Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Linking Climate and Development Policies –Leveraging International Networks and Knowledge Sharing

Deliverable [2.1]
Report on current climate-relevant policies in major economies

Climate mitigation policies in the context
of sustainable development

Lead authors: Gabriela Iacobuta (WUR), Niklas Höhne (WUR), Mark Roelfsema (PBL), Heleen
van Soest (PBL), Detlef van Vuuren (PBL)
With contributions from: colleagues from COPPE, HSE, ICCS, IIASA, IIM, IDDRI, ITB,KAIST, NCI, NDRC-ERI, PBL, PNNL, RITE, TERI, TU, EC, ERC.

Reviewer: Michael Pahle
Date: 23.12.2016 (Version #1); 28.09.2017 (Version #2); 19.12.2017 (Version #3)

Abstract: A good understanding of implemented climate policies and targets in major economies isnecessary to assess expected future emissions and required mitigation action that ensures atemperature increase well below 2ᵒC. To address this necessity, we produced an inventory of key
policies in G20 countries that could influence their future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This wasachieved through an ex-ante assessment of current climate-related policies of G20 countries withrespect to their impacts on GHG emissions reduction. The study firstly entailed developing andmaking available a database of all climate-related policies in the aforementioned countries tosupport this study. Additionally, it provides needed information on the trade-offs and synergies,
identified in the literature, between individual climate-related policies and sustainable developmentareas. The resulting assessment is strongly related to the overall goals and objectives of the CD-LINKS

iThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

project to explore low-carbon transition pathways and their interactions with other sustainable
development objectives, both nationally and globally.

Keywords: climate, development, policy, G20

ii
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Document information
Full project name:

Linking Climate and Development Policies – Leveraging International Networks andKnowledge Sharing
642147Acronym:
CD-LINKS

Grant Agreement
number:Project URL:

www.cd-links.org

Project start date:

01/09/2015

Project end date:

31/08/2019

Deliverable

Number:

2.1

Title:

Work Package

Number:2

Title:

Date of delivery

Planned:30.11.2016 (Version #1);
30.09.2017 (Version #2);
19.01.2018 (Version #3)

Actual:Dissemination level:☒ Public ☐ Restricted

Lead instituteResponsible author
Reviewer

Wageningen University and Research (WU)
Name:
Gabriela Iacobuta
E-mail:Name:
Michael Pahle
E-mail:Project duration:

48 months

Report on current climate-relevant
policies in major economies
Assessment of international country
pledges, national action plans anddevelopment policies
23.12.2016 (Version #1);
29.09.2017 (Version #2);
04.01.2018 (Version #3)

gabriela.iacobuta@wur.nl
michael.pahle@pik-potsdam.deVersion Log
VersionVersion #1
Version #2

Date
23.12.2016
29.09.2017

19.12.2017

Issued by
WUR
WUR

Description
Final deliverable
This revised version of Deliverable 2.1 features
updated figures that reflect country indicators inmore recent years. The figures modified here canbe found under the following figure numbers: 3,4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39,
42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66. The in-text
values and descriptions related to these figures
have also been updated. Moreover, this version
brings additional insights into the impacts ofnuclear and renewable energy production on
SDG3 (Health) and SDG8 (Economic growth),
described in section 3.
This version updates text referring to sectoral
GHG emissions bar charts to match shown values.

iii
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Acknowledgements
First, we would like to express our gratitude to the European Commission for making this project
possible, as part of the Horizon2020 program.
Furthermore, this research would not have been possible without the support of CD-LINKS partners
and external reviewers who provided valuable feedback on national policies. We thank our colleagues
Alexandre Koberle from the Energy Planning Program of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil(COPPE), Jiang Kejun and Chenmin He from Energy Research Institute of the National Development andResearch Commission, China (NDRC-ERI), George Safonov from the Higher School of Economics, Russia(HSE), Zoi Vrontisi from Institute of Communication and Computer Systems of the National Technical
University of Athens, Greece (ICCS), Klimong Zbigniew and Olga Turkovska from International Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Amit Garg from the Public Systems Group at the Indian Instituteof Management, India (IIM), Roberta Pierfederici from Institute for Sustainable Development andInternational Relations (IDDRI), Ucok WR Siagian from Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia (ITB),
Jiyong Eom and Cheolhung Cho from Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic ofKorea (KAIST), Takeshi Kuramochi from NewClimate Institute (NCI), Gokul Iyer from Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL), Junichiro Oda from Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the
Earth, Japan (RITE), Aayushi Awasthy and Ritu Mathur from The Energy and Research Institute, India(TERI), Zhang Hongjun from Technical University, China (TU), Nick Macaluso from Environment andClimate Change Canada (EC), Michael Boulle, Hilton Trollipp from Energy Research Centre, South Africa(ERC) and Daniel Buira (Mexico).
Finally, we would like to thank Michael Pahle from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)for his valuable comments and suggestions as a reviewer of this deliverable, and to Rik Leemans from
Wageningen University & Reserch (WUR) for his thorough input on the final draft.

Disclaimer
The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any
person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of theinformation contained therein.

iv
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Executive Summary
Objective and method
The main objective of this study was to produce an inventory of key policies in G20 countries that could
influence their future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by providing an ex-ante assessment of current
climate-related policies of G20 countries with respect to their impacts on GHG emissions reduction. To
reach this goal, the research firstly entailed developing a database of all climate-related policies in the
aforementioned countries. A secondary objective of this study was to identify the impacts of specificclimate mitigation action measures on sustainable development goals (SDGs) from existing literature,and to categorise them by climate mitigation instrument, sector and policy area.
The latter objective is strongly related to the overall goals and objectives of the CD-LINKS project to
explore low-carbon transition pathways and their interactions with other sustainable development
objectives, both nationally and globally. This deliverable provides needed information on the trade-offs
and synergies between individual climate-related policies (both those directed specifically at climate
mitigation and those targeting other development issues, such as air pollution) and sustainable
development areas.
A good overview of all climate-relevant policies in a country is required to identify the policies with thehighest impact on GHG emissions reduction. Therefore, the first step in this study was to produce aninventory of climate-relevant policies and measures. This inventory builds on the database developed
by NewClimate Institute (www.climatepolicydatabase.org), currently comprising more than 3000
climate-relevant policies and measures worldwide, with a focus on 30 major economies identified as
the highest GHG emitters.
Policy inventory
Figure 1 shows the percentage of G20 countries that have policies in specific sectors, areas and policy
types defined in the good practice policy menu of the Climate Policy Database. We found that eachsection of the good practice policy menu is covered by at least one country. However, the policy areas
covered by most countries are energy efficiency (more than 80% in each relevant sector), renewablesin the electricity and transport sectors (100% and at least 69%, respectively), and forestry (88%). All
G20 countries have support policies for electricity production from renewable sources, and minimum
energy/emissions performance standards or support for energy efficient light duty vehicles orpassenger cars. Similarly, all G20 countries have GHG emissions reduction targets, although thesetargets include those presented in the intended nationally determined contributions to the Paris
Agreement (INDCs). More than 80% of the countries have climate change strategies, but only 63% havecoordinating bodies for climate change to support the implementation of these strategies.
Changing activity, industrial non-energy, and renewables in the residential sector (other than solar PV),are the policy areas with smallest coverage across G20 members. Furthermore, overarching policies,
such as offsetting mechanisms, fossil fuel subsidies removals and energy and other taxes, are coveredby less than 70% of the countries in all sectors. Moving to low-carbon pathways would require climate
mitigation action in all relevant sectors, addressing all existing GHG emissions sources. By not having
policies in certain areas, countries might miss opportunities to reduce emissions and the associatedpotential co-benefits. Examples of co-benefits from increasing deployment of renewables in theresidential sector are increased asset value of building units, new job opportunities, improved energy
security, and reduced urban heat island effect.
v
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018vi
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 1. Coverage of the good practice policy menu by the G20 countries.

vii
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

High impact policies
For each country, a short-list of policies with expected high impact on GHG emissions reduction wascompiled and reviewed by national experts. These are presented in a special page of the Climate Policy
Database, dedicated to this analysis, which can be accessed at the following link:
http://climatepolicydatabase.org/index.php?title=CDlinks_policy_inventory. The most important
policies are also listed in Section 4 of this report, under country profiles.

viii
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Table of ContentsDocument information ........................................................................................................................... iii
Version Log ............................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ iv
Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. v
List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... x
List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... xiii
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ xiv
1.

2.

3.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.

Problem definition................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.

Report objective ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.3.

Report structure ...................................................................................................................... 2

Inventory of climate and development policies .............................................................................. 3
2.1.

The policy inventory ................................................................................................................ 3

2.2.

Good practice policy menu...................................................................................................... 3

2.3.

High impact climate policies .................................................................................................... 4

Co-benefits and side-effects of current climate action ................................................................... 4
3.1.

Climate mitigation links to other SDGs .................................................................................... 4

3.2.

Co-benefits and the good practice policy menu ...................................................................... 3

3.2.1.

Electricity and heat sector ............................................................................................... 5

3.2.2.

Industry sector ................................................................................................................ 6

3.2.3.

Building sector ................................................................................................................. 7

3.2.4.

Transport sector .............................................................................................................. 8

3.2.5.

Agriculture and forestry sector ....................................................................................... 9

3.3.

Current country-specific development status ....................................................................... 11

3.3.1. GHG emissions..................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.2. Economic development ....................................................................................................... 123.3.3. Energy.................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3.4. Air pollution ......................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.5. Food security ....................................................................................................................... 18
ix
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.3.6. Water use ............................................................................................................................ 20
4.

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.

Overview of G20 countries (general assessment of indicators) ............................................ 22

4.2.

Country profiles ..................................................................................................................... 23

4.2.1.

Argentina ....................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.2.

Australia ........................................................................................................................ 27

4.2.3.

Brazil .............................................................................................................................. 31

4.2.4.

Canada........................................................................................................................... 36

4.2.5.

China ............................................................................................................................. 40

4.2.6.

European Union............................................................................................................. 45

4.2.7.

India............................................................................................................................... 49

4.2.8.

Indonesia ....................................................................................................................... 54

4.2.9.

Japan ............................................................................................................................. 58

4.2.10.

Republic of Korea .......................................................................................................... 63

4.2.11.

Mexico ........................................................................................................................... 68

4.2.12.

Russian Federation ........................................................................................................ 73

4.2.13.

Saudi Arabia................................................................................................................... 78

4.2.14.

South Africa ................................................................................................................... 82

4.2.15.

Turkey............................................................................................................................ 85

4.2.16.

United States ................................................................................................................. 89

References............................................................................................................................................. 94
Annex 1. Climate and development policies database ...................................................................... 97
Annex 2. Potential co-benefits and adverse side-effects of climate mitigation identified in the IPCC
Assessment Report 5 ....................................................................................................................... 105

List of figures
Figure 1. Coverage of the good practice policy menu by the G20 countries. ........................................ vii
Figure 2. Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030)....................................................................... 1
Figure 3: Totalc GHG emissions from G20 countries in 2014, including LULUCF .................................. 11
Figure 4: Total GHG emissions per capita in the G20 countries in 2014 ............................................... 12
Figure 5: GHG emissions intensity in G20 countries in 2014 ................................................................. 12xThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 6: GDP per capita in G20 countries, 2015................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Unemployment rate in G20 countries, 2016 .......................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption in G20 countries, 2014.............................. 15
Figure 9: Energy intensity of primary energy in G20 member states, 2014 .......................................... 15
Figure 10: Rate of electricity access in G20 countries, 2014 ................................................................. 16
Figure 11: Net energy imports in G20 countries, 2014 ......................................................................... 17
Figure 12: Mean annual exposure to PM2.5 in G20 countries, 2015 .................................................... 18
Figure 13: Cereal import dependency ratio in G20 countries as average over the period 2009-2011 . 19
Figure 14: Depth of food deficit in some of the G20 countries over the period 2014-2016 ................. 19
Figure 15: Share of renewable water resources withdrawn by G20 countries various in recent years 20
Figure 16: Share of water use across sectors in G20 countries (various recent years) ......................... 21
Figure 17: Overall good-practice policy menu coverage in the G20 countries ...................................... 22
Figure 18. Good practice policy menu legend ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 19: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Argentina .............................................................. 25
Figure 20: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Argentina 2010 ..................... 25
Figure 21: Development indicators in Argentina compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 26
Figure 22: Good-practice policy menu in Australia ............................................................................... 28
Figure 23: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Australia 2010 ...................... 29
Figure 24: Development indicators in Australia compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represent the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 30
Figure 25: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Brazil ..................................................................... 32
Figure 26: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Brazil 2010............................ 33
Figure 27: Development indicators in Brazil compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 35
Figure 28: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Canada .................................................................. 37
Figure 29: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Canada 2010 ........................ 38
Figure 30: Development indicators in Canada compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 39
Figure 31: Good-practice policy menu coverage in China ..................................................................... 41xiThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 32: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, China 2010 ........................... 42
Figure 33: Development indicators in China compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 44
Figure 34: Good-practice policy menu in the European Union ............................................................. 46
Figure 35: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, European Union 2010 .......... 46
Figure 36: Development indicators in European Union compared to minimum, maximum and averagevalues amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values
below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ................. 48
Figure 37: Good-practice policy menu coverage in India ...................................................................... 50
Figure 38: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, India 2010............................. 51
Figure 39: Development indicators in India compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 53
Figure 40: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Indonesia .............................................................. 55
Figure 41: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Indonesia 2010 ..................... 56
Figure 42: Development indicators in Indonesia compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 57
Figure 43: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Japan ..................................................................... 59
Figure 44: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Japan 2010 ........................... 60
Figure 45: Development indicators in Japan compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 62
Figure 46: Good-practice policy menu in the Republic of Korea ........................................................... 64
Figure 47: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Korea Rep. 2010 ................... 65
Figure 48: Development indicators in Republic of Korea compared to minimum, maximum andaverage values amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between
values below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ...... 67
Figure 49: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Mexico .................................................................. 69
Figure 50: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Mexico 2010 ......................... 70
Figure 51: Development indicators in Mexico compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 72
Figure 52: Good-practice policy menu coverage in the Russian Federation ......................................... 74
Figure 53: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Russian Federation 2010 ...... 75
xii
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 54: Development indicators in Russian Federation compared to minimum, maximum andaverage values amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between
values below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ...... 77
Figure 55: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Saudi Arabia .......................................................... 79
Figure 56: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Saudi Arabia 2010 ................ 80
Figure 57: Development indicators in Saudi Arabia compared to minimum, maximum and averagevalues amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values
below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ................. 81
Figure 58: Good-practice policy menu in South Africa .......................................................................... 83
Figure 59: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, South Africa 2010 ................. 83
Figure 60: Development indicators in South Africa compared to minimum, maximum and averagevalues amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values
below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ................. 84
Figure 61: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Turkey ................................................................... 86
Figure 62: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Turkey 2010.......................... 87
Figure 63: Development indicators in Turkey compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below
and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ............................ 88
Figure 64: Good-practice policy menu coverage in the United States .................................................. 90
Figure 65: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, US 2010 ................................ 91
Figure 66: Development indicators in United States compared to minimum, maximum and averagevalues amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represent the split between values
below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value. ................. 93
Figure 67. Homepage of Climate Policy Database (www.climatepolicydatabase.org) .......................... 98
Figure 68: Example policy record in Climate Policy Database ............................................................. 100
Figure 69: Screenshot of a country page information additional to the coverage of a good practice
policy menu ......................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 70: Screenshot of CD-LINKS policy inventory ........................................................................... 103
Figure 71: Countries that appear on the CD-LINKS policy inventory page and can be accessed directly............................................................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 72: Screenshot on high-impact policy inventory dedicated page for Japan ............................. 104

List of tables
Table 1: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the electricity and heat sector ........................... 5
Table 2: Developmnet co-benefits and side-effects in the industry sector ............................................. 6
xiiiThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Table 3: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the buildings sector ............................................ 7
Table 4: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the transport sector ........................................... 8
Table 5: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the agriculture and forestry sector .................... 9
Table 6: Climate policies sources compiled in the database ................................................................. 97
Table 7: Policy instruments in the database ........................................................................................ 101

Abbreviations
CD-LINKS

Linking Climate and Development Policies
Knowledge Sharing, Horizon2020 project

Leveraging

International

BAU

Business-as-usual

CAFE

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

EU

European Union

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

LULUCF

Land use, Land-use Change, and Forestry

PBL

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

PPP

Purchasing Power Parity

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

TPES

Total Primary Energy Supply

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

US

United States of America

WUR

Wageningen University and Research

Networks

andxivThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

1.

Introduction

1.1.

Problem definition

Year 2015 brought two important international agreements: Agenda 2030 on the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)’s Paris Agreement on limiting climate change well below 2ᵒC. These two agreements arestrongly interlinked, not only because the Paris agreement aims for climate action to be in accordancewith sustainable development objectives, but also because SDG 13 directly addresses climate change
actions. Furthermore, numerous direct and indirect impacts of climate actions on other SDGs (seeFigure 2) exist1–4.

Figure 2. Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030)

A weak understanding of multiple policy implications and lack of integration across all sectors anddevelopment areas addressed in the Millennium Development Goals, which proceeded the SDGs andended in 2015, prejudiced the achievement of these goals, as progress on certain issues was made at
the expense of development areas improvements5,6. Learning from this experience, countries recognisein Agenda 20307 the interlinkages between different development areas and emphasise the need forcoherent action. Policy coherence for sustainable development has now become a major target in thisagenda, under Goal 17: “Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development” (17.14), and an
explicit approach to implement and ensure global macroeconomic stability (17.13). Countries should“commit to pursuing policy coherence and an enabling environment for sustainable development at alllevels and by all actors”7.
Given the strong link between climate and development, SDG goals can be incorporated in low-carbon
transition pathways3. From this perspective, low-carbon transition for climate change mitigation is oneof Agenda 2030’s most complex targets, affecting almost all other SDGs1. Furthermore, climate change
was identified as one of the SDGs with the greatest need for substantial effort to be met8. Being
equipped with the right system analysis tools to identify and quantify synergies and trade-offs that

1This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

emerge from climate and development action, is key for the necessary policy coherence. However, noclear methodology to ensure coherence in practice exists.
Climate-development interactions have already been studied for decades9. Furthermore, theimportance of mainstreaming climate change into the development agenda was repeatedly addressedin the literature10,11. Consequently, various scientific studies have looked into the general climate
mitigation co-benefits and side-effect on a variety of development areas2–4,12. Other studies focused on
the nexus between climate mitigation and specific development areas, such as climate and air
pollution13–15, climate and energy security15,16 and climate and energy poverty17–19. These latter studies
consider the two-way interactions between the climate policies and development.
Many countries currently have climate mitigation strategies in place and numerous measures havealready been implemented20. Assessing these measures and strategies both in terms of their GHG
emissions reduction effect and in terms of their impact on other SDGs is key in understanding where
and what kind of action is needed to increase the likelihood of meeting SDG13 and all other linked SDGs.
Furthermore, understanding where countries currently stand in terms of their climate action measuresand effectiveness can help formulate country-appropriate mitigation strategies and take otherdevelopment areas into account.

1.2.

