Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
efficient, coal-fired power plants are built in China (Nalbandian, 2008 as quoted in Seligsohn et al., 2009a).

Finally, out of the top ten energy conservation projects, six have been developed in the industrial sector: the retrofit of coal-fired industrial furnaces (kilns), district co-generation, waste heat and residual pressure utilisation, petroleum conservation and substitution, electrical motor system energy conservation, and energy system optimisation (National Development and Reform Commission, People's Republic of China, 2009; Teng et al., 2009).

The above measures are only a few among many actions for mitigation and adaptation in China, selected for their explicit focus on energy efficiency improvements in industrial sectors. In the future, increasing attention will likely be paid not only to implementation but also to the measurement, reporting and verification of domestic mitigation actions in China.

### 4.4 Sectoral dimensions of US climate policy

In association with the Copenhagen Accord, the US reiterated its pledge of GHG emissions reduction in the range of 17% below 2005 levels on the condition of support from Congress on anticipated energy and climate legislation, which would set a pathway for a 30% reduction in 2025, a 42% reduction in 2030 and an 83% reduction by 2050. $ ^{26} $ This legislation, including the reduction timetable, refers to a forthcoming Senate bill that would mirror the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) passed by the House of Representatives. The following sections look at some examples of enacted legislation and current initiatives, and gives an overview of the ACESA and the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) at the federal level and that of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) at the state level.

#### 4.4.1 Federal cap-and-trade proposals

To date the most important pieces of legislation that enables the creation of a federal cap-and-trade scheme are the US ACESA in the House of Representatives and a mirrored act, the CEJAPA in the Senate. Additional proposals have been introduced in the Senate: for example, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act (S.2877, Cantwell–Collins) and the “framework for climate action and energy independence” (Kerry–Lieberman–Graham), $ ^{27} $ both introduced in December 2009 (Larsen, 2009) $ ^{28} $ . Since the two last proposals are presently under consideration, this section only refers to the two passed acts.
emissions cost. Rebates will be phased out from 2025 in principle. A placeholder section opens the possibility for including border measures to complement the rebate provisions.

Lastly, it is worth mentioning in relation to the next section that the CEJAPA temporarily prohibits states from running their own cap-and-trade programmes until 2017.

#### 4.4.2 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative $ ^{32} $

The RGGI is the first mandatory cap-and-trade programme for GHG emissions in the US to limit or ‘cap’ $ CO_{2} $ emissions from large electricity-generating installations fired by fossil fuels. RGGI entered into effect and started regulating $ CO_{2} $ emissions on 1 January 2009. A series of auctions for emission allowances has taken place since September 2008.

Coverage: The programme covers $ CO_{2} $ emissions from electricity-generating installations fired by fossil fuels of at least 25 MW that burn more than 50% fossil fuel (approximately 225 facilities region-wide). The power-generating installations covered account for about 28% of $ CO_{2} $ emissions in a region consisting of 10 north-eastern and mid-Atlantic states $ ^{33} $ in the US.

Cap: The cap aims at stabilising emissions from 2009 through 2014 to the level roughly equal to historical emissions. From 2015 to 2018, the cap on emissions will decline by 2.5% per year over the next four years, thus in 2018 reaching a level that is 10% lower than the baseline.

Allocation: Each state’s programme determines its share of the regional cap, 188 Mt for the 10 states. Each state then issues allowances in a number equivalent to its share of the regional cap. States have agreed to allocate at least 25% of the allowance for consumer benefits or strategic energy purposes (e.g. renewable energy and energy efficiency). They may choose how to allocate the remaining 75% of their allowances. Yet the trend shows that states distribute allowances primarily through auctions. Initially, over 85% of the region’s allowances are expected to be auctioned in the early stages of the programme. Eventually, the auctioned share is expected to rise to over 90%.

Timing: The compliance period is three years, starting with the first period of 2009–11. The programme allows unlimited banking.

Offsets: A power plant is allowed to use offsets to meet up to 50% of emission reductions from BAU projections, equivalent to 3.3% of its compliance obligations. If allowance prices rise above thresholds, more offsets may be allowed (see below).

