Climate Change Mitigation Actions in Five Developing Countries

Harald Winkler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138846142
• eBook ISBN: 9781317540380
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Five case studies on mitigation actions (MAs) in developing countries illustrate the rich diversity of climate action. Researchers from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and South Africa reflect on what is possible in their countries. Case studies reflect the sheer diversity of NAMAs: from a 'Pronami' on efficient lighting in Peru, to longer-term challenges of rising energy emissions in Brazil, and much else. The book compares the similarities and differences across eight elements that could assist in developing and implementing mitigation. The comparative analysis highlights both how challenging implementation can be in the context of development, but also points to factors that might enable ambitious mitigation. The comparison suggests that choice of Mas may be linked to institutional capacity, the resources a country is endowed with and hence its emissions profile. International support can be an important global enabler. The authors find that addressing both development and climate objectives is key. This book fills an important gap in the literature from developing country authors about mitigation actions in their own countries.

This book was published as a special issue of Climate and Development.

INTRODUCTION

Emerging lessons on designing and implementing mitigation actions in five developing countries

Harald Winkler

Energy Research Centre and MAPS programme, University of Cape Town, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa

Introduction

This Special Issue brings together case studies on mitigation actions (MAs) by researchers in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and South Africa. The case studies illustrate the rich diversity of MAs as they are conceptualized, designed and moved towards implementation in different circumstances. The wide range of MAs enables a comparative analysis, shedding light on what is common across different cases and what is specific to each country’s experience. An empirically-grounded approach to MAs emerges in this way, and is complemented by an understanding of how the concept of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) emerged in the international negotiations (Coetzee & Winkler, 2013).

The sheer diversity of NAMAs is a striking feature even from the relatively small set of case studies in this issue. Zevallos et al. (2014) hone in on the most advanced ‘Pronami’ in Peru, a case study of energy-efficient lighting. The contribution from UniAndes in Colombia considers electric vehicles (Cadena Monroy, Delgado, Espinosa, Peña, & Salazar, 2014). Other authors take a broader view, with Tyler, Boyd, Coetzee, and Winkler (2013) choosing four different MAs that might be developed in South Africa: bus rapid transit, sustainable settlements, an initiative on renewable energy and a carbon tax. Sanhueza and Ladron (2013) present a range of MAs in the transport, agriculture and energy sectors, and their development across different periods. Wills and his co-authors discuss how Brazil might meet its voluntary mitigation goals, with avoided deforestation making a major contribution in the near-term, but the longer-term challenges of low-emissions energy development being new to Brazil. The particular examples chosen by the authors in no way suggest that these are the only MAs undertaken in their respective countries; but merely that the selected MAs were found to have illustrative value.

Garibaldi et al. (2013), working with a team including authors from each of the case studies, provides a comparative analysis across the case studies. The MAs in the case studies from five countries are assessed using the following elements: conceptual approaches; the stage of development of actions; various capacities – institutional capacity for planning MAs and regulatory context, as well as technical capacity to design and measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) MAs; priority given to poverty; ownership of MAs; and finance.

Conceptual and methodological approach

A case study approach is a bottom-up approach to analysing how MAs are conceptualized in each country. This approach was adopted in the context of both a lack of clarity at international level regarding the definition of NAMAs and a desire to understand what was already taking place ‘on the ground’ in the countries. A more top-down conceptualization of NAMAs could have emerged from the international negotiations. As Coetzee and Winkler outline, however, the NAMA concept in the negotiations has thus far provided scope for diversity. Nonetheless, two of the case studies indicate that NAMAs are understood, at least as one important dimension, in the context of international pledges.

The case study from South Africa (SA) explicitly outlines a bottom-up methodological perspective in this sense: first, the South African approach to individual MAs is outlined; next, challenges to their implementation are examined; and third, possible means of overcoming such challenges – both domestic and international – are explored (Tyler et al., 2013).

In all the case studies, the importance of linking to national developmental priorities is emphasized. There are multiple and diverse developmental objectives, yet it is observed that alleviating poverty remains a high priority across all five countries. Using mitigation actions to address high levels of inequality emerges as an equally important priority in the Brazilian and SA case studies.