Report objective

The main objective of this study was to provide an ex-ante assessment of current climate-related
policies of G20 countries with respect to their impacts on GHG emissions reduction, and hence, toproduce an inventory of high GHG emissions reduction impact policies in each country. To reach thisgoal, the research firstly entailed developing a database of all climate-related policies in the
aforementioned countries. A secondary objective of this study was to identify the impacts of specificclimate mitigation action measures on SDGs from existing literature, and to categorise them by climate
mitigation instrument, sector and policy area.
This objective of this study is strongly related to the overall goals and objectives of the CD-LINKS projectto explore low-carbon transition pathways and their interactions with other sustainable development
objectives, both nationally and globally. This deliverable provides needed information on the trade-offs
and synergies between individual climate-related policies (both those directed specifically at climate
mitigation and those targeting other development issues, such as air pollution) and sustainable
development areas.
In this study, we have assessed the G20 countries, of which the European Union (EU) is assessed as one
region, and the EU members of G20 (Italy, Germany, United Kingdom and France) were not separately
considered.

1.3.

Report structure

In the next section, the climate and development policies inventory will be presented. This section firstpresents the database comprising all identified climate and relevant development policies. Second, themethodology to produce a shortlist of the most important policies in terms of GHG emissions reduction
is introduced. The literature findings and the methodology to evaluate co-benefits and side effects ofcurrent climate action are discussed in section 3. This section identifies interactions between climate
mitigation and development, necessary for any assessment of the broader impacts of low-carbon
transition pathways. Furthermore, a number of sustainable development indicators addressing
different development areas are presented. Finally, section 4 presents the results of the analysis both
2This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

overall, across all G20 members, and at a country level. Country profiles provide details on goodpractice policies coverage, the inventory of most important policies in terms of GHG emissions, and an
overview of country performance against high-level development indicators.

2.

Inventory of climate and development policies

2.1.

The policy inventory

A good overview of all climate-relevant policies in a country is required to identify the policies with thehighest impact on GHG emissions reduction. Therefore, the first step in this study was to produce aninventory of climate-relevant policies and measures. This inventory builds on the database developed
by NewClimate Institute (www.climatepolicydatabase.org), currently comprising more than 3000
climate-relevant policies and measures worldwide, with a focus on 30 major economies identified as
the highest GHG emitters.
The database provides a record for each covering information on policy objective, policy instrument,
policy type, policy sector, year of implementation, policy description and others. The initial version of
the database and the supporting website were thoroughly described by Höhne et al. (2015)20. However,details on the database in its updated form are provided in Annex 1.
As part of the CD-LINKS project, Wageningen University and Research (WUR) and PBL Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency, with input from CD-LINKS country teams and national experts,
updated this database for the G20 member states. Furthermore, while the database initially only
contained climate mitigation policies, the updated inventory has started to also cover policies andmeasures that have impact on GHG emissions and adaptation to climate change from the following
sustainable development areas: adaptation, energy security, energy access, air pollution, food security,
land use, economic development, and water. The updated inventory for G20 countries currently
consists of 1925 policies from all economic sectors (electricity and heat, industry, transport, buildings,
and agriculture and forestry), and the climate-relevant policy objectives defined above as sustainable
development areas. This policies inventory will continue to be updated, reaching a new milestone inMonth 30 of the CD-LINKS project (February 2018). This second phase of the inventory update will focus
on sustainable development policies in G20 countries.

2.2.

Good practice policy menu

Previous research21–25 has started identifying the most effective policies in terms of GHG emissions
reduction. For example, Höhne et al. (2015)20 compiled a good practice policy menu, consisting of highimpact climate mitigation policies across sectors (electricity and heat, industry, buildings, transport,
agriculture and forestry) and policy areas (changing activities, energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear or
CCS or fuel switch, and non-energy). Policies in the good practice policy menu are generally considered
to have a higher impact on GHG emissions reductions than other established measures. Hence, thegood practice policy menu was used in this study as a starting point for identifying the policies with thehighest impact on GHG emissions reductions. To stay well below 2°C, all countries should ideally show
strong action in all sectors and policy areas of the good practice policy menu in which GHG emissions
exist.
The results of the G20 countries coverage of the good practice policy menu are provided in section 4of this report. All countries considered in this study have already been evaluated by Höhne et al.
3This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018(2015)20. However, here we present results of the updated database, following CD-LINKS inventory
work. Furthermore, effects of the climate-related policy measures on other sustainable developmentareas are presented, based on the good practice policy menu results of each country.

2.3.

High impact climate policies

Although all policies in the good practice policy menu are important, some of these are expected tohave a higher impact than others, on a country-specific basis. In this study, we identified the mostimportant policies in reducing GHG emissions for each of the G20 countries. These were identified toassess their impact and to transmit the results to the global modelling teams of the CD-LINKS project,that use these as a basis for regional long-term scenarios.
These high-impact policies were selected based on expert opinion and literature research. The experts
involved in this selection process were the authors of this report, experts from CD-LINKS country teams,
focusing on the team base country, as well as other country-experts that are not affiliated to the CDLINKS project partner institutes (see ‘Acknowledgements’ for further details). Where possible, we tried
to identify at least one important policy from each sector. First, a list of important climate and energy
policies was collected for each country, based on literature (e.g. Kuramochi et al., 201626, INDC
submissions) and the Climate Policy Database. Second, these policies were classified as either
implemented or planned, based on existing supporting policies and likelihood of implementation.
Planned policies are defined here as aspirational targets from strategic documents or policies in thepipeline to be adopted. These policies mostly represent targets beyond 2020, or targets that are notbacked by effective policy instruments. Planned policies give guidance on how the INDCs might be
implemented, if current policies are insufficient. Third, list of implemented policies was sent to country
experts for review, with the aim to identify a top 10 (actual number differed per country) of policies
with the largest impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In case no country experts could review the list,
literature was used (e.g. biennial update reports and other UNFCCC documents in which countries
quantify GHG emissions using ‘existing measures’ scenarios).
Selected high GHG reduction impact policies are presented in a special page of the Climate Policy
Database, dedicate to this analysis, and can be accessed at the following link:
http://climatepolicydatabase.org/index.php?title=CDlinks_policy_inventory. The most important
policies are also listed in section 4 of this report, under country profiles.

3.

Co-benefits and side-effects of current climate action

3.1.

Climate mitigation links to other SDGs

In this section, the impacts of climate mitigation policies on other SDGs targets are identified for eachrelevant SDG. This stock-taking exercise of the interlinkages between SDGs and climate change
mitigation was based on literature review, using the assessment in Table 6.7 of the Working Group III
contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5 (IPCC AR, WGIII)
as a starting point4.
The assessment in this section considers only direct impacts of climate mitigation policies and measuresand not indirect effects of these actions or of global warming itself (examples of excluded indirect
impacts are provided at the end of this section). Below, specific SDG targets are referred to through4
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

numbers in brackets, giving the SDG number followed by the target number (e.g. (1.3) is target 3 of SDG
1).
SDG1 – Poverty eradication
Climate mitigation policies can have a negative impact on poverty eradication through increases inenergy, food and other product prices via carbon and energy taxes10 (1.2). However, renewable energy
prices have dropped substantially, so energy poverty could also decrease as a result of mitigation
through new technologies use. Furthermore, investments in energy efficiency could lead to affordable
energy access for the poor18,27. A side-effect of mitigation could be land use change to grow biofuels orbuild hydropower installations, with repercussions for food security and farmers’ income12 (1.4).
However, only 4% of arable land would be needed for bioenergy according to IEA (2006)28 projections.
Furthermore, emerging bioenergy could become an opportunity for farmers12.
SDG1 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
1.2 By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living inpoverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions; and1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal
rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over landand other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology andfinancial services, including micro finance.
SDG2 – Hunger and food security
Policies supporting biofuel use and forest protection can lead to competition between mitigation andfood security targets by reducing the amount of land available for agriculture29,30 (2.1) and through land
use and ownership change (2.3). However, climate policies addressing the use of biofuels, biomass, andlow-emissions agriculture can have a positive impact via the introduction of new technologies andknowledge for improved and sustainable production30. Furthermore, as discussed under SDG1,
bioenergy would only require a small percentage of land while providing benefits such as diversificationof income sources and access to new markets12 (2.3, 2.4, 2.a).
SDG2 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in pat1icular the poor and people invulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round;
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, inparticular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including throughsecure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial
services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment;
2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural
practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, thatstrengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding andother disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality; and2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural
infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant
5This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

and livestock gene banks to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, inparticular least developed countries.
SDG3 – Health
Climate policies generally have a positive impact on health through co-reduction of emissions ofharmful air, water and soil pollutants11,14,31,32(3.9, 3.4). This pollutant reduction occurs with energy
efficiency improvements, reduction in agricultural burning practices and improved cooking stoves32.
Two climate mitigation measures that could have a negative impact on air, water and soil quality are
biofuel production and consumption and the implementation of CCS. Burning biofuels is in itself asource of air pollutants4. The collection, transport and processing of traditional cooking fuels are
particularly harmful to women’s health as they predominantly manage the gathering, transportation,
processing and combustion of the biomass chain33,34. CCS poses a risk of CO2 leakage, and other storage
and transport related risks4. Road traffic accidents can be significantly reduced via urban planning,
modal share switch and infrastructure investments to decrease traffic-related GHG emissions31 (3.6).
Lower levels of traffic congestion, modal switches and the conservation and development of green
spaces in urban areas are likely to have a positive influence on mental and physical health of citizens35(3.4). However, an increased use of silent electric vehicles can have a negative impact on road safety4(3.6).
Of particular concern among the public, decision makers and their support staff (e.g. technical experts
and scientists) are the health effects from exposures due to ionizing radiation. However, observations
are repeatedly unable to reveal clear evidence of radiation-induced health effects when an individual
has been exposed to low doses, with low doses being defined at levels well above those expected to bereceived by any individual from the examined energy sources36,37. Furthermore, coal leads to evenhigher radiation exposure than coal 38. In terms of rare catastrophic events, there have been two
emergencies at nuclear power plants (Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011) that resulted in
substantial releases of radioactive material. The Chernobyl accident resulted in the deaths of 28 power
plant employees and fireman from acute radiation syndrome and also in excess thyroid cancers among
the public (6000 as of 2006) with a small number of fatalities (15 as of 2005). Nonetheless, it isimportant to note that an emergency this severe is not considered possible for the current nuclear
power plants, as many changes have been made to the reactor design to improve in safety39. For the
Fukushima Daiichi accident the doses to the public are generally low or very low and no discernible
increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected40.
An additional concern for health are the hazardous chemicals (e.g. cadmium) used in the manufacturingof solar panels. The hazardous chemicals required for solar panel manufacturing combined with an
absence of many PV companies addressing appropriate recycling, highlights the need for appropriate
polices to manage potential health and environmental impacts of solar PVs 41.
SDG3 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
3.4 By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases throughprevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being;
3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents; and3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals andair, water and soil pollution and contamination.
SDG6 – Water and sanitation
6
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Climate mitigation policies may increase water efficiency through the elimination of water intensive
power plants (e.g. coal-fired power plants), although measures such as bioenergy42, concentrated solar
power (CSP), and geothermal energy and hydropower may have a negative impact4 (6.4). Additionally,hydropower could provide some benefits such as flood control, water availability and irrigation4.
Measures to increase energy efficiency and adoption of sustainable agricultural practices could lower
water use levels43 (6.4). The protection and restoration of forest areas and peat lands for climate
mitigation purposes could also lead to the protection or improvement of watersheds30 (6.6). Reductionof water pollutants via sustainable industrial and agricultural practices (e.g. reduced nutrient use) havea positive impact on the protection of fresh water bodies, avoiding issues such as eutrophication andacidification30 (6.3). Climate mitigation measures that address methane emissions from waste would
lower the water contamination potential of these sources (6.3).
SDG6 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing releaseof hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater andsubstantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally;
6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable
withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce thenumber of people suffering from water scarcity; and6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands,
rivers, aquifers and lakes.
SDG7 - Energy
The climate and energy SDGs are strongly interlinked. Firstly, tackling GHG emissions implies increasing
the share of low-carbon energy technologies, such as renewables (7.2). Secondly, increasing energy
efficiency substantially in all sectors could lead to increased energy security and decreased energy
poverty11,18 (7.1, 7.3). Renewable and modern energy sources, although currently generally more
expensive than conventional sources, are more easily introduced in remote areas, enabling broader
electricity access44 (7.1, 7.b). Finally, the increase in diversity of (clean) energy sources, related
infrastructure investments and a decrease in fuel price volatility could improve energy security11(7.1).
SDG7 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services;
7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix;
7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainableenergy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island
developing States, and land-locked developing countries, in accordance with their respective
programmes of support.
SDG8 – Economic growth
Low-carbon transition implies an increased efficiency in energy productivity, achieved throughtechnological diversification, upgrading and innovation11 (8.2). Ensuring continuous economic growth,
diversification and efficiency improvements requires avoiding lock-in of human and physical capital in
7This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

the fossil fuel industries, which are based on finite resources4 (8.1, 8.2). Climate mitigation measures
help countries decouple their economies from fossil fuels and related environmental degradation (8.4).
SDG8 aims to create decent jobs and to encourage creativity and innovation, aspects that are strongly
encouraged and needed in climate change measures of clean technology research, development anddiffusion4 (8.3). Furthermore, climate mitigation action has a high potential for creating safe and secure
working environments32 (8.8). Switching to low-carbon energy technologies, such as renewables, canprovide decent new jobs11,45 (8.5, 8.6), to improve working environments where industrial
infrastructure is renewed and upgraded4, and reduces fossil fuel production work-related risks such ascoal mining accidents, although nuclear and hydroenergy have a potential to increase work-related
accidents32(8.8).
For ionizing radiation, the largest collective effective dose to workers per unit of electricity generated
is from coal mining. Furthermore, for the mining of rare metals for construction materials, the largest
occupational collective effective dose 1 was from solar photovoltaic (PV) technology38. Similarly tosection SDG 3 Health, at the individual level except for some rare and unusual cases, most of the
exposures to ionizing radiation of workers in the life cycle of electricity-generating technologies would
all be below the levels at which health effects would be observed36,37. Concerning work safety, installing
rooftop PVs leads to a significant number of fatalities resulting from falls46, and working on rooftops
having one of the highest civilian occupation fatality rates in the USA47. Furthermore, in a survey, solar
PV producers were not able to provide documentation to verify that their supply chains do not containconflict minerals based on the due diligence guidelines set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), another potential risk of an increase in solar panels48,49.
SDG8 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
8.1 Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular,
at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries;
8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading
and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors;
8.3 Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation,
entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of
micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services;
8.4 Improve progressively. through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and productionand endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordancewith the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, with
developed countries taking the lead;
8.5 By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men,
including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value;
8.6 By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training;and
8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including
migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.

1

Normalized to energy generated in 2010.

8This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

SDG9 – Infrastructure and industrialization
An important element in low-carbon transitions is investment in new, reliable and sustainableinfrastructure and industries, involving both an upgrade of old inefficient industries and adoption of
new technologies (9.1, 9.2, 9.4). Furthermore, research and development of clean, energy efficient, andlow-emissions technologies and their supported diffusion to countries of lower capabilities11 are highon the climate mitigation agenda as well as that of SDG9 (9.5).
SDG9 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
9.1 Develop quality, reliable. sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborderinfrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being. with a focus onaffordable and equitable access for all;
9.2 Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry's shareof employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its
share in least developed countries;
9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased
resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies
and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective
capabilities; and9.5 Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all
countries, in particular developing countries, including. by 2030, encouraging innovation andsubstantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people
and public and private research and development spending.
SDG11 – Cities
Buildings energy efficiency improvements have varied impacts on affordable energy and housing in the
short- and long-term. In the short term, this requires high upfront investments and may lead to anincrease in housing costs4. However, the increased energy efficiency would lead to affordable energy
for more households, as a later long-term benefit. The net effect would likely be an increase inadequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services18,27 (11.1). Another important sector in cities
is transport. Climate change mitigation action addresses this sector in two ways: one the one hand, itaims to improve planning, infrastructure, public transport, and modal switch to lower traffic(congestion) related GHG emission31,35, and on the other hand it tackles vehicles emissions intensity
through regulations and support for low-carbon technologies (11.2). Urban planning for low-carbon
cities could improve sustainability of urban and human settlements, and increase productivity as
travelling time is reduced4 (11.3). Additionally, policies to combat GHG emissions would also lead to
improved air quality in cities, and hence, improved health of citizens11,32,35 (11.6).
SDG11 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
11.1 By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services andupgrade slums;
11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all,improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needsof those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons;0This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 201811.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory,
integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries; and11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying
special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
SDG12 – Sustainable consumption and production
An important climate mitigation measure is the improvement of energy and material efficiency leading
to sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources (12.2, 12.5, 12.6). Nonetheless, one
drawback of renewable energy is the increased use of rare metals for the production of photovoltaic
solar panels and wind turbines. Furthermore, action to reduce GHG emissions often leads to reductionof other pollutants as well (12.4). Climate mitigation action does not only address the producers, butalso the consumers via climate change awareness campaigns, education programs, and requirementsof performance and comparison labels for products (12.8). Implementation measure 12.c is directly
addressed by GHG emissions reductions measures that focus on eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies anddiscourage wasteful consumption via energy and carbon taxes.
SDG12 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources;
12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes
throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly
reduce their release to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human healthand the environment;
12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling andreuse;
12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable
practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle;
12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness forsustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature; and12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing
market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring
taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect theirenvironmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing
countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that
protects the poor and the affected communities.
SDG14 - Oceans
GHG emissions reduction measures benefit oceans in two ways. Firstly, improved agricultural practices
reduce the discharge of nutrients that cause eutrophication (14.1). Secondly, GHG emissions lead toocean acidification. Tackling these emissions thus also reduces the negative impact on oceans (14.3).
SDG14 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from landbased activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution; and1This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 201814.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientificcooperation at all levels.
SDG15 - Ecosystems
Next to oceans, ecosystems represent the most important carbon sink. For this reason, ecosystems
conservation, restoration and sustainable use are high on the climate mitigation agenda. Climate
mitigation measures may strongly benefit ecosystems such as forests, wetlands11,30, and others (15.1,
15.2, 15.4, 15.5). In addition to existing natural areas, urban planning for sustainable cities could imply
the development of green roofs and recreational areas, increasing urban biodiversity4. Biodiversity isalso supported by the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (e.g. lower use of pesticides andnutrients)30. Not only biodiversity benefits from sustainable agricultural practices, but also soil quality
is improved, and desertification is slowed down30 (15.3). Generally, reduction in air, soil and waterpollution (as discussed under previous SDGs) greatly benefits ecosystems. In spite of all the benefits,side effects of climate mitigation action can also occur. For instance, large scale monocultures of biofuel
crops would negatively affect biodiversity4. Furthermore, renewable energy resources such ashydropower can especially impact the natural habitat4. CO2 leakage from CCS would also lead tonegative impacts on surrounding ecosystems4. Nonetheless, these potential negative impacts fromclimate mitigation measures may be minor compared to impacts of fossil fuel upstream activities anddownstream distribution and consumption.
SDG15 targets impacted by climate mitigation policies (Agenda 2030):
15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland
freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains anddrylands, in line with obligations under international agreements;
15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt
deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation andreforestation globally;
15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected bydesertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world;
15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, toenhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development; and15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of
biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
Indirect impacts of climate mitigation policies and measures were excluded to avoid double countingof SDG linkages. Impacts of global warming are already well-described in the literature50. The purposeof this research was not to prove the necessity of the low-carbon transition, but rather to help identify
sustainable development pathways that maximize synergies and minimize trade-offs between SDG13
and all other SDGs.
Examples of indirect links that were not included in the analysis are provided below for a better
understanding of the climate-development linkages selection in this study:-

Climate mitigation has an indirect positive impact on SDG1 (poverty eradication) through its
co-benefit to energy access (SDG7). However, in this study we only consider the direct impact
on energy access target in SDG7;
2
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018-

Improved cooking stoves are more likely to benefit women’s and children’s health, indirectly
leading to increased gender equality SDG5 (gender equality). However, we only mention theimpact on SDG3 (health), where the link is more direct;-

SDG10 (inequalities) can benefit from reduced inequalities through broader energy access, but
this is directly linked to SDG7 on energy. Furthermore, environmental impacts are expected tohit the poorer and more vulnerable countries and communities harder, increasing inequalities.
Nonetheless, these latter impacts are a direct result of global warming itself, and not of specificmitigation policies; and-Maintaining the increase in global temperature at a low level can help to prevent the spread of
diseases such as malaria and to prevent overheating-related premature deaths, two targets of
SDG3 (health). However, these health-related issues are caused by global warming, and not by
climate mitigation action per se.