Cost containment: There are two safety valves (or price triggers) provisions. If the 'stage-one price trigger' is reached (i.e. the allowance price rises above 7/short tonne on average), the use of offsets increases by up to 5% of the facility compliance obligation. If the 'stage-two price trigger' is reached (i.e. the allowance price rises above 10/short tonne on average), $ ^{34} $ the
compliance period will be extended by one year, to maximum of four years and use of offsets will increase by up to 10% of the facility compliance obligation. Under the stage-two price trigger, the programme will also approve the use of international credits, such as those generated from the CDM.

### 5. How to strengthen the effectiveness of sectoral approaches?

There would be more than one way to improve the effectiveness of sectoral approaches. This section examines difficulties with the choice of performance metrics, reporting, and compliance, drawing some examples from existing systems such as the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the EU.

### 5.1 Choice of performance metrics $ ^{35} $

There is a recommendation to include as many performance components as possible, thus balancing between them i) fuel use, electricity use and GHG emissions; ii) relative (intensity) and absolute bases; and iii) on-site and off-site fuel use and GHG emissions (Newman, 2009). This task could be done by using a composite index system based on the Solomon index, spanning a number of performance components.

Considering the complexity in data availability and measurability, there is a suggestion for a simpler way to use such composite indices to operationalise benchmarking in negotiations. The target level for these reference intensities may be arbitrarily decided like a 'yardstick'. An index for comparison may be useful in certain sectors with a large number of measurement needs. For example, in the steel sector seven parts of the process require measuring, which may be too many for effective negotiations. Detailed benchmarks could still make sense in homogenous industries or in sectors like cement and aluminium, which appear to require a smaller number of measurements.

Therefore, a rough framework, possibly taking the index approach and based on what would be possible to measure, could be negotiated. In addition, different performance indicators may be used for different countries as a basis for measurable commitment. As seen in the list of pledges of national commitments associated with the Copenhagen Accord, various national circumstances usually result in diverse preferences in the choice of benchmarking performance metrics, i.e. indicators and standards.

### 5.2 Reporting

Among the three stages of measurement, reporting and verification, international cooperation and coordination are most developed in the area of reporting. This section introduces both the UNFCCC requirements and other protocols for measuring and reporting progress.
#### 5.2.1 UNFCCC reporting requirements

The core data around which UNFCCC negotiations revolve are provided in the GHG inventories. These are provided by means of national communications and reports submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat in accordance with Arts. 4 and 12 of the Convention.

The reporting requirements differ for Annex I and non-Annex I parties. The UNFCCC reporting guidelines on Annex I inventories $ ^{36} $ provide the requirements for developed countries, while the guidelines for the preparation of national communications for non-Annex 1 parties $ ^{37} $ address the developing countries' requirements. $ ^{38} $

For Annex I countries, the inventory data are provided in annual GHG inventory submissions, which are then reviewed in-depth by international teams of independent experts, typically by means of in-country visits. A review report is then provided annually for each party.

For Non-Annex I parties, the inventory data are provided in the national communications under the Convention. Non-Annex I parties are not required to submit an annual GHG inventory, and the national communications are not subject to in-depth reviews. The national communications contain information about most of the covered gases by sector. The level of compliance has in general been satisfactory, but comparability is thwarted by a change in the UNFCCC guidelines: while current guidelines require Non-Annex I countries to estimate GHG inventories for the year 2000, many reports present data for other years, based on previous guidelines. A number of Non-Annex I countries, in particular LDC parties, still face reporting difficulties because of a lack of resources. $ ^{39} $

To manage the data obtained through reporting and render it accessible to the public, the Secretariat has created the Greenhouse Gas Information System. $ ^{40} $ The data is presented in various breakdowns (by sector, gas and year).