Sanhueza and Ladron reflect on the various periods over which understanding of MAs evolved in Chile. Early thinking followed the signing of the Convention (1992); with learning on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) facilitated once a prompt start was agreed in Marrakech (2001); reinforced when the Kyoto Protocol entered into force (Montreal, 2005); with a pledge developed – as for other developing countries – shortly before Copenhagen (2009). Chile communicated that it will achieve a 20% reduction below the ‘business as usual’ emissions growth trajectory in 2020. The current period, since 2010, has focused on how MAs can be implemented to achieve that pledge – though national circumstances remain important.

The Brazilian pledge in Copenhagen was unusual in that it contained both an overall deviation below business-as-usual (BAU) and individual NAMAs. Most other developing countries pledged either an aggregate NAMA (expressed as deviation below BAU or carbon intensity of gross domestic product) or individual NAMAs. La Rovere, Pereira, Dubeux, and Wills (2013) explain how deforestation is a major contribution to the overall deviation of 36.1% and 38.9% below BAU for 2020. They find that Brazil can meet its voluntary mitigation goals. If this was realized, a contribution by a major developing countries like Brazil would in turn provide momentum to the multi-lateral negotiations.

Challenges of implementation

The challenges of implementation for Brazil are longer-term future. La Rovere et al. provide data on the clean energy mix that Brazil has had historically, with hydro-electricity and biofuels. After 2020, Brazil will face challenges of keeping its energy mix clean, while consumption and production of fossil fuels will increase – and economic development continues to increase energy demand. Without additional MAs, Brazilian emissions would start to increase again in 2020–2030. The case study points out that this challenge is more akin to that faced by industralized countries, and indeed some other developing countries.

The policy environment in which implementation of MAs is attempted is a crucial factor. The case studies include a range of policy-making contexts, from the highly planned to the less centrally coordinated. Planning horizons differ from four years (Colombia) to 40-year scenarios (in SA, and 2050 scenarios due to be developed in other Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios [MAPS] countries). None of these is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ – it is simply important to understand that each policy and regulatory context brings with it specific challenges.

Other challenges to implementation are illustrated in each of the case studies. Zevallos et al. explored the NAMA that they considered the most advanced in Peru. Efficient lighting is to be introduced in the residential, public, commercial and industrial sectors. The researchers found that even this NAMA was still in a ‘readiness’ stage at time of writing. At least one of the reasons is the complexity of governance across multiple sectors. The challenge for PlanCC (as MAPS is called in Peru) is how to move the MA beyond readiness to the design and implementation phase. It seems South Africa is at a similar stage, exhibiting strengths in identifying, analysing and designing MAs, but falling short on implementation (Tyler et al., 2013). They identify two key challenges – resistance from vested interested and the availability of finance, Which brings us to enabling factors.

Enabling factors – domestic and international

Why do countries choose particular MAs? The comparative analysis suggests that the choice of MAs may be linked to institutional capacity (both for design and implementation of MAs and possible MRV), emissions profile and the relative resource endowments of countries.

To understand specific enabling factors, however, one needs to delve into the textured accounts and detailed examples. To continue with the South African case study, Tyler et al. suggest that that a supportive policy, regulatory and planning context is an important enabling factor for implementation. More specifically, they argue that alignment of an MA with the existing priorities of a particular sector may be helpful in achieving implementation. Whether sector-specific MAs generally prove to be more effective than cross-sectoral MAs is a topic worth further investigation. Zevallos et al. point to a need for increased coordination between sectors and key stakeholders, indicating that in their view, the potential for cross-sectoral MAs is worth exploring.

Cadena Monroy et al. direct their focus to mitigation actions at the local level in Bogota. Bogota had early success with TransMillenio, but the researchers from UniAndes (the core research team in MAPS Colombia) focus on another part of the transport sector in their case study. They examine the potential for electric vehicles for private, utility and public services. They find that increased electricity demand does not increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in such a scenario, given high proportion of hydro-electricity in the Colombian grid. A crucial developmental goal is the security of energy supply. This case study finds that diversification of the energy mix has benefits for energy security.