3.2.

Co-benefits and the good practice policy menu

To more easily visualize the development impacts of climate mitigation policies in given countries, bysector, policy area, and policy instrument, the identified co-benefits and adverse side-effects of climate
mitigation action were distributed across the good practice policy menu (introduced in section 2.2.).
The result of this exercise is presented by sectors in Table 1 to Table 5.
From the identified climate mitigation policies impacts on SDGs targets, six major development areas
emerge: health (including air pollution impacts and work and traffic related safety), energy (security
and access), economic development (including technological spillovers, competitiveness, job
opportunities and price volatility), food security (land use and enabling technologies and practices),water impacts (water use and water pollution), nature conservation (biodiversity and ecosystems
conservation. For simplicity, mitigation co-benefits and adverse side-effects on SDGs are presented in
the good practice policy menu based on these development areas rather than the individual SDGs.
Given the substantial work undertaken in the IPCC AR5, WGIII, the table of mitigation co-benefits andadverse side-effects presented in the AR5 (see Annex 2) was used as a starting point for translating theimpacts into the good practice policy menu format. On a sectoral basis, the IPCC table was adapted asfollows:-

Electricity and heat sector: As the energy efficiency area was missing in the IPCC table, theimpacts related to industrial technological energy efficiency improvements were adopted.
Renewable energy impacts in this sector were directly translated from the IPCC table. Fossil andbioenergy CCS were adopted as impacts in the nuclear or CCS or fuel switch sector.

-

Industry: Material efficiency of goods and recycling and product demand reduction impacts wereadapted as impacts of the changing activity policy area. Technological energy efficiency
improvements via new processes were placed under industrial energy efficiency. Impacts of fossil
and bioenergy CCS from the electricity sector were also included under the industry sector. NonCO2 GHG emissions reduction impacts were linked to non-energy policies. Similarly, methaneleakage prevention, capture and treatment impacts that appeared under the electricity and heatsector in the IPCC table were adopted under industrial non-energy area.

-

Buildings: Behavioural changes reducing energy demand impacts were placed under changing
activity. Furthermore, all impacts under human settlements and infrastructure sector were also
3This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

placed under changing activity policy area. Retrofit of existing buildings, exemplary new buildings
and efficient equipment impacts were adopted under energy efficiency. Incorporation ofrenewable energy impacts were distributed under the renewables policy area.
-

Transport: Impacts of journey distance reduction and avoidance, and those of compact urban
form and improved transport infrastructure were placed under changing activity policy area.
Reduction of energy intensity impacts were translated as energy efficiency impacts. Reductionof fuel carbon intensity impacts were split into biofuels, placed under renewables, and electricity,
attributed to a separate section in the nuclear and CCS and fuel switch policy area, eco-mobility.
Also under nuclear or CCS or fuel switch, the modal shift impacts were included under the section‘modal share shift’.

-

Agriculture and Forestry: This sector was separated into agriculture and forestry. Although theimpacts are broadly similar across the two, various differences also exist.

Although the IPCC co-benefits and adverse side-effects table was used as a starting point, additional
impacts on development, identified in Section 3.1. were included where relevant. In some cases, it wasnecessary to define impacts of individual cells (e.g. modal share shift and electro-mobility in thetransport sector), while in other cases the impacts corresponded to the entire sector-policy area section
as a whole. Mitigation policies from overarching cells would indirectly provide all benefits and sideeffects from all other individual cells under all policy areas of the given sector. However, here we focus
only on the very direct impacts. In general, these overarching policies take the form of energy and GHG
emissions taxes, offsetting schemes or removal of fossil fuel subsidies, mainly impacting on energy andproduct prices, hence, affecting poverty. However, they do not have a high direct impact on any of theother development fields.
The overarching sector, ‘General’, was excluded from this analysis due to the fact that it mainly leads
to indirect impacts as a result of climate emissions reduction targets and strategies and the existenceof a coordinating body for climate change. Similarly, national energy efficiency targets and renewableenergy targets do not directly impact on development, but they facilitate the implementation of otherpolicy instruments in this area. Cross-sectoral research and development could lead to technologicalspillover as a benefit, but it depends very much on the type of research.
In the tables below, the direction of the arrows (upwards or downwards) indicate whether there is anincrease or decrease in the presented development aspect. The colours of the arrows indicate if the
impact is a co-benefit (green) or an adverse side-effect (red). A question mark indicates that the overall
effect of the impact is unclear (whether positive or negative). This visualisation approach was also
adopted from the IPCC AR5.

4This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.2.1. Electricity and heat sector
Table 1: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the electricity and heat sector

Electricity and heat

Changing activity

Energy efficiency

Renewables

Nuclear or CCS or fuel switch

Economic development↑Technological spillover↑Competitiveness and productivity↑Potential unemployment (closure of inefficient
power plants)↑Energy price increase and then decrease↑New business opportunities
Energy (security and access)↑Energy security increase (lower need for imports
and longer lasting resources)

Economic development↑Local employment impact↑Extra measures to match demand (for PV, wind and some
CSP)
↑Threat of displacement (for large hydro)↑New market/income opportunities↑Technological spillover
Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (resource sufficiency, diversity in the near /medium term)↑Contribution to (off-grid) energy accessEconomic development↑Preservation vs. lock-in of human and↑physical capital in the fossil industry↑Long-term monitoring of CO2 storage

Health↓Air pollution decrease (human health andecosystems improvement)↓Mining accidents decrease

Health↓Air pollution (except bioenergy)↓Coal mining accidents

Health↑Risk of CO2 leakage↑Upstream supply-chain activities↑Safety concerns for CCS and nuclear (storage,transport, occupational safety)

Food security

Food security↓Land available for agriculture (due to cultivation of biofuels)↑Agricultural technologies spillover (biofuels)

Food security

Water use
↑Water availability↓Water pollution

Water use
↑Irrigation, flood control, navigation, water availability (use ofreservoirs and regulated rivers)↓Water use (for wind and PV)↑Water use (bioenergy, CSP, geothermal, and hydro)↓Reduced water pollution
Nature conservation↑Habitat impact (for some hydro and wind)↓Fossil fuel extraction↑Use of critical metals for PV and wind turbines

Water use
↑Water use

Nature conservation↓Impact on ecosystems and natural resource↓Fossil fuel extraction

Non-energy

Energy (security and access)Nature conservation↑Ecosystem impact via upstream
supply-chain activities

Economic development↑Energy prices (CO2 and energy taxes)↑Technological spillover↑National tax revenue↑Competitiveness and productivity

5This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.2.2. Industry sector

Industry

Table 2: Developmnet co-benefits and side-effects in the industry sector
Changing activity

Energy efficiency

Renewables

Nuclear or CCS or fuel switch

Non-energy

Economic development↓National sales tax revenue, medium term
↑Employment in waste recycling market↑Competitiveness in manufacturing↑New infrastructure for industrial clusters↑New business opportunities↓Local conflicts (resource extraction)
Energy (security and access)Economic development↑Employment impact↑Competitiveness and productivity↑Technological spillovers↑New business opportunities

Economic development↑Local employment impact↑Extra measures to match demand (for PV, wind andsome CSP)↑Threat of displacement (for large hydro)↑New market/income opportunities

Economic development↑Preservation vs. lock-in of human and↑physical capital in the fossil industry↑Long-term monitoring of CO2 storage

Economic development↑Competitiveness andproductivity

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (via lower
energy intensity)

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (resource sufficiency, diversity in thenear / medium term)↑Contribution to energy access

Energy (security and access)Energy (security andaccess)Health↓Health impacts and safety concerns↑ Wellbeing via diverse lifestyle choices

Health↓Health impact via reduced local
pollution↑Safety, working conditions and job
satisfaction
Food security

Health↓Air pollution (except bioenergy)↓Coal mining accidents

Health↑Risk of CO2 leakage↑Upstream supply-chain activities↑Safety concerns for CCS and nuclear (storage,transport, occupational safety)
Food security

Health↓Air pollution↑Coal mines and PFC
industry safety and better
work conditions
Food security

Water use
↑Water use

Water use
↓Reduced water pollution↑Water conservation

Nature conservation↑Ecosystem impact via upstream
supply-chain activities

Nature conservation↓ Ecosystem impact via
reduced pollution

Food security

Water use
↓Water pollution

Water use
↑Water availability and quality↓Water pollution*

Nature conservation↓Air and water pollution and waste material↓ Post-consumption waste↓Use natural resources

Nature conservation↓Fossil fuel extraction↓Local pollution and waste

Food security↓Land available for agriculture (due to cultivation of
biofuels)↑Agricultural technologies spillover (biofuels)
Water use
↑Irrigation, flood control, navigation, water availability(for multipurpose use of reservoirs and regulated rivers)↓Water use (for wind and PV)↑Water use (bioenergy, CSP, geothermal, and hydro)↓Water pollution
Nature conservation↑Habitat impact (for some hydro)↓Coal mining↑Landscape and wildlife impact (for wind)↑Use of critical metals for PV and wind turbines

Economic development↑Energy prices (CO2 and energy taxes)↑Technological spillover↑National tax revenue↑Competitiveness and productivity

6This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.2.3. Building sector

Building

Table 3: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the buildings sector
Changing activity

Energy efficiency

Renewables

Economic development↑Lower need for energy subsidies

Economic development↑Employment impact↑Productivity (for commercial buildings)↑Lower need for energy subsidies↑Asset values of buildings↑Disaster resilience↓Fuel poverty (for retrofits and efficient equipment)↑Productive time for women and children (cookstoves)

Economic development↑Employment impact↑Lower need for energy subsidies↑Asset values of buildings↑Energy cost
↑Productive time for women/children(cookstoves)↓Fuel poverty

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security↑Energy access

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security↑Energy access (in remote areas)

Health↓Outdoor air pollution↑Improved indoor environmental conditions

Health↓Outdoor air pollution↓Indoor air pollution (for efficient cookstoves)↑Improved indoor environmental conditions↓Urban heat island effect↑Thermal comfort (for retrofits and exemplary new buildings)↓Insufficient ventilation
Water use
↓Water consumption and sewage production↓Water pollution
Nature conservation↓Ecosystem impact (less outdoor air pollution)

Health↓Air pollution↓Reduced Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect

Water use
Nature conservation↓Ecosystem impact (less outdoor air pollution)

Nuclear or CCS or fuel switch

Non-energy

Water use
↓Water pollution
Nature conservation↓Ecosystem impact (less outdoor air pollution)↑Urban biodiversity (for green roofs)

Economic development↑Energy prices (CO2 and energy taxes)↑National tax revenue↑Technological spillover

7
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.2.4. Transport sector
Energy efficiency

Renewables

Economic development↑Productivity (reduced urban congestion and travel
times, affordable and accessible transport)? Employment opportunities in the public transport
sector vs car manufacturing jobs
↑Equitable mobility access to jobs

Economic development↑ Increased vehicle price↑Technological spillovers

Economic development↑Technological spillovers

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (reduced oil dependence andexposure to oil price volatility)

Energy (security and access)↑ Energy security (reduced oil
dependence and exposure to oil
price volatility)↓ Energy poverty

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (diversification, reduced oil
dependence and exposure to oil price volatility)

Health↑Potentially higher exposure to air pollution↑Equitable mobility access to jobs
↑Road safety (via infrastructure)
Food security

Health↓Urban air pollution

Health? Air pollution (bioenergy vs fossil fuels)↓Oil industry accidents

Food security

Food security↓Land available for agriculture (due tocultivation of biofuels)↑Agricultural technologies spillover (biofuels)

Water use

Water use
↓Reduced water pollution

Water use
↑Water use from biofuel cultivation

Nature conservation↓Ecosystem impact via reduced
urban air pollution↑Ecosystem impacts via new/shorter shipping routes

Nature conservation↓ Ecosystem and biodiversity
impact via reduced urban air
pollution

Nature conservation↑Large-scale monocultures↑Land use competition

Nuclear or CCS or fuel switch

Modal share shift

Changing activity

Eco-mobility

Transport

Table 4: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the transport sector
Non-energy

Economic development↑Productivity (reduced urban congestion and travel times,
affordable and accessible transport)? Employment opportunities in the public transport sector
vs car manufacturing jobs
Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (reduced oil dependence and exposure
to oil price volatility)
Health↓Health impact for non-motorized modes via Increased
physical activity↑Potentially higher exposure to air pollution↓Noise (modal shift and travel reduction)↑Road safety (via modal shift and / or infrastructure forpedestrians and cyclists)↓Traffic-related stress
Nature conservation↓Ecosystem impact via reduced urban air pollution
Economic development↑Technological spillovers (e. g., battery technologies for
consumer electronics)↓Infrastructure investments
Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (diversification)
Health↓Air pollution↓Health impact via reduced noise (electrification and fuelcell LDVs)↓Road safety (silent electric LDVs at low speed)
Nature conservation↓Electricity use: reducing most pollutants↑Material use (unsustainable resource mining)

Economic development↑Energy prices (CO2 and fuel taxes)↑National tax revenue↑Technological spillover

8
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.2.5. Agriculture and forestry sector
Table 5: Development co-benefits and side-effects in the agriculture and forestry sector
Changing activity

Energy efficiency

Renewables

Nuclear or CCS or fuel switch

Non-energy

Economic development↑Entrepreneurship development and employment increase↓Less labor-intensive↑Diversification of income sources and access to markets↑Income concentration (technologies)↑Additional income to (sustainable) landscape management (technologies)↑Technology innovation and transfer (technologies)↑Innovative financing mechanisms for sustainable resource management crops↑↓Tenure and use rights at the local level (for indigenous people and local communities) especially when implementing activities in natural forests↑↓Access to participative mechanisms for land management decisions↑Enforcement of existing policies for sustainable resource management

Agriculture

Agriculture and Forestry

Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (resource sufficiency) (technologies)
Health↑Human health e. g., through less pesticides, reduced burning practices and practices like agroforestry and silvo-pastoral systems↓Air pollution via decrease of burning practices
Food security↑Food-crops production through integrated systems and sustainable agriculture intensification↓Food production (locally) due to large-scale monocultures of non-food↑Large-scale monocultures↑Land use competition↑Soil quality↑Agricultural productivity increase
Water use
↑Increased water availability↓Decreased eutrophication and acidification (nutrient use and burning practices)
Nature conservation↑Provision of ecosystem services via ecosystem conservation and sustainable management as well as sustainable agriculture↓Erosion↑Ecosystem resilience↑Albedo and evaporation↑Animal welfare e. g., through less pesticides, reduced burning practices and practices like agroforestry and silvo-pastoral systems↑Increased biodiversity

9This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1

Forestry

Date: 04 01 2018

Economic development↑Entrepreneurship development and employment increase↓Less labor-intensive↑Diversification of income sources and access to markets↑Income concentration (technologies)↑Additional income to (sustainable) landscape management (technologies)↑Technology innovation and transfer (technologies)↑↓Tenure and use rights at the local level (for indigenous people and local communities) especially when implementing activities in natural forests↑↓Access to participative mechanisms for land management decisions↑Enforcement of existing policies for sustainable resource management
Energy (security and access)↑Energy security (resource sufficiency) (technologies)
Health↑Human health e. g., through less pesticides, reduced burning practices and practices like agroforestry and silvo-pastoral systems↓Air pollution via decrease of burning practices
Food security↑Land grabbing
Water use
↑Increased water availability↓Decreased acidification (burning practices)
Nature conservation↑Cultural habitats and recreational areas via (sustainable) forest management and conservation↑Provision of ecosystem services via ecosystem conservation and sustainable management as well as sustainable agriculture↓Erosion↑Ecosystem resilience↑Albedo and evaporation↑Animal welfare through reduced burning practices and practices like agroforestry and silvo-pastoral systems↑Increased biodiversity

10This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.3.

Current country-specific development status

In the previous chapter we explored the impacts of climate mitigation policies on various areas ofsustainable development. However, the relevance and magnitude of these impacts depend, in part, on
the current country-specific development conditions. Therefore, to understand the importance andpotential effect of specific climate mitigation policies in the G20 countries, we consider a set ofdevelopment indicators that correspond to the assessed sustainable development areas: economic
development, energy, air pollution, food security, and water use. Nature conservation was excluded
due to the higher difficulty in assessing current ecosystems degradation levels. Furthermore, the levelsof annual GHG emissions of each country is also presented.

3.3.1. GHG emissions
The G20 member states include the highest GHG emitters worldwide, this aspect being one of the main
reasons for selecting this group as the study main focus. As shown in Figure 3 2, China was the highest
GHG emitter among the G20 countries (and worldwide) in 2014, with an annual level of emissions ofmore than 12 GtCO2eq. This emissions level is almost double that of the next highest emitter, the UnitedStates (just above 6 GtCO2eq), and triple that of the third highest emitter, the European Union (below
4 GtCO2eq). The following three largest emitters, India, Indonesia and the Russian Federation, have
similar GHG emissions levels, around half those of the United States. In terms of GHG emissions per
capita (Figure 4 3), countries with low overall emissions, such as Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea andSouth Africa, move to the top of the list, with some of the highest per capita emissions.
When comparing GHG emissions intensity (GHG emissions per unit of GDP), the order of countries
China
United States
European Union
India
Indonesia
Russian Federation
BrazilJapan
CanadaMexicoSaudi Arabia
Republic of Korea
South Africa
Australia
Argentina
TurkeyFigure 3: Total GHG emissions fromG20 countries in 2014, including
LULUCF

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 (MtCO2eq)changes substantially. From this perspective (see Figure 5 4), South Africa becomes top of the list, withemissions intensities of almost 11 ktCO2eq/US$mil (current). The following two countries with highemissions intensity are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. On the other hand, the economies with lowest
emissions intensities are the European Union, China and Brazil. Differences in GHG emissions intensity
2

PRIMAP GHG emissions data ( http://pmd.gfz-potsdam.de/pik/showshort.php?id=escidoc:1504004)
World Bank Data for population (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL) and PRIMAP for GHG
emissions (see above)
4
World Bank Data on GDP (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/) and PRIMAP for GHG
emissions (see above)3

11
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

across these countries can be both a result of economic structure (share of emissions intensive
industries versus services) or of inefficiencies in the sectors responsible for GHG emissions. Please, notethat the GHG emissions here include forest sinks.

