Climate Change Policy in Central Asia

Transcription

1 Petra Opitz Climate Change Policy in Central Asia 15th Meeting of the REFORM Group Energy Perspectives 2050 Salzburg, 6 September

2 Content 1. Current development of the CA countries 2. Contribution to the Kyoto Protocol 3. Policy instruments implemented by countries 4. Some conclusions 2

3 GDP Development (USD) GDP/capita (2009) DE:40.800; Kaz: Mrd. U.S. $ * Estimations IMF Kasachstan Turkmenistan * Usbekistan Tadschikistan Kirgisistan * (Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank) 3

4 Total primary energy supply TPES (ktoe) Germany (2007): Total CA: kt RÖE (Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank) Kasachstan Turkmenistan * Usbekistan Tadschikistan Kirgisistan

5 TPES per capita (kgoe) DE (2007): kg RÖE (Quelle: World Development Indicators, World Bank) Kasachstan Turkmenistan * Usbekistan Tadschikistan Kirgisistan

6 Structure TPES Coal, peat Gas Oil Hydro Kazakhstan Turkmenistan Tajikistan Uzbekistan 6

7 TPES Kyrgyztan: kt RÖE (Source: IEA Statistics) 7

8 Primary energy intensity (kgoe/1000 USD GDP PPS USD 2005) DE (2007): kg RÖE (Sourec: World Development Indicators, World Bank) Kasachstan * Usbekistan Kirgisistan Turkmenistan Tadschikistan

9 Share of CA in worldwide GHG emissions: CO 2 -Emissions Germany (2007): 787 Share of worldwide emissions (in %) Germany (2007): 2,7 USA: 19,9 China: 23,3 Total CA:2,7% Mio. t Kasachstan * Uzbekistan Kirgisistan Turkmenistan Tadschikistan (Source: MDG Indicator, United Nations) 9

10 Contribution to the Kyoto Protocol Status of the Countries All have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (late comer Kazakhstan in 2009) Kazakhstan opted out of CDM, negotiating on joining Annex B under simplified procedure approval time still unclear at present Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are non-annex 1countries, follow respective reporting requirements and requirements to develop mitigation policies and implement mitigation actions General weak climate change policy Contribution to Copenhagen Accord: - Kazakhstan -15% - No contribution submitted to UNFFCC: all other Countries with higher energy intensity more active climate change policy (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) 10

11 Policy Instruments in Kazakhstan Environmental Code (EC) and respective sublaws norms for assessment, limitation and control of GHG emissions RES support Law Draft Law on energy efficiency Development of voluntary National Emissions Trading Scheme (NETS) All installations above t CO2 GHG passports for all installations National offset projects (NOP) Administrative regulation for all other emitters. Emitters below threshold of t CO2 in industry, oil&gas sector, energy, mining, chemical industry, agriculture, transportation and residential/communal sector Cap & punishment. Amendments currently discussed to the EC NETS, Contradictions appear concerning additionality of NOPs. Quantification still in discussion National assessment of GHG emissions and absorption by sinks (data management, inventory) JI project approval mechanism (Order of Minister, ) 11

12 Barriers in Kazahkstan Lack of coordination among ministries economic incentives for the business (tariffs, non access to international JI financing) qualified specialtists (expertise in evaluation of mitigation and adaptation measures) Data Practical implementation Understanding of linkage between CC activities and economic growths Often declarative character of legislative and regulatory acts Corruption Weak position of environmental agencies 12

13 Policy Instruments in Uzbekistan Laws on environmental protection, energy efficiency and on air protection during the 1990ies Environmental monitoring, Environmental Action Programm , , Since 2006 CDM legislation and approval institution (Intergovernmental Council); CDM market development under leadership of the Ministry of economy Portfolio of CDM projects ( 75 PINs, 55 national approvals, 7 passed validation, 4 of them at the EB for registration 13

14 Barriers in Uzbekistan Buerocratisation of CDM procedures in the country Underestimation of climate change Investment barriers Weak legal framework for RES and energy efficiency (EE Programme pending since 2000, but shaped insufficiently) National validation required for registring at the national Executive CDM Council Absence of qualified personnel to maintain advanced technologies Insufficient local and company level experience and experts for preparing PDDs Language barriers 14

15 Policy Instruments and Barriers in Turkmenistan Poor institutional and legal framework Legislation on nature conservation, forestry, air protection from the 1990ies, Land Code & Water Code (2004) DNA for CDM approval not in place yet, under approval by the Cabinet of Ministers Barriers Absence of RES and EE framework Absence of economic incentives Data problems, unavailability of appropriate and reliable information Lack of capacity Languague barrier Absence of economic assessment of adaptation measures 15

16 Policy Instruments and Barriers in Kyrgyzstan National committee for CC impacts (2005) Law on state regulation and policy towards GHG emission and capture (2007) Programmes on utilization of industrial and municipal waste Programmes on forestry etc. National EE Programme , Law on EE (1998), Law on RES (2009) Barriers Lack of capacity on company, government and local levels Activities on CC are irregular and mostly based on technical aid by international organisations Small scale nature of CDM projects lack of competitiveness 16

17 Policy Instruments and Barriers in Tajikistan National Action Plan on mitigation and adaptation (2003) No legal and institutional framework yet for CDM Tadjik State Hydromet is performing as agency, project selection criteria and list of national sustainable development indicators have been developed, 5 potential CDM projects prepared Law on EE (2002) State Programme on RES (2008) Barriers Weak economic incentives (low energy prices) Lack of Institutional capacity Intergovenmental coordination Implementation of policies Strategies and concepts Financing Awareness 17

18 Some conclusions: Common interregional infrastructure (electricity, gas pipelines, water supply), Common mitigation and adaptation challenges and potential (many similar types of mitigation projects due to commonly inherited soviet type technologies and buildings etc.) and Common energy price/tariff distortions (tariff policy) Energy rich countries major fossil fuel suppliers & RES suppliers Each country interest in follow-up Kyoto; commitment for NAMAS + NAPAS but Very weak interregional cooperation and coordination No common responsibility for the region yet Serious capacity and institutional problems for setting-up efficient policies although Technical assistance has been provided by EU and UNDP No leadership although Kazakhstan is building commitment and is beginning to understand CC policy as a development policy (green growth) NAMA/NAPA approach could be used to set up an interregional dialogue on common strategy discussion and to build up capacities 18

19 Many Thanks! 19