Developed Country Progress Towards Meeting Kyoto Protocol Commitments
A report produced for The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by AEA Technology, with contributions from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh
August 2004
Final Report
Developed Country Progress Towards Meeting Kyoto Protocol Commitments
A report produced for The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by AEA Technology, with contributions from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh
August 2004
Final Report
Title / Developed Country Progress Towards Meeting Kyoto Protocol Commitments
Customer / The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Customer reference / EPG1/1/156
Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction / Copyright AEA Technology plc.
All rights reserved.
Enquiries about copyright and reproduction should be addressed to the Commercial Manager, AEA Technology Environment.
File reference / ED01888
Report number / Issue 3
Report status / Final Report
Future Energy Solutions
AEA Technology plc
156 Harwell
Didcot
Oxfordshire
OX11 OQJ
Telephone 0870 190 6285
Facsimile 0870 190 6327
Future Energy Solutions is a trading name of AEA Technology plc
AEA Technology is certificated to BS EN ISO9001:(1994)
Name / Signature / Date
Main Author / Peter G Taylor
Reviewed by / Claire Handley
Approved by / Peter G Taylor
AEA Technology vi
Final Report
Executive Summary
In 2000 Annex B countries’ greenhouse gas emissions were 5.8 % below base year levels. This is greater than the overall emissions reduction of around 5 % required by the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period. For mature market economies (countries that are in Annex II to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), emissions of the six-gas basket were 7.5 % above the base year (1.5 % above the base year if the US is excluded). For those countries that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, total greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by 37.4 %.
Countries projected to require a large effort to reach their Kyoto commitments, or which have at present a large deviation from their linear target path, include Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Monaco, Slovenia and Spain and the United States (had it been engaged). Annex II countries that are, by this measure, managing to reduce greenhouse gases in line with their commitments include Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Some progress in limiting emissions is also being made by Austria, Denmark and New Zealand. All economies in transition, with the exception of Slovenia, have emissions that are currently well below commitment levels.
Based on emissions projections that include the effect of implemented policies and measures and Article 3.3 activities, countries listed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (excluding the US) will, as a whole, slightly exceed their Kyoto commitments. However, if the effects of the shortfall in emissions from economies in transition are excluded, then the effort that would be required by Annex II countries alone to meet their Kyoto commitments increases to almost 10 % of base year emissions.
Projections also show that Iceland, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK have implemented sufficient measures to meet their emissions commitment, and that Australia (which has said that it will meet its Kyoto target even if it does not formally ratify) and Germany should be able to do so with relatively small additional effort (<2 %). Luxembourg also looks likely to comply because its actual emissions trend is so far below the national projection. Denmark (36 %), Canada (33 %) and Portugal (31 %) will require the greatest efforts. The US, if it were engaged, would have an effort level of 39 % against its Kyoto commitment without the use of the mechanisms or Article 3.4 sinks. Other countries have effort levels between 3 % and 25 %.
Besides policies and measures already being undertaken, many countries have made projections incorporating the effect of additional ‘adopted and planned’ measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Accounting for savings from these additional measures and likely claims for forest management under Article 3.4 reduces Annex II effort (excluding the US) from 10 % to 2 %, all consistent with the most recent national projections available at the time of writing, which in most cases means the projections in the third national communication. Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom have all identified policies and measures that (on the basis of national estimates and taking account of likely removals by sinks) will enable them to meet commitments through domestic action. However, a combination of rising current emissions trends and/or large emissions reductions claimed from planned measures casts doubt on the ability of Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain to reduce or limit emissions sufficiently.
The Kyoto Protocol contains provisions for Parties to use land-use and land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities in order to help meet their emissions commitments. In this analysis estimates of the effects of Article 3.3 activities have been taken into account in the 'with measures' projections, as their inclusion is mandatory under the Kyoto Protocol. The sink strength of post 1990 afforestation and reforestation i.e. those activities included under Article 3.3, are not large for most Annex B countries (except New Zealand) and are generally offset by losses due to deforestation. However, under the terms of the Marrakesh Accords, countries with net emissions can offset these up to a maximum of 9 MtC/yr using removals due to forest management in other locations where these are sufficiently large. Taking this into account yields estimates of net removals under Article 3.3 of some 8.5 MtC/yr in the first commitment period.
The potential for carbon removal from the atmosphere by additional Article 3.4 activities is larger. The removal rate from forest management for Annex B countries is estimated to be 95 MtC/yr (65MtC/yr if the US is excluded). Removals from forest management under Article 3.4 have been included in the with additional measures projections.
Analysis of the scope for further domestic action beyond any adopted or planned measures, shows that for many countries, particularly outside the EU, wide ranges of abatement options remain that could result in significant savings (between 70 and 240 MtC/yr). In addition, the use of other Article 3.4 activities could remove up to 100 MtC/yr. However, given the high costs of some of these options and political constraints in some countries, it seems unlikely that Annex II countries will achieve more than a further 100 MtC/yr of savings and removals per year through domestic action by the first commitment period.
In addition to domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions and removals, the Kyoto Protocol contains provisions for Parties to make up any shortfall using the Kyoto Mechanisms. Projections of emissions for the economies in transition suggest that emissions trading and joint implementation together could deliver more than 200 MtC/yr, with up to a further 50 MtC/yr available from the clean development mechanism. The role of LULUCF under either mechanism seems likely to be small.