#### 5.2.2 Progress in measurement and reporting protocols

In the cement sector, significant progress has been made towards common, new benchmarking methodologies. Companies under the CSI have agreed on a cement $ CO_{2} $ protocol as a harmonised methodology for calculating and reporting their emissions (CSI, 2005). All the direct sources and major indirect sources of $ CO_{2} $ emissions related to the manufacturing process are covered in absolute as well as specific or unit-based terms. Since its creation in 2001, the protocol has been updated (in 2005) based on the extensive experience of companies worldwide in applying it. It has been aligned closely with the World Resources Institute (WRI)/WBCSD GHG Protocol encompassing all types of sectors, which was published in 2001 and updated in 2004. $ ^{41} $ Moreover, the CSI, together with Ecofys, has developed a sectoral benchmarking CDM methodology to be
used for plant performance derived from its global cement database on CO $ _{2} $ and energy information, “Getting the Numbers Right (GNR)”. $ ^{42} $

In addition, a Benchmarking and Energy Saving Tool (BEST) $ ^{43} $ for the cement industry in China has been developed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with collaborating institutes. It takes into account only the energy performance of cement production. Using this tool for self-assessment, the plants are able to benchmark their energy use against best practice levels and evaluate energy efficiency measures.

Ecofys has also created sector proposal templates for developing national crediting baselines under sectoral crediting with SNLTs in the power generation, cement and transport sectors. $ ^{44} $ Although the baseline does not have to result from benchmarking, collecting detailed and transparent data is essential. Thus, the templates can be used as a capacity-building tool in developing countries for addressing such data and measurement issues. $ ^{45} $

Apart from the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol and the Cement $ CO_{2} $ Protocol, existing measurement protocols include the EU ETS monitoring and reporting guidelines. $ ^{46} $ Also, the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (PIECA), together with the American Petroleum Institute and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, has developed Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (PIECA, 2003). This method for reporting GHG emissions can be used by oil and gas companies from any part of the world, but there is no indication of whether they are suitable for sectoral benchmarking and measurement, reporting and verification. Progress on common protocols in other energy-intensive sectors, especially iron and steel, has been slower owing to the boundary-setting and other measurement complexities described above.

Measurability is essential for making sectoral approaches operational as part of a future international, climate policy framework and is likely to require a common scientific scale of measurement, including performance indicators and boundaries. The Japanese government has foreseen several steps. $ ^{47} $ First, the UNFCCC process could involve the participation of public and private industrial experts, especially from the existing industry initiatives and associations (worldsteel, IAI, CSI, etc.). Next, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) process of developing common standards could authorise the UN process. Finally, the ISO/IEC could simultaneously collaborate with international organisations such as the IEA, which has already developed energy efficiency indicators. It would be useful to base these steps on the ongoing collaboration between the
and emerging economies or developing countries that are economically more advanced. Even if sectoral approaches form part of a post-2012 agreement, an agreed outcome will likely cover some basic principles for benchmarking and frameworks for further discussions on the technical details.
ACESA	American Clean Energy and Security Act (US)
APP	Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
AWG-LCA	Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention/UNFCCC
BAU	Business as usual
CDM	Clean Development Mechanism: A mechanism under Art. 12 of the Kyoto Protocol
CEJAPA	Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (US)
CER/ERU	Certified Emission Reduction/ Emission Reduction Unit
CMP	Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
CO2	Carbon dioxide
CSI	Cement Sustainability Initiative (under the auspices of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development)
EPW	Environment and Public Works (US Senate Committee)
ETS	Emissions Trading Scheme (or System)
EU	European Union
EU ETS	EU Emissions Trading Scheme
G8	Group of Eight (a forum of the heads of governments of seven large developed countries economies and Russia)
G8+5	Group of Eight plus the heads of government of the five leading emerging economies
GDP	Gross domestic product
GHGs	Greenhouse gases; the six gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6)
GW	Gigawatt
HFCs	Hydrofluorocarbons
IAI	International Aluminium Institute
IEA	International Energy Agency
IEC	International Electrotechnical Commission
IPIECA	International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
ISO	International Organisation for Standardisation
KP	Kyoto Protocol
kWh	Kilowatt hour
LDCs	Least-developed countries
MEDEC	A low carbon-development scenario analysis in Mexico (World Bank)
Mt	Million metric tonnes
MW	Megawatt
NAMAs	Nationally appropriate mitigation actions
NDRC	National Development and Reform Commission (China)
OECD	Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PECC	Programa Especial de Cambio Climático (Mexico’s Special Programme on Climate Change)
PEMEX	Petróleos Mexicanos (Mexican Petroleum)
PFC	Perfluorocarbon
RGGI	Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
SA	Sectoral approaches
SNLTs	Sector no-lose targets
tCO2e	Metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
UNFCCC	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WBCSD	World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WRI	World Resources Institute
Aasrud, A., R. Baron, B. Buchner and K. McCall (2009), Sectoral market mechanisms: Issues for negotiation and domestic implementation, OECD/IEA, Paris, October.