Figure 4: Total GHG emissions per capita in the G20 countries in 2014

Figure 5: GHG emissions intensity in G20 countries in 2014

3.3.2. Economic development
Economic development is an area of sustainable development that is impacted by all climate mitigation
policies in the good-practice policy menu. One main indicator of a country’s level of economic
development is GDP per capita. Within the G20 countries, Australia and the United States are
positioned at the top of the list, with similar GDP per capita values of more than 55 thousand current
US$ per capita in 2015 (see Figure 6 5), followed by Canada, with almost 45 thousand current US$ per
capita. Japan and the European Union also have similar values of this indicator, just above 40 thousand
5

World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD)

12This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

current US$ per capita. The least economically developed countries, from the narrow perspective of
GDP per capita, are India and Indonesia, both below 5 thousand current US$ per capita. These least
developed countries could benefit the most from climate mitigation policies that maximize synergies
with economic development.
GDP per capita is a rather general indicator, describing the overall status of the economy. However, amore specific aspect that often appears in the identified economic impacts of climate mitigation isavailability of jobs. Figure 7 6 shows South Africa as the G20 country with the highest unemployment
rate, 25% of total labour force in 2014. If climate mitigation policies that provide new job opportunities
are implemented, the increased employment co-benefits could be beneficial in countries with highunemployment rate. On the other hand, countries with the lowest unemployment rate are Japan, India,
and Republic of Korea, with values slightly below 4% of the labour force.

Figure 6: GDP per capita in G20 countries, 2015

6

World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS)

13This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 7: Unemployment rate in G20 countries, 2016

3.3.3. Energy
Burning fossil fuels to produce energy is the main source of GHG emissions from human activities.
Therefore, decarbonizing national energy systems is key to climate change mitigation. To achieve deep
decarbonization of the energy system, countries need to switch to low-carbon energy sources. Figure
8 7 shows that the energy systems in the G20 member states in 2014 were mostly relying on fossil fuels,with shares as high as 100%, as is the case of Saudi Arabia. Brazil is the country with the highest nonfossil fuels energy consumption share, and the only country consuming more than 40% of its energy
from renewable sources. These values suggest that there is potential for energy systems
decarbonization in all G20 countries.
In addition to phasing out fossil fuel use, countries can reduce emissions by improving energy efficiency,
and hence, lowering their energy intensity. Figure 9 8 shows that South Africa, Russian Federation,
Canada and China are the most energy intensive economies, using more than 7 MJ per US$2011 PPPGDP. On the other hand, Turkey, Indonesia and the European Union are the least energy intensive, withprimary energy use below 4 MJ per US$2011 PPP GDP. Energy intensity differences across countries
could be a result of economic structure (higher share of energy intensive industries versus services),but it could also indicate energy inefficiency across energy intensive sectors. Countries of high energy
intensity could focus on increasing their energy productivity through, for instance, energy efficiency
improvements across all energy intensive sectors.

7
8World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS)
World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.EGY.PRIM.PP.KD)

14This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 8: Share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption in G20 countries, 2014

Figure 9: Energy intensity of primary energy in G20 member states, 201415
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 10: Rate of electricity access in G20 countries, 2014

16
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018
Figure 11: Net energy imports in G20 countries, 2014

SDG7, concerning energy, focuses on energy access and energy security. In the previous section we
have shown that climate mitigation and energy goals are strongly interlinked. Some of the main benefits
that many climate mitigation measures offer are energy security and energy access. Because the G20
member states represent some of the major economies globally, most of them currently have 100%
electricity access of population (see Figure 10 9). However, among these member states there are somethat still have to develop the necessary infrastructure to supply the remaining citizens without accessto electricity. These countries could aim to reach those citizens with clean energy, and take advantageof the benefits renewable energy offers in remote areas.
Energy security is another important development aspect that benefits from climate mitigation actionin the energy system. Energy security can be increased both through energy efficiency improvement
and through the diversification of resources and switch to renewable sources. In 2014, approximately
half of the G20 member states had positive net imports of energy (see Figure 11 10). Saudi Arabia andAustralia have the highest net exports of energy, almost twice the entire country energy consumption.
Indonesia is also a net exporter, selling more than 100% of their own energy consumption, respectively.
These countries have high energy security levels, as they do not depend on others to satisfy their energy
needs. However, high dependency on fossil fuel exports as a source of income is a high economic risk
if the world moves toward low-carbon alternatives. On the other hand, countries such as Japan,
Republic of Korea and Turkey depend on other countries for 50% to more than 90% of their energy
consumption. This is a vulnerable position in terms of energy security. Therefore, these countries would
benefit most from energy efficiency improvements and tapping into available local renewable sources.

3.3.4. Air pollution
In the previous chapter, we showed that climate mitigation action provides numerous co-benefits forhealth. One of these benefits is the reduction of air pollution, and hence, a decrease in premature
deaths caused by poor air quality. To assess current air quality in the G20 member states, we selected
PM2.5 mean annual exposure as an indicator. WHO (2005) maximum mean annual exposure levels of
PM2.5 are 10 µg/m3. However, the PM2.5 mean annual exposure levels exceed this recommended levelin all but two of the G20 countries (see Figure 12 11). China, India and Saudi Arabia have the poorest air
quality, exceeding the recommended limits by more than 5 times. While fossil fuel combustion andbiomass burning are the main sources of air pollution in China and India, sand particles and dust arelikely to contribute substantially to the poor air quality in Saudi Arabia. The only three G20 memberswith mean annual exposures below the recommended limit are Australia, Canada and the UnitedStates. Hence, air pollution reduction is an important climate mitigation action co-benefit in almost all
G20 member states.

9

World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS)
World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS)
11World Bank Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3)
10

17This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 12: Mean annual exposure to PM2.5 in G20 countries, 2015

3.3.5. Food security
Climate mitigation action can impact food security positively or negatively. Therefore, understanding acountry’s food production potential and limitations is key to selecting GHG emissions reduction policies
that are coherent with food security targets. One side-effect of climate mitigation could be landcompetition between agriculture and biofuel production. Therefore, we first assess cereal importdependency ratio in G20 countries to see what percentage of cereals countries produce for themselves(see Figure 13 12). Countries with the highest dependency on cereal imports between 2009 and 2011were Saudi Arabia, importing on average almost 90% of its cereal consumption, Japan, with almost 80%,
and Republic of Korea, dependent for 74% of its cereal consumption. Hence, it is likely that producing
biofuels in this countries would decrease food security even more. On the other hand, almost half of
G20 member states are net exporters. Amongst these, the largest exporters are Argentina, exporting
almost 170% of its food production and Australia, exporting 145%. These countries could profit fromemissions reductions measures such as biofuel production and forest conservation and restoration,
without a negative effect on food security, if exports are decreased, and not domestic cereal
consumption.

12

FAOSTAT Food Security (http://faostat.fao.org/beta/en/#data/FS)
18
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Food security is not only an issue of agricultural production potential. It is also influenced by a country’s
economic development and the ability to feed people. Figure 14 13 shows average food deficit levels
between 2014 and 2016 for a selection of G20 countries where such data was available. Currently, India
has the highest food deficit, around 110 kcal per person per day, followed by China, with a value ofapproximately 74 kcal per person per day.

Figure 13: Cereal import dependency ratio in G20 countries as
average over the period 2009-2011

Figure 14: Depth of food deficit in some of the G20 countries over the period 2014-2016

13

FAOSTAT Food Security (http://faostat.fao.org/beta/en/#data/FS)
19
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

3.3.6. Water use
Climate mitigation action has the potential to improve water quality and to increase or decrease wateruse. In general, G20 countries withdraw less than the available annually renewable fresh water (seeFigure 15 14). However, Saudi Arabia is an exception, consuming 9.5 times more water than available.
Regarding water use, three sectors stand out as the main consumers: industry, agriculture, andmunicipal use. In most G20 countries, agriculture has the highest water consumption, except for
Canada, Russian Federation and United States, where industry has a higher share of water usage (seeFigure 16 15). India, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have the highest agricultural water use share, above
80%. Canada is the largest consumer of water in the industry sector (80%), while South Korea andSouth Africa are countries with the highest share of municipal waste water (almost 30%).

Figure 15: Share of renewable water resources withdrawn by G20 countries various in recent years

14
15

AQUASTAT Water data (http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html)
AQUASTAT Water data (http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html)

20This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 16: Share of water use across sectors in G20 countries (various recent years)

21
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.

Results

4.1.

Overview of G20 countries (general assessment of indicators)

Figure 17: Overall good-practice policy menu coverage in the G20 countries

22
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 17 shows the percentage of G20 countries that have policies in specific sectors, areas and policy
types defined in the good practice policy menu. We found that each section of the good practice policy
menu is covered by at least one country. However, the policy areas covered by most countries areenergy efficiency (more than 80% in each relevant sector), renewables in the electricity and transport
sectors (100% and at least 69%, respectively), and forestry (88%). All G20 countries have support
policies for electricity production from renewable sources, and minimum energy/emissions
performance standards or support for energy efficient light duty vehicles or passenger cars. Similarly,
all G20 countries have GHG emissions reduction targets, although this targets include those presented
in the INDCs. More than 80% of the countries have climate change strategies, but only 63% havecoordinating bodies for climate change to support the implementation of these strategies.
Changing activity, industrial non-energy and renewables in the residential sector (non-solar PV), are thepolicy areas with least coverage across G20 members. Furthermore, overarching policies, such as
offsetting mechanism, fossil fuel subsidies removals and energy and other taxes are covered by lessthan 70% of the countries in all sectors. Moving to low-carbon pathways require climate mitigation
action in all relevant sectors, addressing all existing GHG emissions sources. Hence, ideally, climate
mitigation policies should exist across the entire good practice policy menu in every country, in sectorsthat lead to GHG emissions. By not having policies in certain areas, countries do not only fail to reduce
emissions, but they also miss the potential co-benefits emerging from decarbonisation of these areas.
Examples mitigation co-benefits from renewables in the residential sector are increased asset value ofbuilding units, new job opportunities, improved energy security, and reduced urban heat island effect.

4.2.

Country profiles

This section presents country-specific results of our analysis, in the form of country profiles. The country
profiles will include:-

Good practice policy menu coverage by implemented climate policies in the country;-

Sectoral emissions 16;-

List of selected high-GHG emissions reduction impact policies; and-Country performance on high-level development indicators (introduced in section 3.3).

Analysis of countries coverage of the good practice policy menu was based on the Climate Policy
Database in its latest updated version as a result of data collection by CD-LINKS project. The colours of
the good practice policy menu indicate if implemented policies exist (green) in the specific category of
the menu, if they are missing (red), or if this information is unknown (grey).
Figure 18. Good practice policy menu legend

Countries performance with respect to high-level development indicators is presented in comparison
to the indicator levels of other G20 members. Hence, the minimum and maximum values are set by thecountries with the lowest and highest value of a given indicator. In the country profiles, a country value
is graphically represented in a bar chart, with respect to the minimum, maximum, and average value
among the G20 members.
16

Data on sectoral emissions was extracted from The Shift Project (http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdownof-GHG-Emissions-by-Sector#tspQvChart)

23This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.1. Argentina
Compared to other G20 members, Argentina had the second lowest GHG emissions levels in 2014, but
a median GHG emissions intensity level, (see Figure 3 and Figure 5). Argentina’s largest GHG emitting
sectors are agriculture (27%), forestry (23%) and electricity and heat (16%) (see Figure 20). However,the coverage of good practice policies (Figure 19) shows currently a stronger focus on transport andelectricity and heat sectors. To achieve additional emissions reductions, a first step could be to
implement (more) policies in the main emitting sectors, and additionally, to cover more policies andsectors from the policy menu (e.g. policies in industry).

24
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018
Figure 19: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Argentina

Figure 20: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Argentina 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Argentina:
Electricity and heat
• PROBIOMASA - Project for the Promotion of Energy from Biomass - implemented: Aims to increasebiomass energy capacity by 400 MW, split equally between electricity and heat.
• Law 27191 on Renewable Energy - implemented: Sets renewable energy share in electricity
production of up to 20% by 2025. This is supported by a cap and trade mechanism, feed-in tariff andtax exemptions.
Forestry• Law No. 25.080 / 99 Investment in Forestry - implemented: This law established credits and tax reliefs
that cover 20% to 80% of the plantation costs.
• Law 26.331 for the Environmental Protection of Native Forests - implemented: A requirement forsustainable management of forests is set and non-compliance is subject to high fines. It covers
4.7million ha of forest between 2007 and 2030.
Transport• Law 26.093 Regimen of Regulation and Promotion of the Production and Sustainable Use of Biofuels- implemented: Sets blending requirements of 12% biofuel in ethanol and diesel from 2016 onwards
and implements tax exemptions for biofuels as support mechanism.
Buildings• Law 26.473 Prohibiting commercialisation of incandescent light bulbs - implemented:
Commercialisation of incandescent light bulbs has been banned since 2010.
Cross-sectoral

25
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets an unconditional target of 15%
GHG emissions reduction (incl. LULUCF) by 2030 compared to BAU, and a conditional target (subject
to external financing and support) of 30% GHG emissions reductions by 2030 compared to BAU.
• National Program for Rational and Efficient Use of Energy (PRONUREE) - implemented: The policy
sets electricity savings targets of 6% (1500 MW) in 2016 compared to 2007.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Argentina is a country of median economic development amongst the G20 member states (Figure 6),although below average (Figure 21), and has a below average unemployment level, just above 6%(Figure 7). By not having a broader coverage of the good practice policy menu, Argentina misses
numerous economic development co-benefits, including industry job opportunities. The share of fossil
fuel consumption is rather high in Argentina, almost 90% (Figure 8), and Argentina is a net energy
importer, although at a low level (Figure 11). Therefore, while part of the mitigation efforts go towards
renewables, increasing energy security and lowering the use of fossil fuels, more could be done bysupporting renewables in industry and buildings as well. Energy efficiency is addressed only in buildings
and transport, two sectors of low emissions. However, Argentina has a very low level of energy use per
GDP amongst the G20 members (Figure 9). This could be due to the economic structure of the country,
which may rely on higher shares of low-energy use sectors.
Concerning health, Argentina is one of the G20 countries with lower annual PM2.5 exposure, yet, witha value above the recommended limit (Figure 12). As the highest cereal exporter amongst G20
countries, exporting more than 1.5 times its own consumption (Figure 13), Argentina could have biofuel
production without impacting on food security, if cereal exports are lowered instead of domestic
consumption. Biofuels are already supported through a number of policies in Argentina. Nonetheless,the country still has a small food calories deficit per person per day (Figure 14).
Given the share of emissions in the agriculture sector (27%), it is no surprise that Argentina’s largest
water use resides in this sector (Figure 16). Policies in the agricultural sector would help reduce both
GHG emissions and water consumption, while providing co-benefits in other development areas.

Figure 21: Development indicators in Argentina compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst
G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20
average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

26
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.2. Australia
Australia had neither very high emissions levels compared to other G20 countries, nor high GHG
emissions intensity in 2014 (Figure 3 and Figure 5). The country’s emissions per capita in 2014 are well
above the G20 members average, yet within the lower half (Figure 4). While policies exist in all
economic sectors in Australia, these focus mainly on energy efficiency, not covering policy areas suchas changing activity, renewables (except for electricity and heat), and alternative fuels (Figure 22). As
the electricity and heat sector covers 42% of total emissions (Figure 23), mitigation action could strongly
focus on this sector, for instance, through energy efficiency improvement and a switch to renewables.

27
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 22: Good-practice policy menu in Australia

While the Energy Productivity Plan plays an important role in reducing GHG emissions, an overarchingclimate change strategy and a coordinating body for climate action are missing.

28
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 23: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Australia 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Australia:
Electricity and heat
• Renewable Energy Amendment Act 2015 - implemented: Sets a target of 33000 GWh renewableelectricity production in large scale energy production in 2020.
• Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and associated legislation - implemented: Sets renewableelectricity production shares for large- and small-scale producers. Renewable shares can be traded,
but non-compliance is subject to a fine of $65/MWh.
Transport• Fuel Tax Reform - implemented: A tax of approximately $0.4/litre applies for diesel and gasoline, and$0.013/litre for biodiesel.
Forestry• 20 million trees - implemented: This program aims to plant 20 million trees across Australia from2010 to 2020.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a GHG emissions reduction
target (incl. LULUCF) of 26%-28% by 2030 compared to 2005.
• Emissions Reduction Fund - implemented: Registered projects receive certificates for emissions
reduction that are bought by the program through an auction system. This program absorbed theCarbon Farming Initiatives program that focused on GHG emissions reduction from agriculture.
• Energy Productivity Plan - planned: Aims to increase energy productivity (GDP ($M)/PJ) by 40% by
2030 compared to 2015.
• CCS Flagships Programme - implemented: Through this program, the government finances a coupleof CCS pilot projects.

29This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act (2012) - implemented: Sets energy and emissions
standards for equipment and appliances.
• HFC emissions reduction - planned: Australia set a target of 55% HFC emissions reductions relative
to 2010 by 2030
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
In 2015, Australia had the second highest GDP per capita amongst the G20 countries (Figure 6). Whileeconomic development per se might not be a priority in terms of climate mitigation co-benefits, newjob opportunities could help reduce the 6% unemployment levels (Figure 7).
Australia is a country with one of the highest shares of fossil fuels (more than 90%) in energy
consumption amongst G20 countries (Figure 8). Furthermore, it had a just below average level ofenergy intensity in 2014 (Figure 24). The country could focus on energy efficiency improvements and aswitch to alternative fuels, increasing energy diversification at the same time. However, Australia profits
economically from fossil fuel production, as it currently almost twice the total amount of energy it uses
(Figure 11). Hence, economic interests might hinder plans to reduce fossil fuel production for climate
mitigation purposes.
Climate mitigation co-benefits are also low in the health and food security development areas. Amongst
G20 countries, Australia has the lowest mean annual exposure to PM2.5, well below the recommended
limit (Figure 12). Furthermore, Australia is the second largest exporter of cereals, exporting almost 1.5
times the total amount it needs for domestic consumption (Figure 13). The high production of cereals
is visible in the high share of water use in the agriculture sector, more than 65% (Figure 16). However,Australia withdraws less than 4% of its annual renewable freshwater every year (Figure 15).
Although direct co-benefits of climate mitigation policies may not be relevant in the case of Australia,
climate non-action adverse side-effects should be a motivation for curving GHG emissions. Australia
will be one of the countries strongly hit by the increase in temperature, through desertification, sealevel rise, and a substantial or total loss of coral reefs.

Figure 24: Development indicators in Australia compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst
G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represent the split between values below and above G20
average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

30
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.3. Brazil
Brazil is a low GHG emitter compared to other G20 countries, although amongst the upper half (Figure3), and is the third lowest emitter per capita (Figure 4). Brazil also has one of the lowest GHG emissions
intensity level (Figure 5, Figure 27). Climate mitigation action in Brazil covers all economic sectors (Figure25), but not all policy areas, missing changing activity and CCS and fuel switch measures. Covering all
sectors and policy areas could contribute to further decarbonisation. Brazil has stronger climate actionin the forestry sector, which accounts for 34% of total national emissions (Figure 26).

