Chapter 13, 14, &15
Global, Regional & National
Policies and Institutions

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment ReportInternational cooperation on climate change has diversified
over the past decade•

The United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a
primary international forum for negotiations••It enjoys broad legitimacy, due in partto virtually universal membership

But other institutions have emerged atmultiple scales•This diversity arises in part from thegrowing inclusion of climate change
issues in other policy arenas

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Existing and proposed international climate agreements
vary in the degree to which their authority is centralized•

Strong multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets)•

Harmonized national policies (such as the Copenhagen/Cancún pledges)•

Decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages ofnational and sub-national emissions trading schemes)Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward
implementing the principles and goals of the UNFCCC••

It has had limited effects on global emissions because:•Some countries did not ratify the Protocol•

Some Parties did not meet their commitments•

Its commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy

The Parties to the Protocol collectively surpassed their collective emission
reduction target in the first commitment period••

But the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred
even in its absence.

The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of non-Annex Icountries, which have grown rapidly over the past decade.

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

The Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms have helped toimprove its economic performance, but their environmental
effectiveness is less clear•

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) created a market for emissions
offsets from developing countries•
It generated credits equivalent to 1.4 billion tCO2eq as of October 2013•
But environmental effectiveness has been mixed due to concerns about:•Additionality of projects•
Validity of baselines•
Possibility of emissions leakage•
Recent price decreases
Its distributional impacts were limited due to the concentration of projects•
in a limited number of countries.

•The Protocol’s other flexible mechanisms, Joint Implementation andInternational Emissions Trading, have raised concerns related to government
sales of emission units

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

The Montreal Protocol has also achieved significant
reductions in global GHG emissions•

The Montreal Protocol set limits on emissions of ozone-depleting gases thatare also potent GHGs, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) andhydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
••

Substitutes for those ozone-depleting gases (such as hydrofluorocarbons,HFCs, which are not ozone-depleting) may also be potent GHGs.

Potential lessons learned from the Montreal Protocol:•

Use of financial and technological transfers to broaden participation in aninternational environmental agreement•

May be of value to the design of international climate change agreements

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Recent UNFCCC Negotiations•

Recent negotiations have sought to foster:•More ambitious mitigation commitments from countries with commitments
under the Kyoto Protocol•

Mitigation contributions from a broader set of countries•

New finance and technology mechanisms•

Under the 2010 Cancún Agreement, developed countries formalized voluntary
pledges of quantified, economy-wide emission reduction targets and somedeveloping countries formalized voluntary pledges to mitigation actions.

•Under the 2011 Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, delegates agreed tocraft a future legal regime that would be 'applicable to all Parties … under theConvention'•

To include substantial new financial support and technology arrangements•

But delegates did not specify means for achieving those ends

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Regional heterogeneity has implications for the potential ofregional low-carbon development.
• The considerable heterogeneity across and within regions relates to theopportunities, capacity, and financing of climate action.
• The poorest developing regions have the greatest potential to leapfrog
to low-carbon development trajectories as there are few lock-in effects
in terms of modern energy systems and urbanization patterns.
• BUT: These regions also have the lowest financial, technological, andhuman capacities to embark on such low-carbon development paths
and their cost of waiting is high due to unmet energy and development
needs.

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

The role of climate-specific regional cooperation agreements
in addressing mitigation challenges could be strengthened.
• The EU-ETS has demonstrated that a cross-border cap-and-trade system
can work, but the low carbon price in recent years has not provided
sufficient incentives to motivate additional mitigation action.
• Binding regulation-based approaches such as the EU Directives onenergy efficiency, renewable energy, and biofuels, have had some impact
on mitigation objectives.
• Overall, one of the main barriers relates to the low level of regional
integration and associated willingness to transfer sovereignty to supranational regional bodies to enforce binding agreements on mitigation.

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

There has been a considerable increase in national andsub-national mitigation plans and strategies since AR4.
In 2012, 67% of global emissions were subject to national legislation or strategies
versus 45% in 2007.

There has been an increased focus on policies designed to integrate multiple
objectives, increase co-benefits, and reduce adverse side-effects.

Sector specific policies have been more widely used than economy-widepolicies.

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

An explicit focus on mitigation is needed because:•GHG emissions rise with growth in GDP and population; long-standing trend of
decarbonisation of energy reversed.
•Without more mitigation, global mean surface temperature might increase by 3.7° to 4.8°C
over the 21st century.
•Delayed mitigation significantly increases the challenge to reach low concentration targets

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

There has not yet been a substantial deviation in global
emissions from the past trend.

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment ReportSome Key Findings

A number of cap and trade systems have been established. Their shortrun environmental effect has been limited as a result of loose caps orcaps that have not proved to be constraining.
In some countries, tax-based policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG
emissions- alongside technology and other policies- have helped toweaken the link between GHG emissions and GDP.
The reduction of subsidies for GHG-related activities in various sectors canachieve emission reductions, depending on the social and economic
context.

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment ReportGovernment planning and provision can facilitate shifts to less energy
and carbon-intensive infrastructure and lifestyles.
Successful voluntary agreements between governments and industries toreduce emissions are characterized by a strong institutional frameworkwith capable industrial associations.
The ability to undertake policy action requires information, knowledge, tools
and skills, and therefore capacity building is central for mitigation andto the sustainable development agenda.
Public finance mechanisms reduce risks that deter climate investments.
Mainstreaming climate change into development planning has helped
yield financing.
Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment ReportTechnology policy complements other mitigation policies.

•Technology policy includes technology-push policies such as publicly
funded R&D and demand-pull such as governmental procurement
programmes.

•Technology support policies have promoted substantial innovation anddiffusion of new technologies, but the cost effectiveness of suchpolicies is often difficult to assess.

•Program evaluation data can provide empirical evidence on therelative effectiveness of different policies and can assist with policy
design.

Working Group III contribution to the
IPCC Fifth Assessment ReportPolicy interactions are an important consideration.
Interactions between or among mitigation policies may be synergistic or
may have no additive effect on reducing emissions.
A carbon tax can have an additive environmental effect to policies such as
subsidies for the supply of renewable energy.
If cap and trade system has a binding cap, then other policies such as RE
subsidies may have not further impact on reducing emissions within thetime period that the cap applies (although they may affect costs ad
possibly the viability of more stringent future targets).
Some mitigation policies raise the prices for some energy services andcould hamper the ability of societies to expand access to modern energy
services to underserved populations. These potential adverse side
effects can be avoided with the adoption of complementary policies.
Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report