Possible annual contributions towards meeting the greenhouse gas emissions commitments contained in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol
Annex B base year emissions (excl. US) / 3351
DEMAND (from Annex II)
Annex II (excl. US) base year emissions / 1863
Annex II (excl. US) commitment level / 1751
Annex II (excl. US) with measures projections / 1936 - 1970 / a)
Difference = Total additional effort / 185 - 220
SUPPLY (from EIT shortfall, and elsewhere)
Planned and adopted policies in addition to with measures projection / 75 - 115 / b)
Further domestic action / 70 - 240 / c)
Forest management under Article 3.4 (Annex II excl. US) / <27
Additional Article 3.4 activities / <75
Emissions trading/JI / 200 - 400 / d)
CDM / 15 - 50 / e)
TOTAL SUPPLY / 390 - 910
[Shadow demand from US / 659] / f)
a) Low end from official projections, high end based on current trends.
b) High end from 'with additional measures' projection, low end limits effect of additional measures to reducing effort by <15 %.
c) Based on IPCC figures derived in Section 4.2.1.
d) Range from official projections and Reinstein figures (Section 4.2.2)
e) Grubb estimate from Section 4.2.3. Could be increased by about 30 Mt C/yr if sink in CDM cap was filled, but this seems unlikely given present trends in project numbers.
f) The Bush administration announced in March 2001 that the US would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, although it remains a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The shadow demand is an estimate of the additional demand for emissions reductions or their equivalent that would exist if had the US remained engaged with the Kyoto Protocol. Shadow estimates of this type are indicated by square brackets in the text that follows.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Progress to date 3
2.1 Data availability 3
2.2 Trends in greenhouse gas emissions for each ANNEX B country 3
2.3 Progress towards the Kyoto commitments 8
3 Projected progress 10
3.1 Emission projections and IMPLEMENTED MEASURES 10
3.2 Adopted and planned policies and measures 14
3.3 Scope for using LULUCF 17
3.4 Credibility of Projections and policies and measures 20
3.5 the US Intensity target for greenhouse gases 22
4 Scope for further action 24
4.1 Further domestic action 24
4.2 Use of the Kyoto Mechanisms 27
5 Conclusions 31
Appendices
Appendix 1 Greenhouse gas emissions data availability
Appendix 2 Base year data and emissions projections
Appendix 3 Use of carbon sinks by Developed countries
Country Annexes
ANNexes for countries A-J
Annexes for countries L-U
AEA Technology viFinal Report
1 Introduction
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted in May 1992 and entered into force in March 1994. The Convention commits both developed countries (those listed in Annex I) and developing countries to work towards the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
In 1997 developed countries accepted commitments to reduce or limit their emissions of greenhouse gases during the period 2008 to 2012 (the first commitment period) to the levels listed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol. The total level of emissions reduction as negotiated was just over 5 %. The Member States of the European Union redistributed their commitments amongst themselves and this 'burden-sharing agreement' became legally binding under Council Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002. Table 1.1 shows the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment accepted by each country.
Table 1.1 Greenhouse gas emission commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the EU burden sharing agreement
Annex B country / Emissions commitment (%)[1] / Annex B country / Emissions commitment (%)1Australia† / 108 / Liechtenstein / 92
Austria / 87 / Lithuania* / 92
Belgium / 92.5 / Luxembourg / 72
Bulgaria* / 92 / Monaco / 92
Canada / 94 / Netherlands / 94
Croatia* / 95 / New Zealand / 100
Czech Republic* / 92 / Norway / 101
Denmark / 79 / Poland* / 94
Estonia* / 92 / Portugal / 127
Finland / 100 / Romania* / 92
France / 100 / Russian Federation* / 100
Germany / 79 / Slovakia* / 92
Greece / 125 / Slovenia* / 92
Hungary* / 94 / Spain / 115
Iceland / 110 / Sweden / 104
Ireland / 113 / Switzerland / 92
Italy / 93.5 / Ukraine* / 100
Japan / 94 / United Kingdom / 87.5
Latvia* / 92 / [United States / 93]
† Australia announced in June 2002 that although it does not at present intend to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it will meet its emissions limitation commitment as negotiated at COP3.
* Denotes countries that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy
The rules for entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol require 55 Parties to the Convention to ratify the Protocol, including Annex I Parties accounting for 55% of that group’s carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. To date, the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 117 countries, including 32 Annex B countries, representing 44.2 % of Annex I emissions. Countries to have ratified the Protocol include all EU Member States, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland. Amongst the countries still considering ratification are Russia and the Ukraine.
In 2001, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, in February 2002 the US committed itself to an 18 % reduction in greenhouse gas intensity by 2012.[2] The US is nevertheless included in the analysis with estimates relative to the original Kyoto commitment included in square brackets to indicate their shadow status. Australia has stated that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol at the present time, but still is committed to meeting its target. Australian estimates are not square bracketed because of this domestic commitment.
This report provides a quantitative assessment of how developed (Annex B) countries might meet their greenhouse gas emission commitments. It does this by examining countries’ progress to date (current emission trends), identifying their future projected progress on the basis of implemented and planned policies and measures and analysing the scope for further action, including use of the Kyoto Mechanisms. The report includes analysis of US progress both in relation to its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol and the more recent domestic intensity target. The analysis of the US in the context of the Kyoto Protocol is used to facilitate comparison with other countries' progress in reducing or limiting emissions, while recognising that it is no longer subject to the Protocol.