31
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 25: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Brazil

Although the agriculture sector is almost comparable in terms of emissions to the forestry sector,
covering a share of 29% total GHG emissions, less policies are directed towards this area. However, alower number of policies does not necessarily imply less stringent action. Economy-wide targets forenergy efficiency, renewables shares in primary energy and GHG emissions reductions are guiding
climate action in Brazil. Furthermore, Brazil has a climate change strategy and coordinating body that
support climate action design and implementation.

32
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 26: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Brazil 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Brazil:
Electricity and heat
• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets targets of 23% share of
renewables in electricity production (excl. hydro) by 2030, and 10% energy efficiency improvementin the electricity sector by 2030 compared to 2015.
• Plan for Energy Expansion of Brazil - implemented: Sets a target of 16% renewable electricity
production (excluding hydropower) by 2024, and targets for installed capacity by 2024: 117 GW
hydro, 8 GW small hydro, 18 GW bioenergy, 7 GW solar, 24 GW wind.
• Brazil Renewable Energy Auctions - implemented: Auctions for existing and newly build renewableelectricity plants. These replaced the feed-in tariff scheme that run up to 2007.
Industry• Climate change mitigation and adaptation sector plan for the consolidation of a low carbon economy
in the manufacturing industry - planned: Sets a target of 5% emissions reductions below businessas-usual scenario (BAU) by 2020 in the industry sector.
Transport• Inovar-Auto - implemented: Sets 30% tax on sold cars that do not meet energy efficiency
requirements and provides tax reliefs to cars of higher efficiency than required by the CAFE
standards.
• National Biodiesel Programme (PNPB) - implemented: Targets biodiesel shares in diesel of 7% in2015 and 10% in 2019.
• Ethanol Blending Mandate - implemented: The blending requirements for ethanol are 27% from 2015
onwards
Forestry and agriculture• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Aims to restore and reforest 12
million ha forestland and to restore 15 million ha of degraded pasturelands by 2030.
33This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Forest Code (Law 12651) - implemented: Aims to reforest 12 million hectares by 2030, with support
from deforestation prevention and control plans PPCDAm and PPCerrados (see below).
• Action Plan for Deforestation Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrados(PPCerrados) - planned: Targets a 40% decrease in annual deforestation rate by 2020 as comparedto the average between 1995 and 2005 in the Cerrados area.
• Action Plan for Deforestation Prevention and Control in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) - implemented:
Aims for a 80% decrease in annual deforestation rate by 2020 as compared to the average between
1995 and 2005 in the Amazon forest.
• Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan) - implemented: Aims to decrease GHG emissions in the
agriculture sector by 133-166 MtCO2e by 2020, compared to BAU.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets GHG emissions reduction target(incl. LULUCF) of 37% by 2025 and 43% by 2030 compared to 2005. Additionally, renewable targetsof 45% share in TPES incl. hydro and 28-33% share in TPES excl. hydro by 2030 are set. The target
for biofuels share in TPES by 2030 is 18%.
• Plan for Energy Expansion of Brazil - implemented: Sets a target of 45% renewable energy share inprimary energy (including hydropower) by 2024.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Brazil’s GDP per capita sits in the bottom half of the G20 countries (Figure 6), while the unemployment
rate is the second highest (Figure 7). Hence, the country could benefit from climate mitigation policies
that provide economic development co-benefits.
Brazil currently has the lowest share of fossil fuels in primary energy consumption amongst G20
member states, below 60% (Figure 27) due to widespread use of hydropower. The country still has
renewable energy support schemes and targets, mainly aimed at non-hydro renewables. A higher shareof renewables would benefit energy security further, as the country currently imports more than 10%
of its total energy consumption (Figure 11). Furthermore, it could help close the small remaining gap to
100% electricity access (Figure 10) by reaching remote areas with renewable energy.
Nonetheless, when encouraging renewables, Brazil would need to consider the potential negative
impacts of biofuels on food security. Although a net cereal exporter (only slightly, by 3%, see Figure 13),
Brazil still has an average caloric food deficit depth of 10kcal/capita/day (Figure 14).
Air quality in Brazil does not meet the WHO recommended limit of 10 µg/m3 average annual exposure
to PM2.5, but it lies very close to this limit, at 11.4 µg/m3 (Figure 12). Hence, Brazil would not benefit
strongly from climate policies that reduce air pollution. However, other health co-benefits, such astransportation noise reduction, road safety improvements and congestion related stress, could be
relevant.
Brazil has many freshwater resources and currently uses the smallest percentage of its annual
renewable freshwater compared to the other G20 countries (Figure 15). Not surprisingly, given the highGHG emissions, the largest share of water withdrawal is in agriculture (Figure 16). Policies in both
agricultural and forestry sectors would help decrease water consumption, and could generate cobenefits for nature conservation.
34
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 27: Development indicators in Brazil compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst G20
countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20 average,
respectively. The black line represents the country value.

35
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.4. Canada
Canada lies below the average in terms of GHG emissions compared to other G20 member states, bothin terms of total emissions and emissions intensity (Figure 30). However, the country has the highest
GHG emissions per capita compared to these major economies (Figure 30). Overall, climate mitigation
action in Canada covers all sectors of the good practice policy menu (Figure 28), but places higher focus
on energy efficiency as a policy area, perhaps due to the country high energy intensity level (Figure 9).
Canada’s GHG emissions are almost equally distributed across sectors, although electricity and heat(22%) and transport (21%) cover the highest percentage of emissions, followed by industry (16%) andforestry (13%).

36
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 28: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Canada

Future step in decarbonization could aim to cover the good practice policy menu sections that currently
lack climate action, and to focus on the sectors of highest emissions. Furthermore, establishing acoordinating body for climate change could help support climate action design and implementation.

37
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 29: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Canada 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Canada:
Electricity and heat
• New coal-fired power plants standards - implemented: Sets a standard of 420 gCO2/kWh for coal
power plants built after 2015.
• EcoENERGY for Renewable Power program - implemented: Supports renewable energy production
by providing CAD 0.01/kWh produced for a period of 10 years to projects started before 2011.
Transport• On-road vehicles and engine emissions regulations - implemented: Sets a GHG emissions target forlight-duty vehicles of 98 gCO2/km and an energy efficiency target of 23.2km/l by 2025.
• Heavy-duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations - implemented: Sets a targetof 46% fuel consumption reduction for heavy-duty vehicles by 2025, compared to 2010.
• Renewable Fuels Regulations (Biofuels Bill) - implemented: Sets targets of 5% bio-ethanol content ingasoline and 2% biodiesel content in diesel fuel and heating oil from 2011 onwards.
• Marine Vessel Fuel Efficiency Regulations - planned: Sets a target of 30% energy efficiency
improvement by 2025, applying to new vessels of over 400 gross tonnage (international shipping)
Buildings• ENERGY STAR for New Homes Standard - implemented: Addresses energy efficiency in residentialbuildings via performance codes for insulation and electrical equipment.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a target of 30% GHG emissions
reductions (incl. LULUCF) by 2030 compared to 2005.
• EcoENERGY Efficiency program - implemented: Aimed to invest $195 million between 2011 and 2016
to improve energy efficiency in the residential, commercial and transport sectors.
38
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Amendment 12B to the Energy Efficiency Regulations - implemented: Sets a ban oncommercialisation of incandescent light bulbs from 2013 onwards.
• Clean Energy Fund - implemented: Supported the implementation of demonstration projects forrenewable energy and clean energy systems, including carbon capture and storage, between 2010
and 2014. This investment is expected to result in GHG emissions reductions until 2025.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Canada had the third highest GDP per capita within the G20 countries (Figure 6), and an average
unemployment rate (Figure 30). Economic development co-benefits of climate mitigation would likely
not be a priority for the country, except for those that could provide new job opportunities. Canada has
a lower than average share of fossil fuels in the total energy consumption (Figure 30), although still
above 70% (Figure 8). Furthermore, it exports more than half of its total energy consumption (Figure11), and has 100% electricity access (Figure 30). Hence, energy security and energy access may not
represent high incentives as co-benefits of decarbonization. Moreover, Canada profits from export offossil fuels, including also tar sands oil.
Canada’s annual exposure to PM2.5 is well within the recommended limit (Figure 12), and would notbenefit substantially from air pollution reduction co-benefits of mitigation. However, other healthrelated benefits, such as decreased mining accidents and reduced traffic stress could be beneficial. As
an exporter of cereals (more than 50% of its total consumption, see Figure 13), Canada would not beaffected by decreased food security if more biofuels would be produced within the country.

Figure 30: Development indicators in Canada compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst
G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20
average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

39
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.5. China
China was the highest GHG emitter among the G20 countries (and worldwide) in 2014, with an annual
level of emissions of more than 12 GtCO2eq (Figure 3). This emissions level is double that of the next
highest emitter, the United States, and more than triple that of the third highest emitter, the European
Union. However, the country has a below average level of emissions per capita (Figure 33). Energy
intensity is also high in China, the fourth highest within G20 (Figure 9), but GHG emissions intensity is
only slightly higher than that of the European Union (Figure 5).

40This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 31: Good-practice policy menu coverage in China

This situation might be due to a large share of emissions and energy intensive industries in the economy
and the extensive use of coal power plants. China has climate mitigation policies across all sectors in
the good practice policy menu (Figure 31), but shows a stronger focus on renewables in the electricity
sector and energy and material efficiency across all relevant sectors. The stronger focus on theelectricity and heat sector can be justified by the high GHG emissions levels in this sector (43%, see
Figure 32). Next to electricity and heat, industry is the second highest emitting sector (29%). In theindustry sector, China mainly focuses on energy and material efficiency. Future steps towards
41
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

decarbonization could increase mitigation in these high emitting sectors and cover policy areas that are
currently neglected, such as non-energy in industry.

Figure 32: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, China 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in China:
Electricity and heat
• Action Plan for Upgrading of Coal Power Plants - implemented: Implements a minimum standard of
310 gce/kWh (gram standard coal per kWh) for coal-fired power plants.
• Renewable Energy Electricity feed-in tariff - implemented: Feed-in tariffs for both wind and solar PV
electricity production, varying per region.
• Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020) - implemented: Sets 2020 installed capacity
targets of 58 GW nuclear (with additionally 30GW under construction), 350 GW hydropower, 200
GW wind, 30 GW biomass, and 100 GW solar PV and a share of 15% non-fossil fuels in the energy
mix. It also sets a planned target of 20% share of non-fossil fuels in the energy mix.
Industry• Industrial Energy Performance Standards - implemented: Energy consumption standards for mostindustrial sectors, including cement, steel and coke, addressing both old and new plants.
• Made in China 2025 - implemented: Targets carbon intensity decrease per industrial value added of
22% by 2020 and 40% by 2025 compared to 2015.
• Green industry development plan (2016-2020) - implemented: Targets 18% energy consumption
decrease per industrial value added by 2020 compared to 2015.
Transport• Energy saving and new energy automotive industry development plan (2012-2020) - implemented:
Sets a 2020 target of 5 million pure-electric and plug-in cars on the road, and a supply capacity of 2
million such cars per year. Furthermore, it sets passenger vehicles energy efficiency and GHG
emissions targets of 5 L/100 km and 120 gCO2/km by 2020.
42
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Management of Subsidy Fund of Private New Energy Vehicles (Interim) - implemented: Subsidies forpure-electric and plug-in cars are provided, with a value of 3000 CNY/kWh, based on the battery
capacity.
• Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards - implemented: Light-duty vehicle fuel efficiency standard is
6.9L/100 km from 2014 onwards. Heavy-duty vehicle standards are 15 L/100 km to 25 L/100 km(depending on weight) for medium-duty trucks and 28 L/100 km to 45 L/100 km for heavy-duty
trucks.
• 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020) - planned: Aims to remove 4 million high emissions vehicles by
2020.
Buildings• National Building Energy Standard - implemented: 30% of new buildings meet an energy
consumption standard of 120 kWh/m2 in 2020.
Agriculture and forestry• Intended Nationally Determine Contribution (INDC) - planned: Aims to increase forest stock by 4.5
billion cubic meters by 2030 compared to 2005.
• 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020) - implemented: Sets a target of 23.04% forest coverage by 2020.
Furthermore, it aims to turn 1 million ha of marginal cropland into grassland or forest land.
• National Plan for Tackling Climate Change (2014-2020) - implemented: Aims to increase forest
resources by expanding forest area by 40 million ha by 2020 and forest stocks by 1.3 million m3 by
2020 compared to 2005.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determine Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets CO2 emissions intensity reduction
target of 60%-65% by 2030 compared to 2005. Aims to have a share of 20% non-fossil fuels inprimary energy, and sets goals of HFC-22 emissions reductions of 35% by 2020 and 68% by 2030
compared to 2010.
• National Plan for Tackling Climate Change (2014-2020) - implemented: Sets 2020 target of 15%
share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption. Furthermore, the plan aims to reducecarbon intensity per unit GDP by 40-45% by 2020 compared to 2005.
• Medium and Long Term Development Plan for Renewable Energy - implemented: Sets a biofuel
production target of 12 million tonnes/year (10 million biodiesel and 2 million ethanol) in 2020.
• Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020) - implemented: Sets a coal consumption capof 4.2 Gt/year, representing 62% of the total energy mix, and gas production value of 185 billion
m3/year, equivalent to 10% in the energy mix by 2020. It also sets a 2030 target of 20% share of nonfossil fuels in primary energy mix.
• 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020) - implemented: Aims for a 15% reduction in energy intensity of GDP
and 18% reduction in carbon intensity of GDP by 2020 compared to 2015. The plan also sets a totalenergy consumption cap of 5Gtce/year (5 billion standard coal equivalent tonnes per year).
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
43This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

China has a low GDP per capita compared to other G20 countries (Figure 33) and would profit fromclimate mitigation co-benefits in support of this development area. Furthermore, it currently has ashare of fossil fuels in total energy consumption of almost 90% (Figure 8). A switch to alternative fuels
could, with some exceptions, lead to improved work safety and water and ecosystems benefits.
Furthermore, use of renewables and diversification of energy production sources would improveenergy security, a benefit that could be important for China, considering that it is currently a net
importer of energy (Figure 11). However, biofuel production may not be a beneficial option, given thatthe country is currently slightly dependent on cereal imports (Figure 13) and competition between
biofuels and food could add further pressure on food security. China’s highest water use is in the
agriculture sector (Figure 16). Tackling GHG emissions from this sector should consider water use
impacts as well.
One of the important benefits that China could gain from climate mitigation is improved air quality, as
China currently has the third highest PM2.5 mean annual exposure within G20, after Saudi Arabia andIndia (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Development indicators in China compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst G20
countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20 average,
respectively. The black line represents the country value.

44
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.6. European Union
The European Union (EU) is the third highest GHG emitter within G20 countries, with total emissions
levels of approximately 3.8GtCO2eq in 2014 (Figure 3). However, EU has the lowest GHG emissions
intensity levels (Figure 5) and below average GHG emissions per capita (Figure 36). Furthermore, it also
has one of the lowest levels for energy intensity (Figure 9). EU has a high coverage of the good practice
policy menu, with policies across all sectors and policy areas. Covered here are only EU-wide policies,
not policies of EU member states. Electricity and heat is the sector responsible for the highest share of
GHG emissions (37%), followed by transport (22%), industry (17%) and buildings (15%) (Figure 35).

45
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018
Figure 34: Good-practice policy menu in the European Union

Future steps towards decarbonization could focus on these high-emissions sectors and the goodpractice policy menu areas that are currently neglected at the EU level, such as E-mobility or renewablesin the buildings sector.

Figure 35: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, European Union 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in EU:
Transport• Emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles (Regulation (EU) No. 510/2011)- implemented: Mandates an average CO2 emissions limit of 175 gCO2/km for light-duty vehicles
from 2011, and sets a target of 147 gCO2/km in 2020.
• Emission performance standards for new passenger cars (Regulation (EC) No. 443/2009) implemented: The regulation mandates an average CO2 emissions limit of 120 gCO2/km forpassenger vehicles from 2012, and sets a target of 95 gCO2/km in 2020.
• Directive 2009/28/EC Biofuel target - implemented: Sets a 2020 target for renewable share (biofuels
and renewable electricity) of 10% in transport energy use.
• Fuel Quality (Directive 2009/30/EC) - implemented: Allows commercialisation of 7% biodiesel
content in diesel oil and 10% ethanol in gasoline. Furthermore, it mandates a 10% emissions
reduction target in the fuel production lifecycle by 2020, compared to 2010.
• Roadmap to single European transport area - planned: This long-term strategy has a number oftargets within the transport sector, including 20% GHG emissions reductions by 2030 compared to2008 and 60% by 2050 compared to 1990, 50% reduction in conventionally-fuelled cars in cities by2030 and 100% reduction by 2050.
Buildings• Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings - implemented: Sets a target for all
newly constructed buildings (both residential and non-residential) to have near-zero emissions
performance by 2020.
46
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a target of 40% GHG emissions
reduction (incl. LULUCF) by 2030 compared to 1990.
• 2020 Climate and Energy Package - implemented: Sets the following 2020 targets: 20% GHG
emissions reduction (including LULUCF) compared to 1990, 20% renewables share in energy
consumption, and 20% energy consumption reduction compared to BAU.
• 2030 Climate and Energy Package - planned: Sets the following 2030 targets: at least 40% GHG
emissions reduction (including LULUCF) compared to 1990, at least 27% renewables share in energy
consumption, and at least 27% energy consumption reduction compared to BAU.
• Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy efficiency (amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU andrepealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC) - implemented: Mandates annual energy savings of
1.5% of total sales for energy distributors or retail energy sales companies (does not apply to small
companies).
• EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) (Directive 2009/29/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC) implemented: Includes a large share of industries and electricity and heat producers (covering 1800
MtCO2eq). Sets a target of 21% GHG emissions reductions by 2020 compared to 2005, in sectors
covered by the system.
• Eco-design (Directive 2009/125/EC) - implemented: Sets energy consumption standards for bothresidential and industrial energy-related equipment.
• Fluorinated greenhouse gases (Regulation No. 517/2014, repealing Regulation No. 842/2006) implemented: Sets a target for non-CO2 emissions reductions, including fluorinated GHGs, but
excluding emissions from agriculture, of 72-73% by 2030 and 70-78% by 2050 compared to 1990.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
EU has an above average GDP per capita (Figure 36), but a high unemployment rate (above 8.5%, see
Figure 7). Therefore, climate mitigation action that leads to an increase in job opportunities would behighly beneficial for EU. EU has a below average share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption, but
the level is high, above 70% (see Figure 36 and Figure 8). Furthermore, the country is currently
importing approximately 50% of its total energy consumption (Figure 11), placing it in a vulnerable
position concerning energy security. Diversification of energy resources, increase in the share of
renewables, and energy efficiency improvements could help EU increase its energy security. EU averageannual exposure to PM2.5 is only slightly above recommended levels (Figure 12). Hence, air quality
improvement would only be an important benefit of decarbonization for currently highly polluted
areas.

47
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 36: Development indicators in European Union compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above
G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

48
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.7. India
India is the fourth highest emitter in G20, with emissions of above 3GtCO2eq (Figure 3). Furthermore,
it has above average emissions intensity levels (Figure 5). However, India is the G20 member country
with the lowest GHG emissions level per capita (Figure 4). India has climate mitigation policies acrossall sectors and covers most policy areas, but with strongest focus on renewables in the electricity andheat sector (Figure 37). The country’s GHG emissions are dominated by the electricity and heat sector(38%), followed by agriculture (25%) and industry (17%) (Figure 38). Although agriculture has a verylarge share of emissions, more policies were identified in the forestry sector.