Amatayakul, W., G. Berndes and J. Fenhann (2008), Electricity sector no-lose targets in developing countries for post-2012: Assessment of emissions reduction and reduction credits, Working Paper No. 6, CD4CDM, December 2008.

Baron, R., B. Buchner and J. Ellis (2009), Sectoral approaches and the carbon market, OECD/IEA, Paris, June.

Bodansky, D. (2007), ‘International sectoral agreement in a post-2012 climate framework’, Working Paper, prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) (2005), The Cement $ CO_{2} $ Protocol: $ CO_{2} $ Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, guidance document, WBCSD, Geneva, June (retrieved from www.wbcsd.org).

Doorbosch, R. and E. Knight (2008), What role for public finance in international climate change mitigation, Discussion Paper, OECD.

Egenhofer, C. and N. Fujiwara (2008a), The potential of sectoral industry approaches to design a “fair” commitment, Paper prepared for Environmental Studies Group, Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, CEPS, Brussels, March.

(2008b), Global sectoral industry approaches to address climate change: The way forward, CEPS Task Force Report, CEPS, Brussels, April.

European Commission (2005), Communication from the Commission, Further guidance on allocation plans for the 2008 to 2012 trading period of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, COM(2005) 703 final, 22 December.

(2007), Commission Decision 2007/589: EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union, L229/1-85, 31 August.

(2009a), Communication, Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen, COM(2009) 39 final, Brussels, January.

(2009b), Communication on Stepping up international climate finance: A European blueprint for the Copenhagen deal, COM(2009) 475/3, Brussels.

(2010a), Decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, Official Journal of the European Union, L 1/10-18, 5 January.

(2010b), Communication on International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change, COM(2010) 86 final, Brussels, 9 March.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2009a), Directive 2009/29/EC of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading system of the Community, Official Journal of the European Union, L 140/63-87, 5 June.

(2009b), Decision No. 406/2009/EC of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020, Official Journal of the European Union, L 140/136-148, 5 June.

(2009c), Directive 2008/101/EC of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, Official Journal of the European Union, L 8/3, 13 January.

Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC) 2007, Green handbook peer review, prepared for the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, April (retrieved from http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/environment/asia-pacific/green_handbook_peer/index.html).

Fujiwara, N. (2008), On the way to Copenhagen via Poznan: Preliminary thinking about a post-2012 climate deal, CEPS Policy Brief No. 179, CEPS, Brussels, November.

(2009), Flexible mechanisms in support of a new climate change regime: The Clean Development Mechanism and beyond, CEPS Task Force Report, CEPS, Brussels.

(2010), Sectoral approaches to climate change: How can industry contribute? CEPS Special Report, CEPS, Brussels, May.

Fujiwara, N. and C. Egenhofer (2008), Making the most of the G8+5 climate change process: Accelerating structural change and technology diffusion on a global scale, Report of a CEPS Task Force, CEPS, Brussels, June.

Fujiwara, N., C. Egenhofer, and A. Georgiev (2010), Getting started now: Capacity building for the data system foundations of sectoral approaches, CEPS Special Report, CEPS, Brussels, April.