Sanhueza and Ladron highlight the lessons from the CDM in Chile. They find that learning in the second and third periods (2001–2009) from CDM projects provided a useful basis for the development of NAMAs.

A strong finding across all case studies is the importance of international support. Garibaldi et al.’s comparison finds that international support, particularly in the form of finance, is emphasized in all case studies. They also add that technical capacities for design and MRV of implementation exist across all five developing countries examined here.

The concept of NAMAs itself is still emergent in the international context. The need for a diversity of actions to be defined as NAMAs is emphasized in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, and richly illustrated in these country case studies. The nascent nature of the concept presents an opportunity for developing countries to shape NAMAs to their benefit and take action appropriate to locally required development. The comparative analysis emphasizes the diversity of MAs and capabilities, and connected to that, a need for flexibility in definition, design, and implementation.

Increasing ambition by a focus on development

The case studies seem to indicate willingness to take action by these developing countries, and signs of putting capacities in place, albeit at different levels of maturity. If this proves to be the case, then it may be that the path to more ambitious mitigation action in these countries lies addressing both development and climate.

In conclusion, and without repeating the discussions or finding presented in the case studies, it is worth highlighting one overarching finding: MAs that are driven by both development and climate objectives are more likely to be implemented, than those driven by mitigation objectives alone.

Acknowledgements

The articles in this Special Issue have emerged from research conducted by the authors as part of the Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS programme). The authors, who are researchers involved in the MAPS programme, had the opportunity to share earlier versions in a MAPS Research Lab held in Lima, Peru (September 2011) and appreciated the vibrant discussion in the MAPS community subsequently. The articles were significantly reworked in preparation for submission and in response to valuable comments received from Climate and Development’s peer reviewer process.

MAPS is a collaboration amongst developing countries to establish the evidence base for the long-term transition to robust, carbon efficient economies.

In this way, MAPS contributes to ambitious climate change mitigation that aligns economic development with poverty alleviation. MAPS current works in-country in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru, with a MAPS international team based in South Africa at the Energy Research Centre (University of Cape Town) and SouthSouthNorth. We gratefully acknowledge funding by Children’s Investment Fund Foundation for the original research. The responsibility for the views expressed in this guest editorial and the articles in this Special Issue remains that of the authors.

References

Cadena Monroy, Á.I., Delgado, R., Espinosa, M., Peña, C. & Salazar, M. (2014). A case study on Colombian mitigation actions. Climate and Development. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.857587.

Coetzee, K., & Winkler, H. (2013). The international policy context for mitigation actions. Climate and Development. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.867245.

Garibaldi, J.A., Winkler, H., La Rovere, E.L., Cadena, A., Palma, R., Sanhueza, J.E., & Torres Gunfaus, M. (2013). Comparative analysis of five case studies: Commonalities and differences in approaches to mitigation actions in five developing countries. Climate and Development. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.812031.

La Rovere, E.L., Pereira, A.O., Dubeux, C.B.S., & Wills, W. (2013). Climate change mitigation actions in Brazil. Climate and Development. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.812952.

Sanhueza, J.E., & Ladron de Guevara, F.A. (2013). A case study of Chilean mitigation actions. Climate and Development. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.844675.

Tyler, E., Boyd, A., Coetzee, K., & Winkler, H. (2013). A case study of South African mitigation actions (For the special issue on mitigation actions in five developing countries). Climate and Development. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.768175.

Zevallos, P., Takahashi, T.P., Cigaran, M.P., & Coetzee, K. (2014). A case study of Peru’s efficient li...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Citation Information
• 1. Introduction: Emerging lessons on designing and implementing mitigation actions in five developing countries
• 2. The international policy context for mitigation actions
• 3. A case study on Colombian mitigation actions
• 4. Climate change mitigation actions in Brazil
• 5. A case study of Chilean mitigation actions
• 6. A case study of Peru’s efficient lighting nationally appropriate mitigation action
• 7. A case study of South African mitigation actions
• 8. Comparative analysis of five case studies: commonalities and differences in approaches to mitigation actions in five developing countries
• Index