49
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 37: Good-practice policy menu coverage in India

Future steps towards low-carbon transition should focus on the sectors of high emissions, and policy
areas which are currently not covered, such as material efficiency and non-energy in the industry
sector.

50
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 38: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, India 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in India:
Electricity and heat
• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a financially conditional targetof 40% share of renewables in electricity production by 2030, including 100 GW solar installedcapacity and 60 GW wind installed capacity by 2022
• National Solar Mission (Phase I and II) – planned: Sets a target of 100 GW installed capacity of solar
electricity by 2022.
• National Wind Mission - planned: Sets a target of 60 GW installed wind power capacity by 2022.
• Government Assistance for Small Hydropower Stations - planned: Sets a target of 5 GW small hydroinstalled capacity by 2022, supported by economic incentives• Central Financial Assistance (CFA) for Biogas Plants - implemented: Sets a target of 10 GW biogas
installed capacity by 2022, supported by economic incentives.
• Renewable Purchase Obligations - implemented: Mandates electricity producers to purchase apercentage of the total generation from renewables. The national target was set at 6% in 2010/11
and is to be progressively increased by 1% each year, reaching 15% by 2020.
• Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) - implemented: Use of supercritical power plants as part of the
focus area ‘Advanced coal technologies’, resulting in efficiency improvements equivalent to a power
plant standard of 840 gCO2/kWh.
Industry• Perform, Achieve, Trade (PAT) Scheme - implemented: Sets a target of 2.2 Mtoe reduction in totalindustrial energy consumption by 2015 compared to BAU and 7 Mtoe by 2020.

Transport
51
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• National Electric Mobility Mission Plan - planned: Sets a target of 6-7 million annual sales of hybrid
and electric vehicles from 2020 onwards.
• Vehicle energy consumption standards - planned: Light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards are
130 gCO2/km by 2016 and 113 gCO2/km by 2021.
• National Policy on Biofuels - implemented: Sets a mandatory ethanol blending volume of 5% in petrol
from 2007, and 10% from 2008. Planned targets of 20% for both biodiesel blend in diesel andbioethanol blend in petrol, from 2017 onwards are also set.
Agriculture and forestry• National Green India Mission (GIM) - planned: Sets a target of 5 million ha forest area increase by2030 compared to 2005, expected to lead to 13 MtCO2e emissions reduction for the same period.
• Green Highways (Plantation, Transplantation, Beautification and Maintenance) - planned: Aims toincrease tree plantations along highways, expected to lead to cumulative GHG emissions reductionsof 2MtCO2eq between 2005 and 2030.
• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Aims to create an additional carbon
sink of 2.5-3 GtCO2eq in the forestry sector.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets an emissions intensity(GHG/GDP) reduction target of 33%-35% by 2030 compared to 2005.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
India has the lowest GDP per capita among G20 countries (Figure 39). Hence, economic co-benefits ofclimate mitigation would be a gain that should be maximized. With the low unemployment rate (Figure39), new job opportunities could mainly bring higher quality jobs to India as important co-benefit. In
terms of energy, India suffers the lowest electricity coverage of population in G20, just below 80%(Figure 10), and is dependent on energy imports for one third of its total energy consumption (Figure11). The country could, therefore, highly benefit from positive impacts of renewables on both energy
access and energy security. While India has the third lowest share of fossil fuels in total energy
consumption in G20, this proportion is still very high, above 70% (Figure 8). Next to renewables, energy
efficiency improvements would also increase energy security in the country.
Although energy security could be improved by an increase in renewable energy sources, biofuel
production may also have negative effects for India. Current cereal import dependency ratio in India isclose to positive (Figure 13), and the country suffers the highest food deficit depth among G20 countries(Figure 39). Resource competition between biofuels and food might push India into an even more
vulnerable position with regard to food security.
Informed choices of climate mitigation policies in the agricultural sector could increase food security
and lower disproportionate share of water used in this sector, 90% (Figure 16). Air quality in India isvery poor, with PM2.5 mean annual exposure of almost 7.5 times the recommended limit (Figure 12).
Air quality improvement co-benefits of climate mitigation would therefore, be highly important for
India.

52
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 39: Development indicators in India compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst G20
countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20 average,
respectively. The black line represents the country value.

53
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.8. Indonesia
Indonesia had an average GHG emissions level compared to other G20 countries in 2014, approximately
2.7GtCO2eq, but the highest GHG intensity (Figure3, Figure 42). However, its GHG emissions per capita
are rather low (Figure 4). Indonesia’s GHG emissions are dominated by the forestry sector (58%),
followed by electricity and heat (9%), agriculture and industry (9%) (Figure 41). Good practice policy
menu coverage appears to be in line with sectoral emissions, with a large number of policies
implemented in the forestry sector (Figure 40). Next to forestry, renewables in the electricity and heatsector is another area of high coverage. However, many policy areas are still not covered by climate
policies.

54
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 40: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Indonesia

Future decarbonisation steps could focus on high- emissions sectors and aim to cover neglected policy
areas, such as industrial production efficiency and non-energy related emissions.

55
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 41: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Indonesia 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Indonesia:
Electricity and heat
• National Electricity Plan (RUKN) - implemented: Sets a target of 25% share of non-fossil electricity
production (including nuclear) by 2025.
• Electricity Supply Business Plan (RUPTL) (2016-2025) - implemented: Aims to install additional
renewable energy capacity of 2 GW hydropower, 0.7 GW geothermal, and 0.2 GW wind/solar
between 2015 and 2019. Furthermore, the plan sets a target of 99.7% electrification rate by 2025.
• Electricity Purchase from Small and Medium Scale Renewable Energy and Excess Power (No. 4/2012)- implemented: Provides feed-in tariffs for small and medium scale renewable energy producers.
• Ceiling Price for Geothermal (Ministerial Regulation No. 17/2014) - implemented: Geothermalenergy price is capped at a few Rp/kWh, differentiated by region.
Transport• Biofuel Blending (Ministry Regulation No. 25/2013) - implemented: Mandates shares of 20% bioethanol in gasoline and 25% biodiesel in diesel by 2025.
Forestry• Forest Law Enforcement National Strategy (FLENS) - implemented: Aims to curb illegal logging andreduce current deforestation rate by 20–50 Mm3 per year between 2015 and 2025.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Aims to reduce GHG emissions (incl.
LULUCF) by 26% by 2020 and 29% by 2030 compared to BAU. The financially conditional target is
up to 41% GHG emissions reduction by 2030 compared to BAU.
• Energy efficiency labelling program - implemented: Voluntary labelling program that covers
televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners, ballasts and washing machines.

56
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• National Energy Policy (Government Regulation No. 79/2014) - planned: Sets a target of 0% share ofgas import in TPES by 2025. Furthermore, it plans a share of new and renewable energy (incl.
nuclear) in TPES of 19% by 2025. An additional 5 GW gas fired power capacity is required to meetthe planned target of 23% renewable energy (incl. nuclear). Note that there are some differences in
the goals expressed in various planning documents.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Indonesia has a very low GDP per capita compared to other G20 countries, higher only than India (Figure6). Therefore, economic co-benefits of climate mitigation would be an important gain for Indonesia.
Given the below average unemployment rate in the country (Figure 42), new job opportunities related
to climate mitigation may not be an important gain to increase employment rate per se, but it could
benefit the country through higher quality jobs. Indonesia has a low energy intensity level (Figure 42).
Furthermore, it has the second lowest share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption within G20,
approximately 66% (Figure 8). An increase in the use of renewable resource could benefit the remaining
isolated areas that have no access to electricity (Figure 42). However, the country currently benefits
economically from exports of energy, exporting more than its total domestic consumption (Figure 11).
Annual mean exposure to PM2.5 in Indonesia is approximately 50% above the recommended value(Figure 12), although below average compared to other G20 countries (Figure 42). Implementing
additional climate mitigation policies, such as decreased use of coal and support for E-mobility, would
improve the air quality of the country. However, biofuel production as a climate mitigation measure
could lead to an increase to the existing food security issue. Indonesia is currently dependent on
important for around 13% of its cereals consumption (Figure 13), and has the third highest depth offood deficit in G20 (Figure 14). Moreover, above 80% of water use is for the agriculture sector (Figure16). Benefits of selected climate mitigation policies in the agriculture sector should consider both foodsecurity and water use.

Figure 42: Development indicators in Indonesia compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst
G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20
average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

57
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.9. Japan
Japan had below average GHG emissions in 2014 (Figure 45), and well below average GHG emissions
intensity in G20 (Figure 5). However, the country’s GHG emissions per capita places Japan in the G20
upper half (Figure 45). The main GHG emitting sector in Japan is electricity and heat (46%), followed byindustry (29%) and transport (20%) (Figure 44). While almost all sectors of the good practice policy
menu are covered by implemented climate policies, certain areas are not included. For instance,
policies that address GHG emissions in the agriculture sector were not found. However agriculturalemissions share is only 2% (Figure 44). In the future, Japan could aim to cover the remaining areas, suchas biofuels in transport and material efficiency in industry.

58
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 43: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Japan

Furthermore, an implemented climate strategy could bring focus and support for climate action.

59
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 44: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Japan 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Japan:
Electricity and heat
• Act on Purchase of Renewable Energy Sourced Electricity by Electric Utilities (Law No. 108 of 2011) implemented: Sets a renewable energy consumption tax of JPY 2.25/ kWh (since 2016).
Furthermore, it provides feed in tariffs based on the size of the power plants for onshore andoffshore wind energy, geothermal energy, small and micro hydropower, solar PV and bioenergy(non-wood and wood biomass, waste, biogas and methane).
• 4th Strategic Energy Plan - implemented: Sets targets for electricity sources in 2030: 20%-22%
nuclear, 22%-24% renewables (including hydropower), 26% coal, 27% liquefied natural gas, and 3%
oil.
Industry• Law Concerning the Rational Use of Energy (Energy Conservation Act) (Law No.49 of 1979) implemented: Sets a requirement of 1% decrease in energy consumption for industries consuming
more than 1500kL oil equivalent annually (90% of the sector) and enforces it by a non-compliancefine of JPY 1 million.
• Act on Rational Use and Proper Management of Fluorocarbons - implemented: Aims to reduce F-gas
emissions by 9.7-15.6 MtCO2e by 2020, compared to BAU.
Transport• Eco-Car Tax Break and Subsidies for Vehicles - implemented: Subsidies are provided upon purchaseof environmentally friendly cars. In 2016, JPY 15 million were distributed (up to JPY 160.000 perunit). Furthermore, tax reliefs are provided in relation to the acquisition tax and the automobile
weight-related tax.
• Fuel Efficiency Standards for Vehicles - Top Runner Program - implemented: Sets fuel consumption
standards of 16.8km/L in 2015, and 20.3km/L by 2020.
• Environment-related tax on vehicle: Two taxes - implemented: one relates to emissions, and theother is applied as a percentage of the acquisition value, based on weight.
60
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Buildings• Regulation and Standard for Housing and Building (Energy Conservation Act) - implemented: Setsbuilding energy use standards ranging from 290 MJ/m3/year to 460 MJ/m3/year, depending on
climate zone.
Forestry• J-Credit Scheme - implemented: Provides emission reduction certificates for forest managementrelated GHG emissions reductions.
• Basic Plan for Forest and Forestry - implemented: Sets a target of 3.5% (44 MtCO2e) emissions
reductions from forest sinks by 2020, compared to 1990.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a target of 26% GHG emissions
reduction (incl. LULUCF) by 2030, compared to 2013
• Act Partially Amending the Law on Special Tax Measures (Tax Reform Act 2012) (Law No. 16 of 2012)- implemented: Fossil fuels are taxed through a special tax measure and a climate mitigation tax asfollows: JPY 2,040/kl + JPY 760/kl (added climate mitigation tax) on crude oil, JPY 1,080/t + JPY 780/t(added climate mitigation tax) on gaseous fuels and JPY 700/t + JPY 670/t (added climate mitigationtax) on coal.
• Energy Tax on Fossil Fuels - implemented: Energy taxes apply to fossil fuels as follows – JPY 53.8/L(gasoline tax and local gasoline excise tax) on gasoline, JPY 17.5/kg on oil and gas, JPY 32.1/L on
diesel oil, JPY 26/L on aviation fuel, and an electric power development promotion tax of JPY
375/MWh of electricity sold.
• 2030 Outlook for Energy Supply and Demand - implemented: Sets a target of 10% energy use
reduction by 2030, compared to 2010.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Japan has a high GDP per capita among G20 members and the lowest unemployment rate (Figure 45).
It is, therefore, likely that economic co-benefits of climate action would not represent a priority for thecountry. However, in terms of energy, the country is highly dependent on imports, relying on othercountries for more than 90% of its total consumption (Figure 11). This situation places the country in avery vulnerable position from the perspective of energy security. In 2014, Japan relied on fossil fuels
for almost 95% of its total energy consumption (Figure 8). Increasing the production of energy fromrenewable resources would significantly increase energy security in the country. However, biofuel
production may not be a feasible option for Japan, given its vulnerable food security position. The
country currently relies on cereal imports for almost 80% of its total consumption (Figure 13). Finally,
although mean annual exposure to PM2.5 is below the average of G20, this value is still above therecommended limit. Introducing new and more stringent climate mitigation policies would likely
improve air quality as a co-benefit.

61
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 45: Development indicators in Japan compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst G20
countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20 average,
respectively. The black line represents the country value.

62
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.10. Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea (Korea) had low GHG emission in 2014, compared to other G20 countries,
approximately 0.7GtCO2eq, as well as below average GHG emissions intensity (Figure 48). However, its
GHG emissions per capita the second largest for the same year (Figure 4). GHG emissions in Korea
emerge disproportionately from the electricity and heat sector (56%), followed by Industry (19%) andtransport (15%) (Figure 47). Korea has implemented climate policies across all sectors, except forestry(Figure 46). Most policies in the country focus on renewables in the electricity and heat sector, and onenergy efficiency across all relevant sectors.

63This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 46: Good-practice policy menu in the Republic of Korea

Future decarbonisation steps could aim to cover the remaining sections of the good practice policy
menu, but with focus on highly emitting sectors, for instance, by introducing energy/fuel taxes in thethree sectors of highest emissions.

64
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 47: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Korea Rep. 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Republic ofKorea:
Electricity and heat• 7th Basic Plan for Long-Term Electricity Supply and Demand 2015-2029 - implemented: Sets a
renewable electricity target of 11.7% of total generation and 20.1% of total generation capacity by
2029 (including fuel cells and integrated gasification combined cycle). Installed capacity targets forthe same year are as follows: 1.8 GW hydropower, 0.8 GW onshore wind, 1.0 GW offshore wind,16.6 GW solar, 0.2 GW bioenergy and 0.2 GW waste. The plan also aims for an electricity
consumption decrease of 14.3% and peak demand decrease of 12% by 2029 compared to BAU(planned).
• Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) - implemented: Sets a requirement of 10% renewable electricity
production covering 90% of all electricity production.
• One Million Green Homes - implemented: This name of the policy was changed to ‘Home subsidy
program’ in 2013 and now provides subsidies for installation of solar PV in the residential sector andaims for 100,000 solar roof tops by 2020.
• 2nd National Energy Master Plan - planned: Sets a target of 15% reduction in total electricity
production by 2035 compared to BAU.
• 4th National Basic Plan for Renewable Energies (2014-2035) - planned: Sets a target of 13.4%
renewables share in electricity production by 2035.
Industry• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmap - planned: Sets a target of 81.3% GHG emissions reduction in
the industry sector by 2020 compared to BAU.

Buildings

65
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Building Energy Code (Building Standards - New Building) - implemented: Requires thermal insulation
performance improvement of 25.8% for buildings with floor area larger than 500 square meters andrequires building permits for new buildings with gross area above this limit.
• Energy Efficiency Labelling and Standard - implemented: Sets energy use standards and requires
energy efficiency labels for appliances.
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmap - implemented: Sets a target of 26.9% emissions reductions in
the building sector.
Transport• New automotive emissions standards - implemented: Sets passenger vehicles GHG emissions
standards of 97 gCO2/km, and fuel consumption standards of 24.3 km/L by 2020.
• Development and Distribution Plan for Electric Vehicles - implemented: The program aims to
distribute 200,000 electric/hybrid vehicles between 2010 and 2020.
• Renewable Fuel Standard (2015-2020) - implemented: Sets a standard of 3% biofuel share in
petrol/diesel by 2018.
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmap - planned: Sets a target of 34.4% GHG emissions reduction in
the transport sector by 2020 compared to BAU.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a target of 37% GHG emissions
reduction (excl. LULUCF) by 2030 compared to BAU.
• Emissions Trading Scheme - implemented: Aims to cover 66% of total GHG emissions in 2017.
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmap - planned: Sets a target of 30% total GHG emissions reductions
by 2020 and 37% by 2030 compared to BAU.
• 2nd National Energy Master Plan - planned: Sets a target of 13% final energy consumption reduction
by 2035 compared to BAU.
• 4th National Basic Plan for Renewable Energies (2014-2035) - planned: Sets a target of 11%
renewables share in TPES by 2035.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Korea has an above average GDP per capita and the third lowest unemployment rate within G20, below
average (Figure 48). Therefore, economic co-benefits of climate mitigation would likely represent alower priority for the country. However, similar to Japan, the country has a very vulnerable situation interms of energy security, currently importing more than 80% of its total energy consumption (Figure11). The country reliance on fossil fuels is also above 80% of the total energy consumption (Figure 8).
Increasing the share of renewable energy production in the country would substantially benefit Korea
by improving energy security levels. Increasing energy efficiency would also decrease energy insecurity.
The country has an above average energy intensity level (Figure 48). However, this could be caused
both by energy inefficiency in energy consuming sectors and by the structure of the economy (higher
share of energy intense economic sectors).

66
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

While a higher share of renewables could improve energy security, production of biofuels could worsen
the vulnerable food security position of the country. Korea depends on imports for close to 75% of its
total cereal consumption (Figure 13) and land competition with biofuels could increase this value.
Korea has an average annual mean exposure to PM2.5 among the G20 countries (Figure 48), but theabsolute value is almost three times above the recommended limit. Implementing new and more
stringent mitigation policies, such as a regulation of non-energy related emissions from industry, would
benefit the country air quality.

Figure 48: Development indicators in Republic of Korea compared to minimum, maximum and averagevalues amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values
below and above G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

67
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.11. Mexico
Mexico has low total GHG emissions, low GHG emissions per capita and below average GHG emissions
intensity compared to other G20 countries (Figure 51). The main sources of GHG emissions are fromthe electricity and heat (30%) and transport (26%) sectors, followed by agriculture (14%) and industry(11%) (Figure 50). While the country has implemented mitigation policies in all relevant sectors, thefocus is mainly on renewables in electricity and heat and energy efficiency in all relevant sectors (Figure49). While the two highest emitting sectors are well covered, the following two have only few policies.
In the future, the country could focus on more strongly addressing these sectors, for instance, throughregulatory instruments in the industry sector, and not only reporting and audits. Similarly, the transport
sector could also cover biofuels, modal shift and E-mobility.