International Aluminium Institute (IAI)(2009), “Aluminum for future generations sustainability update 2009” (retrieved from http://www.world-aluminium.org).

International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) (2010), Thinking through the decision possibilities for a sectoral crediting mechanism: Three options to encourage discussion, version 1, IETA, Geneva, 5 March.

International Energy Agency (IEA)(2008), Worldwide trends in energy use and efficiency: Key insights from IEA indicator analysis, in support of the G8 Plan of Action.

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (PIECA) (2003), Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, IPIECA, London, December (retrieved from www.ipieca.org).

Johnson, T.M., C. Alatorre, Z. Romo, and F. Liu (2009), Low-carbon development for Mexico, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Larsen, J. (2009), Emission reductions under cap-and-trade proposals in the 111 $ ^{th} $ Congress, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 17 December (retrieved from www.wri.org).

Larsen, J., A. Kelly and R. Heilmayr (2009a), WRI summary of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey), World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 31 July (retrieved from www.wri.org).
Worldsteel (2009), $ 21^{st} $ century steel: 2008-2009 update, October

(retrieved from www.worldsteel.org/?action=publicationdetail&id=93).

Youngman. R. and A. Diamant (2010), Sectoral and other international mechanisms designed to scale up offset supply: An overview of key issues, Background paper for the EPRI “Greenhouse gas emissions offset policy dialogue workshop #7”, February.
Appendix 1. Member-state GHG emissions in non-ETS sectors for the period 2013–20 $ ^{*} $

Member state	Member-state GHG emission limits in 2020 compared with 2005 GHG emission levels (%)
Austria	-16
Belgium	-15
Bulgaria	20
Czech Republic	9
Cyprus	-5
Denmark	-20
Estonia	11
Finland	-16
France	-14
Germany	-14
Greece	-4
Hungary	10
Ireland	-20
Italy	-13
Latvia	17
Lithuania	15
Luxembourg	-20
Malta	5
The Netherlands	-16
Poland	14
Portugal	1
Romania	19
Slovak Republic	13
Slovenia	4
Spain	-10
Sweden	-17
UK	-16
Appendix 2. Increase in the share of allowances to be auctioned by member states $ ^{*} $

Member state	Member-state share (%)
Austria	0
Belgium	10
Bulgaria	53
Czech Republic	31
Cyprus	20
Denmark	0
Estonia	42
Finland	0
France	0
Germany	0
Greece	17
Hungary	28
Ireland	0
Italy	2
Latvia	56
Lithuania	46
Luxembourg	10
Malta	23
The Netherlands	0
Poland	39
Portugal	16
Romania	53
Slovakia	41
Slovenia	20
Spain	13
Sweden	10
UK	0
Appendix 3. Distribution of allowances to be auctioned by member states reflecting the early efforts of some member states $ ^{*} $

Member state	Distribution of the 2% against the Kyoto base (%)
Bulgaria	15
Czech Republic	4
Estonia	6
Hungary	5
Latvia	4
Lithuania	7
Poland	27
Romania	29
Slovakia	3
10. 公立学校建物の構造別保有面積＜全国＞ （校舎・屋体・寄宿舎の計）

幼稚園	2,033	932	374	R	S	W
小学校	89,369	88.6%	10,158	10.1%
中学校	53,734	88.9%	6,119	10.1%
高等学校	37,927	86.0%	5,840	13.2%
特別支援学校	5,848	88.2%	692	10.4%
幼稚園	2,033	60.9%	932	27.9%
計	188,911	87.7%	23,741	11.0%
2,764
高等教育学校	37,927	5,840	346
中学校	53,734	6,119	564
小学校	89,369	10,158	1,388
ESRI Discussion Paper Series No.67

Sectoral Productivity and Economic Growth in Japan, 1970-98: An Empirical Analysis Based on the JIP Database

by

Kyoji Fukao / Tomohiko Inui

/ Hiroki Kawai / Tsutomu Miyagawa

October 2003

Economic and Social Research Institute

Cabinet Office

Tokyo, Japan