G20 countries. In
general, policy implementation was found to actually influence emission trends. There still isa great deal of potential for further implementation of climate mitigation policies in the future
in all countries. If the additional policies noted in this submission are implemented by all G20
countries, emissions in the post-2020 period could shift downwards to fill the current gap
between total NDCs and the pathway towards the 2 ºC goal.

For more information and inquiries:
Dr. Yasuko Kameyama: ykame@nies.go.jp
Dr. Toshihiko Masui: masui@nies.go.jp
Dr. Kiyoshi Takahashi: ktakaha@nies.go.jp
Dr. Shinichiro Fujimori: fujimori.shinichiro@nies.go.jp

11