68
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 49: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Mexico

69
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 50: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Mexico 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Mexico:
Electricity and heat
• Energy Transition Law - implemented: Sets targets for share of clean sources (emissions below 100
kg/MWh) in electricity generation of 25% in 2018, 30% in 2021 and 35% in 2024.
• Renewable energy auction scheme - implemented: Mexico had its first auction scheme for wind andsolar in 2016, with values of US$45/MWh for solar and US$48/MWh for wind.
• Accelerated Depreciation for Investments with Environmental Benefits - implemented: Investments
in clean energy projects can be deduced by up to 100% in the first year through tax reliefs.
• Grid interconnection contract for renewable energy - implemented: Renewable electricity is granted
transmission discounts of 50% to 70%.
Industry• Energy Reform Package - implemented: Sets targets for oil and gas production. Oil production targets
are 3 million barrels in 2018 and 3.5 million barrels in 2025, while gas production targets are 8000
million cubic feet in 2018 and 10400 million cubic feet in 2025.
• Carbon tax - implemented: Carbon tax on fossil fuel production of US$3.5/t from 2014.
• Performance criteria and application for flaring and ventilation of natural gas (CNH.06.001/09) implemented: Aims to reduce natural gas flaring and ventilation by 80% to 95% of the average ofprevious years , starting in 2009.
Transport• Light Duty Vehicles CO2 Emissions Standards - implemented: Light duty vehicle emissions standards
set from 2016 are between 163.6 gCO2/km (for cars with a surface smaller than 3.81 m2) and 227.6
gCO2/km (for cars with a surface larger than 6.13 m2).
• Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Standards - implemented: Heavy duty vehicle emissions
standards are set from 2012.
70
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Agriculture and Forestry• General Law for Sustainable Forest Development - implemented: Sets various targets for improved
forest management by 2018, such as 58.7% of the forest resources to be sustainably harvested,
10.2% of forest area to be included in the ‘payment for ecosystems services’ scheme, and 94% of
the forest to be certified under ‘good forest management practice’. Additionally, the credit forforest development and conservation is to be increased by 30% in 2018 compared to 2012. It also
aims for 0% wood sold on illegal markets by 2018 (planned).
• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets 0% deforestation rate target by
2030.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets an unconditional target of 25%
GHG emissions reduction and a conditional target of 40% by 2030 compared to BAU.
• Special Programme on Climate Change 2014-2018 - planned: Sets a target of 30% emissions
reduction by 2020 compared to BAU, and 50% by 2050 compared to 2000. This program also targets
21.23 MtCO2e GHG emissions reductions between 2018 and 2050, as a result of implemented
REDD+ projects.
• National Programme for Sustainable Use of Energy (2014-2018) - implemented: Aims for an energy
intensity level in 2018 that is the same as or lower than the level of 2012.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Mexico has low GDP per capita and low unemployment rate relative to other G20 members (Figure 51).
Economic co-benefits of climate mitigation would likely be of high interest for the country.
Furthermore, although decreasing the unemployment rate may not be a high priority, higher quality
job opportunities in climate mitigation areas could be a valuable benefit. Mexico has approximately
90% share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption (Figure 8) and is a net exporter of energy (Figure11). However, there is still a small percentage of population that needs to be reached by electricity
sources (Figure 10). Mexico could use the benefit of easy access that renewable sources provide toincrease its population coverage.
However, biofuel production might not be a feasible option as the country currently depends onimports for 30% of cereals consumption (Figure 13). Land-use change for biofuel production could
increase this figure and worsen food insecurity.
Mexico’s annual exposure to PM2.5 is low in G20, but twice the recommended limit (Figure 12). Air
quality could be improved as a co-benefit of climate mitigation.

71
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 51: Development indicators in Mexico compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst G20
countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20 average,
respectively. The black line represents the country value.

72
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.12. Russian Federation
Russian Federation (Russia) has average GHG emissions, compared to other G20 members but above
average GHG emissions intensity and GHG emissions per capita (Figure 54). The sector of highest
emissions in Russia is electricity and heat (44%), followed by industry (18%) and transport (12%) (Figure53). The has mitigation policies in all economic sectors except agriculture, although this sector accounts
for 4% of total emissions (Figure 53). However, the country has a low number of policies and a relatively
low coverage of the good practice policy menu. Future steps for a low-carbon transition could aim toreach a higher coverage of the menu, implementing policies such as industrial production efficiency, or
biofuels in transport. Furthermore, establishing a coordinating body for climate change would ensure
stronger support for climate policy design and implementation.

73
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 52: Good-practice policy menu coverage in the Russian Federation

74
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 53: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Russian Federation 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in RussianFederation:
Electricity and heat
• State Program on Energy efficiency and Energy Development (approved by Government Decree No321) - implemented: Sets a target for renewables share in electricity generation of 2.5% in 2020
(excluding large hydro >25MW).
• Decree No. 449 on the Mechanism for the Promotion of Renewable Energy on the Wholesale
Electricity and Market - implemented: Sets installed capacity targets of 3600 MW wind power, 1520
MW solar power, and 751 MW small-scale hydropower. Furthermore, the decree creates a schemeof 15-year periods of regulated capacity prices for renewables, to support these targets.
• Energy Strategy to 2030 - planned: Aims to reduce electricity consumption by no less than 1.6 times
in 2030 compared to 2005.
Industry• Legislation on the limitations of associated gas flaring - implemented: Sets gas flaring limit of 5%(95% use of petroleum gas) from 2012 onwards.
Transport• Vehicle emissions standards - implemented: Russian standards are based on European program forvehicle fuel efficiency and emissions, adopting Euro 5 standards for both light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles since 2016. Furthermore, vehicle registration tax increases with emissions and vehicle andengine size.
Forestry• National Strategy of Forestry Development by 2020 - implemented: Aims to increase forest
intensification and the harvest of wood by 5.8% per year from 2007 to 2020.

75
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Aims to limit GHG emissions to 70%75% of 1990 levels by 2030. A similar target (75%) was previously set by the Presidential Decree 752.
• State Program on Energy efficiency and Energy Development (approved by Government Decree No321) - planned: Sets a 40% energy intensity (energy per unit GDP) reduction target by 2020
compared to 2007.
• Energy efficiency legislation (Federal Law 261-FZ, On Saving Energy and Increasing Energy Efficiency
and Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation) - implemented: Sets mandatory
energy consumption savings for government-funded organisations (absolute consumption) of 3%
per year for 5 years since 2009. Additionally, an investment tax credit of up to 30% of tax is set forenergy efficiency investments. Furthermore, the law bans inefficient light bulbs (25 Watts or more)
starting in 2014.
• Energy Strategy to 2030 - planned: Sets a 56% energy intensity (energy per unit GDP) reduction
target by 2030 compared to 2005. Additionally, it sets targets of 46%-47% share of gas and 13%14% share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption by 2030. The strategy also aims for noless than 3 times decrease in energy export share of GDP and no less than 1.7 times decrease inshare of fuel and energy complex in GDP and in exports.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Russia has a low GDP per capita relative to other G20 countries (Figure 54). Hence, economic cobenefits of climate mitigation could be maximized to improve the country position. However, given the
low unemployment rate (Figure 7), job opportunities might not represent a high priority amongst
climate mitigation economic co-benefits.
Russia relies on fossil fuels for more than 90% of its total energy consumption (Figure 8). The country
could benefit by increasing its share of renewable energy, including biofuels, without a substantial
impact on food security, given that Russia is a net cereal exporter (Figure 13). However, the country
benefits economically from exports of energy, exporting more than 80% of its domestic energy
consumption (Figure 11). As a result, mitigation co-benefits of energy security may not be a strong
incentive for Russia. However, strong reliance on energy exports can make the country economicallyvulnerable.
Mean annual exposure to PM2.5 is below the average relative to other G20 members, but it lies above
the recommended limit (Figure 12). Air quality improvements would be a valuable co-benefit of climate
mitigation.
Unlike most other G20 members who use the largest share of water for agriculture, Russia consumes
approximately 60% of its energy for industrial purposes (Figure 16). Improvement in material andprocess efficiency, and a switch to sources of energy of low water footprint (e.g. solar PV and wind)
would help decrease water usage.

76
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 54: Development indicators in Russian Federation compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above
G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

77
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.13. Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has low GHG emission compared to other G20 member states, and only slightly above
average GHG emissions intensity (Figure 57). However, it is the highest GHG emitter per capita among
the group (Figure 57). The main source of GHG emissions in Saudi Arabia is the electricity and heatsector (49%), covering almost a half of the total emissions. Transport (20%) and Industry (17%) and thenext highest emitting sectors, the three covering almost 90% of all country emissions (Figure 56). Saudi
Arabia has climate mitigation policies in all sectors, except for agriculture and forestry (Figure 55), but
this could be explained by the low agriculture emissions (1%) and the lack of forests. However, the goodpractice policy menu has a low coverage overall.

78
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 55: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Saudi Arabia

To strengthen its climate mitigation action, Saudi Arabia could aim to cover more policy areas in therelevant sectors, with higher focus on the three sectors of highest emissions. Furthermore, preparing a
climate change strategy and establishing a coordinating body for climate change would provide
stronger focus for stringent climate action.

79
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 56: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Saudi Arabia 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Saudi Arabia:
Electricity and heat
• Royal Decree establishing King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy - implemented: Sets
renewable energy installed capacity targets of 41 GW solar, 9 GW wind, 3 GW waste-to-energy, and
1 GW geothermal by 2040.
• National Energy Efficiency Programme 2008 - planned: Aims to increase energy efficiency inelectricity by 30% between 2005 and 2030.
Transport• Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) - implemented: Standards for passenger cars andlight trucks. The standards for passenger cars in 2015 were between 11.9 km/l (lower limit) and 15.3
km/l (upper limit), while the 2020 target is between 13.9 km/l and 18.5 km/l. For light trucks, the2015 standard was between 9.6 km/l and 12.7 km/l, while the 2020 target is between 10.7 km/l and15.7 km/l.
Cross-sectoral•

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Aims to reduce GHG emissions up
to 130 MtCO2eq annually until 2030.

• 10th Development Plan Saudi Arabia (2015-2019) – planned: Aims to increase the share of non-oil
sectors from 59.1% in 2014 to 66% in 2019
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Saudi Arabia has average GDP per capita and below average unemployment rate (Figure 57). Hence,
economic development co-benefits of climate mitigation would not play a very important role, but
could still contribute substantially.
Saudi Arabia is the only G20 country that relies entirely on fossil fuels for its energy consumption (Figure8). The country is rich in fossil fuel resources and exports almost two times the amount of energy that

80
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

is consumed domestically (Figure 11). While Saudi Arabia is in a good position in terms of energy
security, the strong economic reliance on fossil fuel exports leads to economic vulnerability.
Saudi Arabia has the highest mean annual exposure to PM2.5, more than 10 times the recommended
value (Figure 12). This high value is mainly due to dust. Improving air quality should be a priority for
Saudi Arabia, and related climate mitigation co-benefits can help in this direction.
Saudi Arabia is also in a vulnerable position concerning food security, currently importing close to 90%
of its cereal consumption (Figure 13), and suffering from food deficit (Figure 14). Furthermore, thecountry experiences very high pressure on its water resources, currently withdrawing more than 9times its available renewable resources (Figure 15). The country uses water in a proportion of almost
90% for agriculture (Figure 16). Hence, when implementing climate mitigation policies in the
agricultural sector, water conservation co-benefits should be maximized.

Figure 57: Development indicators in Saudi Arabia compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above
G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

81
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.14. South Africa
South Africa has very low total GHG emissions relative to other G20 members but above average GHG
emissions per capita and the highest GHG emissions intensity among G20 members (Figure 60). The
electricity and heat sector is responsible for more than half of the total GHG emissions (55%), followed
by industry (12%) and transport (9%) (Figure 59). South Africa has a low coverage of the good practice
policy menu, although it has policies in all economic sectors, except agriculture (Figure 58). Futureclimate mitigation action could focus mainly on the electricity and heat sector, increasing efficiency andthe share of renewables. Furthermore, the country could aim to cover neglected climate mitigation
areas, such as non-energy related emissions in industry and vehicle efficiency standards.

82
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018
Figure 58: Good-practice policy menu in South Africa

Figure 59: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, South Africa 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in South Africa:
Electricity and heat
• Integrated Resource Electricity Plan (2010 – 2030) - implemented: Sets renewable energy targets intotal installed capacity of 21% excluding hydropower and 26.3% including hydropower by 2030.
Capacity addition targets between 2010 and 2030 are 0.7 GW hydro, 9.2 GW wind, 1 GW
concentrated solar power, 8.4 GW solar PV, and 11.4 nuclear (nuclear capacity is planned). The planalso sets a target for the use of coal, decreasing to 50% share in electricity generation by 2030
(planned).

• Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (REIPPP) - implemented: Public

procurement programme (20-year payment period) for qualifying renewable sources (onshore wind,solar PV, solar thermal, biomass solid, biogas, landfill gas and small hydro plants). A ceiling tariff levelis established for each technology in the auctions.

• National Development Plan – planned: Aims for 600 gCO2eq/KWh emissions standards in theelectricity sector by 2030.

Transport• Biofuels Industrial Strategy - implemented: Mandates a 2%-10% share of bioethanol in petrol and
5% share of biodiesel in diesel from 2015 onwards.
Buildings• National Building Regulation - implemented: Building standards apply to both existing and new
residential buildings and require an energy use of maximum 200 kWh/m2/year.
• National Development Plan - planned: Sets zero emissions building standards by 2030.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a target of GHG emissions within
the range 398-614 MtCO2eq by 2025 and 2030.
83This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Carbon Tax – planned: Aims for a carbon price of R6-R48/tCO2e by 2017-2020.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
South Africa has a low GDP per capita relative to G20 levels (Figure 60), and the highest unemployment
rate, above 25% (Figure 7). Therefore, economic-related mitigation co-benefits would be a priority forthe country.
The percentage of population with access to electricity in South Africa is approximately 85%, the second
lowest in G20 (Figure 10). The country could aim to reach this remote population with renewableelectricity sources, benefiting from the easy access provided by these. South Africa currently has a shareof fossil fuels in total energy consumption of more than 87% (Figure 8), above the G20 average (Figure60). However, while a substantial proportion of the population still requires access to electricity, South
Africa is a net energy exporter, exporting almost 70% of its total domestic consumption (Figure 11).
Mean annual exposure to PM2.5 is almost equal to the G20 average, but 3 times above therecommended limit (Figure 12). Air quality could be improved by mitigation policies that provide suchco-benefits.
South Africa has a food deficit of more than 10 kcal/capita/day (Figure 14) and depends on imports fora small percentage of cereal consumption (Figure 13). To ensure that food security in not decreased
further, mitigation policies that may lead to land-use competition should be avoided.

Figure 60: Development indicators in South Africa compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above
G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

84
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.15. Turkey
Turkey has the lowest GHG emissions in G20, and also below average GHG intensity and GHG emissions
per capita, although the latter indicators places it at the top of G20 members (Figure 63). The country
highest emitting sector is electricity and heat (35%), followed by industry (19%), buildings (15%), andtransport (14%) (Figure 62). Turkey has implemented mitigation policies in all sectors, but with astronger focus on renewables in electricity and heat and energy efficiency across all relevant sectors(Figure 61). However, a number of policy areas such as renewables in transport, buildings and industry,material and processes efficiency, or E-mobility are not covered. Furthermore, the country has no
overarching carbon pricing nor energy or other taxes. Future steps towards decarbonisation could focus
on addressing the policy areas that are currently neglected and on increasing the stringency in theelectricity and heat sector.

85
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 61: Good-practice policy menu coverage in Turkey

86This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 62: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, Turkey 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in Turkey:
Electricity and heat
• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets targets for installed capacity of
10 GW solar power, 16 GW wind power and 1 commissioned nuclear plant by 2030.
• Act No. 5346 on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources for the Purposes of Generating Electrical
Energy - implemented: Sets a target of 30% renewables share in electricity production by 2023.
• National Renewable Energy Action Plan for Turkey - implemented: Sets a target of 20.5% renewables
in final energy consumption by 2023 (planned). Aims to have 61 GW renewables installed capacity
by 2023: 34 GW hydro, 20 GW wind, 5 GW solar PV and CSP, 1 GW geothermal and 1 GW biomass.
Transport• Climate Change Action Plan (2011-2023) - planned: Targets for modal share in 2023 are set as
follows: 15%/10% share of railroads in freight/passenger transport, 10%/4% share of seaways infreight/passenger transport, and below 60%/72% share of highways in freight/passenger transport.
Buildings• Regulation on Energy Performance in Buildings - implemented: Codes and standards are set forbuildings and certificates are issued for new buildings and buildings that are rented or bought after
2011. Buildings with more than 2000 m² of usable space must have central heating system, whilebuildings with more than 20.000 m² may also be subject to required use of renewables andcogeneration sources.
• Energy efficiency Strategy Paper (2012-2023) - planned: Aims for a 20% share of renewables inannual energy demand of new buildings from 2017.
Forestry• Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2023 - planned: Aims to reduce deforestation by 20% by 2020
compared to 2007, and a 15% increase in carbon sequestration over the same period.

87
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a 21% GHG emissions reduction(incl. LULUCF) target by 2030 compared to BAU.
• Energy efficiency Strategy Paper 2012-2023 - planned: Aims for a 20% energy intensity (GJ/GDP)
reduction by 2023 compared to 2008.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
Turkey has a relatively low GDP per capita and an above-average unemployment rate (Figure 63).
Hence, it would be important for the country to seek to maximize economic co-benefits of climate
mitigation.
Turkey has the lowest energy intensity in G20, but it relies on imports for close to 75% of its total energy
consumption (Figure 11). This places the country in a vulnerable position regarding energy security.
Improving energy efficiency and increasing the share of renewables would substantially benefit Turkey
by improving its energy security. The current share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption isapproximately 90% (Figure 8). Among the renewable energy sources, biofuels could have a negative
impact on the country’s relatively vulnerable food security. Turkey relies on imports for a very small
proportion of its cereal consumption and still have a small food deficit (Figure 13, Figure 14).
Mean annual exposure to PM2.5 is above the G20 average, more than 3.5 times above therecommended limit (Figure 12). Mitigation policies that maximize air pollution reduction would be
beneficial for air quality improvement.

Figure 63: Development indicators in Turkey compared to minimum, maximum and average values amongst G20
countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represents the split between values below and above G20 average,
respectively. The black line represents the country value.

88
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

4.2.16. United States
United States (US) has the second highest GHG emissions worldwide (Figure 3), and the fourth highest
GHG emissions per capita, but below average GHG emissions intensity among G20 countries (Figure66). The largest shares of emissions can be attributed to the electricity and heat sector (43%) and thetransport sector (27%), followed by industry (16%) (Figure 65). US has implemented policies in all
sectors, but it does not have a high overall coverage of the good practice policy menu (Figure 64).
Future mitigation steps could focus on covering policy areas where no policies exist, such as renewables
in buildings, urban planning and investment in transport, overarching carbon pricing and energy taxes.
Establishing a coordinating body for climate change would provide further support for mitigation design
and implementation.

89
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 64: Good-practice policy menu coverage in the United States

90
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 65: Sectoral GHG emissions as share of total country emissions, US 2010

High impact GHG emissions reduction policies
The following policies were identified as most important for GHG emissions reduction in US:
Electricity and heat
• The President's Climate Action Plan (Renewable Energy Target) - planned: Sets a target of 100%
increase in renewable electricity generation (kWh of wind/solar/geothermal) by 2020 compared to2012. This plan is for a large part backed by state renewable targets that are estimated to achieve
10.6% renewable electricity production by 2020. This policy was removed under Trumpadministration.
• Clean Power Plan - planned: Sets GHG emissions standards for new power plants after 2014 of 450
gCO2/kWh. The plan also sets a target of 32% reduction in GHG emissions from the electricity sector
by 2030 compared to 2005.
Industry• Strategy to reduce methane emissions - implemented: Sets a target of 40%-45% CH4 emissions
reductions from oil and gas production by 2025 compared to 2012 levels.
Transport• Light-duty emissions regulation - implemented: Fuel efficiency standard for light trucks andpassenger cars is 55 mpg (23.2 km/l) by 2025.
• Heavy-duty emissions regulation - implemented: Fuel efficiency standard for medium trucks is 7.3
mpg (3.1 km/l) by 2018 and 10.9 mpg (4.6 km/l) by 2027. Fuel efficiency standard for heavy trucks
is 5.7 mpg (2.4 km/l) by 2018 and 8.2 mpg (3.5 km/l) by 2027.
• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program - implemented: Sets a target share of 10.1% biofuel in fuelfrom 2014 onwards, and a biofuel volume target of 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Buildings• Building Energy Codes - implemented: Building energy standards aim to reduce annual final energy
use by 250 PJ by 2020, compared to 2012, and by 350 PJ by 2030, compared to 2012.

91
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

• Federal Appliance Standards - implemented: Aims to achieve 3 billion metric tons of carbon
emissions avoided by 2030, compared to 2012, through energy savings from appliance standards.
This is estimated to lead to 20% reduction in energy intensity (MJ/m2).
• Better Plants, Better Buildings - implemented: Targets a 20% reduction in energy intensity (MJ/m2)
between 2010 and 2025 for commercial and residential buildings. Furthermore, it encourages
industries to reduce energy intensity by 25% over a period of 10 years, through a partnership of 160
industrial companies.
Agriculture and Forestry• Conservation Reserve Program - implemented: Encourages farmers to remove highly erodible
cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage from agricultural production.
• Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Programs - implemented: Aims to
restore the health of nation’s forests, woodlands and rangelands.
• USDA's Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture & Forestry - planned: Sets targets of 120MtCO2e
GHG emissions reductions by 2025 compared to BAU and total sequestration increased by 48
MtCO2e by 2025, compared to BAU.
Cross-sectoral• Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) - planned: Sets a target of 26%-28% GHG
emissions reduction (incl. LULUCF) by 2030 compared to 2005.
• Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program - implemented: Sets a target of 85% HFCemissions reduction by 2033 compared to 2008-2010 levels.
• Blueprint for a secure energy future - implemented: Sets a target of 50% oil import (EJ) reduction by2020 compared to 2010.
• Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 - planned: Aims to increase energy productivity (US$(2005)/EJ)
by 100% between 2010 and 2030.
Development related co-benefits and side-effects
US has the highest GDP per capita and unemployment rates below the G20 average (Figure 66).
Therefore, economic co-benefits of climate mitigation are likely not a priority for the country. However,in terms of energy, the country would profit from energy security co-benefits. US is currently importing
approximately 9% of its total energy consumption (Figure 11). Stronger energy efficiency policies andan increase in the share of fossil fuels would help US improve its energy security status. The current
share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption is approximately 83%, equal to the G20 average (Figure
8 and Figure 66).
Mean annual exposure to PM2.5 in US is below the recommended limit (Figure 12). Hence, mitigation
co-benefits of air pollution reduction may not be a high priority for the country.
US exports approximately 25% of its domestic cereal consumption value (Figure 13). Hence, climate
mitigation policies that could lead to land-use competition, such as biofuel production andafforestation, would not have a significant impact on domestic food security if only exports are
decreased.

92
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

US is one of the few G20 countries where water use is not dominated by agriculture, but rather byindustry (more than 50%) (Figure 16). Climate policies that increase water conservation in industry
could help reduce water consumption in the sector.

Figure 66: Development indicators in United States compared to minimum, maximum and average values
amongst G20 countries. The blue-orange bar colour split represent the split between values below and above
G20 average, respectively. The black line represents the country value.

93
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

References
1.

ICSU & ISSC. Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science
Perspective. (2015). doi:978-0-930357-97-9

2.

von Stechow, C. et al. Integrating Global Climate Change Mitigation Goals with Other
Sustainability Objectives: A Synthesis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 363–394 (2015).

3.

von Stechow, C. et al. 2oC and the SDGs: United they stand, divided they fall? Environ. Res.
Lett. 11, 34022 (2016).

4.

IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga,
Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., 2014).
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415416

5.

United Nations. Prototype Global Sustainable Report. (2014).

6.

United Nations. The Millenium Development Goals Report 2014. (2014).
doi:10.1177/1757975909358250

7.

United Nations. Transforming our world - The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. in(2015). doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

8.

Nicolai, S., Hoy, C., Berliner, T. & Aedy, T. Projecting progress: Reaching the SDGs by2030. Flagship Report. (2015).

9.

Nordhaus, B. W. D. Economic growth and climate - The carbon dioxide problem. Am. Econ.
Rev. 67, (1977).

10.

Beg, N. et al. Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Clim. Policy 2,
129–144 (2002).

11.

Swart, R. Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Clim. Policy 3,
S19–S40 (2003).

12.

Kok, M., Metz, B., Verhagen, J. & Van Rooijen, S. Integrating development and climate
policies: national and international benefits. Clim. Policy 8, 103–118 (2008).

13.

Braspenning Radu, O. et al. Exploring synergies between climate and air quality policies using
long-term global and regional emission scenarios. Atmos. Environ. 140, 577–591 (2016).

14.

Maione, M. et al. Air quality and climate change: Designing new win-win policies for Europe.
Environ. Sci. Policy 65, 48–57 (2016).

15.

Bollen, J., Hers, S. & van der Zwaan, B. An integrated assessment of climate change, air
pollution, and energy security policy. Energy Policy 38, 4021–4030 (2010).

16.

Guivarch, C. & Monjon, S. Identifying the main uncertainty drivers of energy security in a
low-carbon world: The case of Europe. Energy Econ. (2015). doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.04.007

17.

Chakravarty, S. & Tavoni, M. Energy poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation: Is
there a trade off? Energy Econ. 40, S67–S73 (2013).
94
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 201818.

Ürge-Vorsatz, D. & Tirado Herrero, S. Building synergies between climate change mitigationand energy poverty alleviation. Energy Policy 49, 83–90 (2012).

19.

Solaymani, S., Kardooni, R., Yusoff, S. B. & Kari, F. The impacts of climate change policies
on the transportation sector. Energy 81, 719–728 (2015).

20.

Höhne, N., Fekete, H., Kuramochi, T., Iacobuta, G. & Prinz, L. Progress towards goodpractice policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (2015).

21.

Goulder, L. H. & Parry, I. W. H. Instrument choice in environmental policy. Rev. Environ.
Econ. Policy 2, 152–174 (2008).

22.

IEA. Summing Up The Parts: Combining Policy Instruments for Least-Cost Climate
Mitigation Strategies. Information Paper (2011).

23.

IEA. 25 Energy Efficiency Policy Recommentations. 1–12 (2011).

24.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Updated compilation of
information on mitigation benefits of actions, initiatives and options to enhance mitigation
ambition. Technical paper FCCC/TP/2015/4. Tech. Pap. 17932, 1–70 (2015).

25.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Non-market-based approaches.
Technical paper (FCCC/TP/2014/10). 1–21 (2014).

26.

Kuramochi, T. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries.
Analysis of current climate policies and mitigation pledges (Update: November 2016). 103(2016).

27.

Winkler, H., Spalding-fecher, R., Tyani, L. & Matibe, K. Cost – benefit analysis of energy
efficiency in urban low-cost housing. Dev. South. Afr. 19, (2002).

28.

IEA. World Energy Outlook. Outlook (2006). doi:10.1787/weo-2006-en

29.

Lundberg, L., Jonson, E., Lindgren, K., Bryngelsson, D. & Verendel, V. A cobweb model ofland-use competition between food and bioenergy crops. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 53, 1–14
(2015).

30.

Smith, P. et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved withoutcompromising food security and environmental goals? Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 2285–2302(2013).

31.

Parikh, J. K. & Parikh, K. Climate Change: India’s perceptions, positions, policies andpossibilities. OECD - Climate Change and Development (2002).

32.

Haines, A. et al. Policies for accelerating access to clean energy, improving health, advancing
development, and mitigating climate change. Lancet 370, 1264–1281 (2007).

33.

Parikh, J. Hardships and health impacts on women due to traditional cooking fuels : A casestudy of Himachal Pradesh , India. Energy Policy 39, 7587–7594 (2011).

34.

WHO. Fuel for Life. Household Energy and Health. (2006).

35.

La Rovere, E. L. Climate Change and Sustainable Development Strategies: a Brazilian
Perspective. (2002).

36.

UNSCEAR. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation 2000. II, United Nations, NewYork (2000).

37.

UNSCEAR. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation 2011. II, United Nations, New York95
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018(2011).
38.

UNSCEAR. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. Scientific Annexes. United
Nations, New York (2016).

39.

GRS. The Accident and the Safety of RBMK-Reactors. Gesellschaft für Anlagenund
Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, Cologne (1996).

40.

UNSCEAR. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation 2013. I, United Nations, NewYork (2013).

41.

ILO. The global impact of e-waste Addressing the challenge. International Labour Office,Geneva(2012).

42.

Fingerman, K. R., Berndes, G., Orr, S., Richter, B. D. & Vugteveen, P. Impact assessment at
the bioenergy-water nexus. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 5, 375–386 (2011).

43.

World Economic Forum. Water security: The water-food-energy climate nexus. (Island Press,
Washington DC, Covelo, London, 2011). doi:10.5822/978-1-61091-026-2

44.

Palit, D. & Chaurey, A. Energy for Sustainable Development Off-grid rural electrification
experiences from South Asia : Status and best practices. Energy Sustain. Dev. 15, 266–276(2011).

45.

Höhne, N., Day, T., Fekete, H. & Gonzales, S. Assessing the missed benefits of countries ’national contributions Assessing the missed benefits of countries ’ national contributions
Quantifying potential co-benefits. (2015).

46.

US Department of Labour. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Data and Statistics.
(2017). Available at: https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html. (Accessed: 28th
September 2017)47.

US Department of Labour. National census of fatal occupational injuries in 2015. 1–11 (2016).

48.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coallition. Solar Manufacturer Ratings. (2014). Available at:
http://www.solarscorecard.com/2014/2014-scorecard.php. (Accessed: 28th September 2017)49.

OECD. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible supply Chains of Minerals from
Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Third Edition. (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016).

50.

IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ([Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 1535 pp, 2013).

51.

Bulder, K. J. Climate Policies in the Top 50 Greenhouse Gas Emitting Countries: Policy
Drivers and the Climate Policy Development Index. (Wageningen University and Research,
Wageningen, Netherlands, 2013).

96
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Annex 1. Climate and development policies database
To facilitate the analyses in this research, extensive data collection of climate and development policies
in major economies was undertaken. This data collection was built on the Climate Policy Databaseinitiated by NewClimate Institute, and part of the details in this annex were also presented in a
dedicated report by NewClimate Institute20. For this study, the database was updated by Wageningen
University and Research (WU) and PBL, with valuable support from a number of CD-LINKS project
partners. In its current state, the database is compiled from a number of public sources (see Table 6),complemented by own country-specific primary research.
Table 6: Climate policies sources compiled in the database
Name
Database of State
Incentives for
Renewables &Efficiency
IEA Addressing
Climate Change

Sectors covered
Renewables; Energy
Efficiency

Countries
US - Federal &StatesType
Database

Websitehttp://www.dsireusa.org/

All

Database

http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/climatec
hange/IEA Global
Renewable
EnergyIEA Energy
Efficiency

Renewables

Database

http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/renewa
bleenergy/

Database

http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/energye
fficiency/

IEA Building
Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficiency in
Buildings

Database

http://www.iea.org/beep/

IEA Clean Coal
Database

Emissions standards

Database

http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/2010/databasesection/emission-standards?

Transport Policy
Database
Climate Action
Tracker
UNFCCC National
Communications
LSE Global
ClimateLegislation StudyOECD Fossil FuelSupportColumbia Law
School Database

Transport

All

Worldwide

All

WorldwideCountry
ProfilesCountry
ProfilesCountry
ProfilesReport/Database

http://transportpolicy.net/

All

50 countries
including all IEA
countries
126 countries
including all IEA
countries
66 countries
including all IEA
countries
34 countries
including all IEA
countries
46 countries
including all IEA
countries
Worldwide – 8
countries
30 countries

All

OECD countries

Database

All

Worldwide

ICAP ETS Map

Industry

Worldwide

OECD Taxing
Energy Use 2015

All

Wageningen
University MSc
ThesisWRI SD-PAMS

Cross-sectoral

OECD countries
plus 7 major nonOECD emitting
countries
Selected countries

Country
Profiles/Database
Country
Profiles/Database
Report/Database

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=FF
S_AUS
http://web.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/resources/climate-change-lawsworld#http://web.law.columbia.edu/climate-cha
https://icapcarbonaction.com/ets-map

All

Selected countries

Energy Efficiency – All
sectors

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries.html
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/legislation/the-global-climate-legislation-database/

http://www.oecd.org/tax/taxing-energy-use-20159789264232334-en.htm

ReportBulder (2013)

Database

http://projects.wri.org/sd-pams-database

97
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

The Climate Policy Database is made publically available through the Semantic Media Wiki platform at
www.climatepolicydatabase.org (Figure 67), and was built to allow future collaboration in datacollection and in-built analysis, with the aim to cover all climate-related policies across all economic
sectors and geographical regions. Currently, it contains records of more than 3200 policies across 113
countries, with a focus on the 30 highest GHG emitting nations.

Figure 67. Homepage of Climate Policy Database (www.climatepolicydatabase.org)

Database structure
Each policy in the database has a comprehensive record providing information on the following fields(when available): name of policy, jurisdiction, supranational region, country, region, sub-national region
or state, city or local, policy objective, type of policy instrument, sector name, policy description, policy
type, policy stringency, implementation state, date of decision, start date of implementation, end dateof implementation, high impact, impact indicator, source of reference, supports policies, supported by

98This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

policies, comments, and status (final/draft) (see example Figure 68). Some of the major additions of the
CD-LINKS project in terms of policy record fields were:-‘High impact’, currently indicating whether a policy is expected to have a high impact on GHG
emissions;-‘Policy objective’, indicating what development areas the policy has direct impact on, covering
mitigation, adaptation, air pollution, energy security, energy access, land use, food security,
water, and economic development;-‘Impact indicator’, providing values of generic indicators (e.g. Vehicle emissions standard(gCO2/km)) that appear in the policy as such or that are translated as part of the analysis; and-‘Supports policies’ and ‘Is supported by policies’, indicating when two policies are linked, forinstance, when a feed-in tariff measure was implemented to support a renewable energy
target.

The following sectors and sub-sectors are covered in the database:-

General, referring to policies that cover all sectors;-

Electricity and heat: Nuclear, Coal, Oil, Gas, Renewables, CCS;-

Industry 17: Industrial energy related, Fluorinated gases, Industrial N2O, Industrial process CO2,
Waste (CH4), Oil and gas production (CH4);-

Buildings: Heating and cooling, Hot water and cooking, Appliances;-

Transport: Light duty vehicles, Heavy duty vehicles, Electro-mobility, Air, Rail, Shipping; and-Agriculture and forestry: Agricultural CO2, Agricultural N2O, Agricultural CH4, Forestry.

The following policy types are covered in the database:-

Changing activity;-

Energy efficiency;-

Renewables;-

Nuclear or CCS or fuel switch; and-Non-energy.

The list of policy instruments used in the database are provided in Table A.2. The policy instruments
typology was developed based on the IEA policies and measures database(http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/), to which a set of new categories were added. To
accommodate the new policy objectives, the following two instruments were added as part of the CDLINKS project: ‘Industrial air pollution standards’ and ‘Vehicle air pollution standards’.

17

Including fossil fuel extraction sector and energy transformation sectors other than electricity and heat such as
oil refineries.

99
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 68: Example policy record in Climate Policy Database

100
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018
Table 7: Policy instruments in the database
Instrument
category

Sub-category

Policy instrument
Funds to sub-national governments

Direct investment

Infrastructure investments
Procurement rules
RD&D funding
CO2 taxes
Energy and other taxes
Feed-in tariffs or premiums
Grants and subsidies

Economic
instruments

Fiscal or financial incentives

Loans
Tax relief
User changes
Tendering schemes
Retirement premium
User charges

Market-based instruments

GHG emissions allowances
GHG emission reduction crediting and offsetting
mechanismGreen certificates

Codes and standards
Regulatory
instruments

Performance label
Information andeducation

White certificates
Building codes and standards
Industrial air pollution standards
Product Standards
Sectoral Standards
Vehicle air pollution standards
Vehicle fuel-economy and emissions standards
Auditing
Monitoring
Obligation schemes
Other mandatory requirements
Comparison label
Endorsement label
Advice and aid in implementation
Information provision
Professional training and qualification
Institutional creation
Strategic planning

Policy support
RD&D

Voluntary
approaches

Barrier removal

Climate strategy

TargetResearch programme

Technology deployment and diffusion
Technology development
Demonstration project
Negotiated agreements (public/private sector)
Public voluntary schemes
Unilateral commitments (private sector)
Net metering
Removal of fossil-fuel subsidies
Removal of split incentives
Grid access and priority for renewables
Formal & legally binding climate strategy
Political & non-binding climate strategy
Coordinating body for climate strategy
Energy efficiency target

101
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018
GHG reduction target
Renewable energy target

Country pageIn addition to the policy records themselves, each country has its own page. This page comprises of thegood practice policy menu (presented in the country profiles of this study), a list of all the policies
available in the database for that country, and some additional details concerning the coordinating
body for climate change and fossil fuel subsidies (Figure 69). In addition to individual countries in the
database, the European Union is also treated as one country, having a dedicated page. EU member
states are addressed individually on separate country pages.

Figure 69: Screenshot of a country page information additional to the coverage of a good practice policy menu

CD-LINKS policy inventory
The inventory of high GHG reduction policies identified in this study is presented on a dedicated pageof the Climate Policy Database website. On the main page of this analysis (Figure 70), the good practice
policy menu showing the overall policy coverage of the G20 countries is shown (also presented in
section 4.1. of this study), followed by a list of all assessed countries (Figure 71). Accessing a country
from this dedicated page provide the list of high-impact climate mitigation policies selected for thatcountry (Figure 72). Although some details are already provided on the page, the complete policy
records can be accessed directly.

102
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 70: Screenshot of CD-LINKS policy inventory

Figure 71: Countries that appear on the CD-LINKS policy inventory page and can be accessed directly

103This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Figure 72: Screenshot on high-impact policy inventory dedicated page for Japan

104
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

Annex 2. Potential co-benefits and adverse side-effects of climate mitigation identified in the IPCC Assessment Report 5105This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

106
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).

Deliverable 2.1
Date: 04 01 2018

107
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research andinnovation programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS).