19 November 1997

ENGLISH ONLY

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE

Eighth session, second part

Kyoto, 30 November 1997

Agenda item 3

1. At the first part of its eighth session, the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) requested Parties included in Annex I to the Convention to submit information on the indicators listed in Annex B of the revised text under negotiation (FCCC/CP/1997/2) for the time frames indicated in the Berlin Mandate, as well as for the year 1995 (see FCCC/AGBM/1997/8, para. 18).

   
   
   

2. Fourteen such submissions⁽¹⁾ have been received. In accordance with the procedure for miscellaneous documents, these submissions are attached and are reproduced in the language in which they were received and without formal editing.

   
   
   

3. Parties may wish to note that the lettering used to denote Annexes in the revised text under negotiation differs from that used in previous texts. Most of the references to such Annexes in these current submissions adheres to the original lettering.

   
   
   

4. This document has been prepared without prejudice to the eventual outcome of negotiations over the establishment of uniform or differentiated commitments.

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.3

GE.97-

Paper No. Page

1. Bulgaria 3

(Submission dated 6 November 1997)

2. Canada 4

(Submission dated 12 November 1997)

3. Czech Republic 10

(Submission dated 6 November 1997)

4. Estonia 11

(Submission dated 17 November 1997)

5. Finland 12

(Submission dated 13 November 1997)

6. France 14

(Submission dated 7 November 1997)

7. Germany 15

(Submission dated 10 November 1997)

8. Iceland 18

(Submission dated 11 November 1997)

9. Italy 20

(Submission dated 12 November 1997)

10. Japan 22

(Submission dated 12 November 1997)

11. Norway 23

(Submission dated 11 November 1997)

12. Slovak Republic 25

(Submission dated 11 November 1997)

13. Spain 26

(Submission dated 7 November 1997)

14. Sweden 27

(Submission dated 6 November 1997)

We are writing in response to the request, at the recently completed Bonn negotiations, for Annex I parties to provide, to the AGBM Secretariat, information on relevant indicators of their national circumstances as outlined in Annex C of the draft negotiating text on QUELROs (FCCC/AGBM/1997/CRP.3, dated 31 October 1997). The attachment to this letter provides tables containing the information, for Canada. We were able to compile the data for all indicators except for that described under item (e).

Canada supports differentiation in principle as one means to take into account countries' national circumstances. For Canada, these national circumstances are best represented by four elements - our expected population growth, the emissions intensity of our exports, the contribution of fossil fuel to our exports, and the role of renewables in our energy supply. The rationale for selecting these indicators is discussed below.

Canada's population is expected to grow at double the rate for Annex I parties as a group. Our population growth is among the highest for the industrialized countries, outpaced only by

Australia. It is important to note that much of this growth stems from immigration.

With respect to the emissions intensity of our exports, we recognize the difficulty of measuring the carbon embodied in a country's exports. As a proxy for this measure, we have used the ratio of exports by energy intensive industries to total exports. The high emissions intensity of Canada's exports clearly suggests that the competitiveness of our economy will be more adversely affected than that of parties whose exports are less carbon intensive. The emissions intensity of exports is a particularly important criterion in a world in which all parties are not subject to carbon constraints.

By value, fossil fuels represent about 10 percent of Canada's exports, compared to the average for industrialized countries of 3 percent. This implies a relatively higher burden for Canada as a result of an Annex I wide carbon reduction scenario. A reduction in fossil fuel use by Annex I countries may mean lower returns to Canada's oil, natural gas and coal industries, with resulting economic impacts on regions heavily dependent upon those industries.

With its abundant hydropower resources and the use of biomass, the proportion of renewables in Canada's total energy supply is far higher than that for most Annex II parties. But this factor implies that Canada has, relative to other countries, less potential to expand its use of renewables.

You will note that we have not included emissions intensity, defined in either per capita or per GDP terms, in the above list of indicators defining Canada's national circumstances. Emissions intensity is omitted for two reasons. First, the emissions intensity of a country and the national circumstances which give rise to it, are already included in the historical data and in the business as usual projections. In developing policies to constrain emissions, the issue is not so much the level of emissions intensity, but rather the rate of reduction which can be achieved and the relative cost of doing so.

Second, the interpretation of carbon intensity is ambiguous. Does a high carbon intensity reflect the economic, structural and other factors of a country and suggest a greater than average difficulty in reducing emissions? Or, does it imply that the country is not using energy as efficiently as possible? There is, to our knowledge, no transparent, readily available data which distinguish between these two interpretations. Under these circumstances, we would recommend that national targets not be linked to carbon intensity.

We hope the above discussion of Canada's national circumstances as well as the attached supporting material are of assistance to the Secretariat in your analysis of the differentiation issue.

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

Sources: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

Environment Canada

* Includes CF₄, C₂F₆, SF₆

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

^* Excludes Mexico, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

^* Excludes Mexico, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

^* Excludes Mexico, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden

Sources: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

^* Environment Canada

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

^* Emissions intensity is defined as the ratio of the value of exports by energy intensive industries to total exports. Energy intensive industries include pulp and paper, chemicals, iron and steel, non-metalic, non-ferrous, and oil, natural gas and coal production.

^** Excludes Mexico and Turkey

Sources: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

Informetrica Limited

^* The share of the value of exports of oil, natural and coal relative to the value of total exports

^** Excludes Mexico and Turkey

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook: 1996-2020, April 1997

^* Includes hydro, biomass, solar, wind and other renewables

^** Excludes Mexico and Turkey

GDP is given in purchasing power parity according to the calculation of the Czech Statistical Office.

Sources: Czech Hydrometeorological Institute (emission inventory), Czech Statistical Office (other data)

At the October AGBM 8 Meeting it was proposed that Annex I Parties should send detailed information of the differentiation criteria stated in Annex C of the consolidated negotiating text by the Chairman. As differentiation becomes an option in later stage the choice of criteria for implementation is naturally of crucial importance. Up to now no thoroughgoing discussion of the factors in Annex C has taken place. Moreover, we question how those factors would be balanced or taken into account in the differentiation process. At this stage there is no basis for dressing the factors in Annex C in quantitative format.

Cost-effectiveness of the mitigation measures should be the main argument for differentiation. The costs may vary considerably between Parties. Annex C of the consolidated negotiating text by the Chairman also contains factors which are related to the concept of ability to pay the costs of measures.

It is quite obvious that climate change abatement costs differ from country to country and are too difficult to estimate in practice. Therefore a set of factors reflecting abatement costs could be selected. We consider that those factors should measure the intensity of use of policies which are commonly regarded as important ones in climate change policy. The higher the use of measures the higher the abatement costs would be. These factors might include:

o Energy efficiency indicators (non-energy factors eliminated, e.g. degree-day corrections) which would describe specific energy consumption in different sectors. Low value of indicator shows the results of energy conservation policies. Indicators should be as disaggregated as possible and practicable because aggregated indicators mainly reflect climatic conditions and the structure of economy which has evolved during decades as a result of international division of labour.

o Share of renewable or bioenergy in energy supply.

o Share of cogeneration in electricity production.

However, if aggregative indicators are regarded as simple and practical ones, we prefer item (b) in Annex C. An alternative to that could be greenhouse gas emission per final energy use. These indicators may give some information of abatement possibilities and costs. We do not for example regard items (a), (d) and (e) in Annex C as informative or relevant factors in this respect.

Furthermore Finland considers that factors which take into account the structure of industrial and energy production in exports should be included in the list of factors. We therefore support items (h) and (i) presented in Annex C of the draft negotiating text.

In order to measure the ability to pay the abatement costs Finland proposes to add the following indicators:

o Gross domestic product per capita measured in PPP.

o Unemployment rate.

(*) net emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O aggregated using GWP 100 IPCC, 1995

Evolution for the 1995/2010 period:

- French population: + 0.42% / year

- French GDP: 2.3 to 2.6% / year

Total emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFC, HFC, SF6)

CO2 equivalent in 1000 tons:

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020

2729.8 2640.1 3161.1 3292.4 3445.4 3675.0

Source: The Second Status Report for Iceland to the UNFCCC.

Emission intensity of Gross Domestic Product

1990 1995

GHG emissions 2729.8 2640.1

GDP in millions of USD 6,249 6,972

Emission intensity of exports, CO2, equivalent in 1000 tons*:

1990 1995

GHG emissions 1,472 1,440

Export of goods in millions of USD 1,304.6 1,642.3

*Includes only GHG emissions from industrial processing (excluding cement= ) and

the fishing sector (including fishmeal plants). Production in these secto= rs is

for exports only.

Source: The Second Status Report for Iceland to the UNFCCC.

Fossil fuel intensity of exports

Iceland does not export any fossil fuels

Gross Domestic Product in millions of US dollars

1990 1995

6,249 6,972

Source: National Economic Institute

The growth of Gross Domestic Product

1990 1995 Total growth through 1990-1995=3.5%

1.2% 1.0%

Source: National Economic Institute

Population growth

1990 1995

0.9% 0.4%

Source: National Economic Institute and Statistics Iceland

Population

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020

254,788 267,380 279,908 289,423 297,593 311,862

Source: Statistics Iceland

Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply

1990 1995

63.9% 66.7%

Source: National Energy Authority

Effective emissions in a given time period, defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature

Not available.

The following are available data related to the differentiation factors in Annex C of FCCC/AGBM/1997/CRP.3, which were requested by the chairman of AGBM at the last AGBM meeting on 31 October 1997.

(a) CO2 equivalent emissions per capita (CO2-t/capita)

1990 1994 2010

- CO2, CH4, N20 9.63 10.22 11.17

- All Gases 10.13 10.90 -

(b) CO2 equivalent emissions per unit of GDP

1990 1994 2010

- CO2, CH4, N20 2.73 2.80 2.18 (CO2-t/ million yen)

- All Gases 2.87 2.99 -

- CO2, CH4, N20 0.40 0.29 - (CO2-t/ thousand US$)

- All Gases 0.42 0.31 -

* Calculated using the IMF foreign exchange rates.

(c) GDP per capita (thousand yen)

1990 1995 2010

3,527 3,719 5,117

(d) Annual GDP growth per capita (%)

1.06 (90-95) 2.15 (95-2010)

(f) Annual projected population growth (%)

0.31 (90-95) 0.11 (95-2010)

(g) Emission intensity of GDP: same with (b)

(j) Share of renewable energy (%) 5 (1995)

(a) Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per capita of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex B:

Table 1 Emissions of greenhouse gases. Tonnes CO₂-equivalents per capita

	CO2	CH4	N2O	SUM3	HFCs	PFCs	SF6	Total
1990	8,4	2,1	1,1	11,6	0,0	0,6	0,5	12,7
1995	8,7	2,3	1,0	12,0	0,0	0,3	0,1	12,5

Sources: Norway's second national communication under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and UN World Population Prospects (The 1994 Revision, Medium variant)

(b) Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per unit of gross domestic product of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex B:

Table 2 Emissions of greenhouse gases. Tonnes CO₂-equivalents per unit of GDP in million US$ at current prices and current PPPs.

	CO2	CH4	N2O	SUM3	HFCs	PFCs	SF6	Total
1990	478	123	65	666	0	34	30	728
1995	383	100	45	528	2	14	6	550

Sources: Norway's second national communication under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and OECD National Accounts (Edition 1997)

(c) Gross domestic product per capita:

Table 3 GDP per capita at current prices and current PPPs. 1000 US dollars

1990	17,5
1995	22,8

Sources: OECD National Accounts (Edition 1997) and UN World Population Prospects (The 1994 Revision, Medium variant)

(d) Gross domestic product per capita growth

Table 4 GDP per capita at 1990 price levels. 1000 NOK

1990	170
1995	198
Average percentage growth per year 1990-1995	3,1

Sources: OECD National Accounts (Edition 1997) and UN World Population Prospects (The 1994 Revision, Medium variant)

(f) Projected population growth

Table 5 Population. 1000 persons

1990	4241
1995	4337
2010	4556
Percentage growth 1990-1995	2,3
Percentage growth 1995-2010	7,4

Source: UN World Population Prospects (The 1994 Revision, Medium variant)

(g) Emmission intensity of gross domestic product

Cf. (b).

(j) Share of renewable energy in energy supply

Table 6 Share of renewable energy. Percent of total primary energy supply¹⁾

1990	51
1995	50

Source: Energy Balances of OECD Countries 1989-1990 and 1994-1995. IEA Statistics.

1) Renewable energy as share of TPES minus net import of electricity.

(a) Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per capita of the GHG listed in Annex B:

14t/cap in 1990

(b) Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per unit of GDP of the GHG listed in Annex B:

8 t/1000 USD (GDP in current prices of 1990)

(c) GDP per capita:

2044 USD (in 1990 current prices)

(d) GDP per capita growth:

1990/91 decrease 14.6% (constant prices)

1990/93 decrease 25%

(f) Projected population growth:

0.46% in 1990, 0.16% in 1995, 0.0% in 2000

(j) Share of renewable energy in energy supply:

approx. 2% in 1990

1990

Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O: 301.4 Mton

Population: 38.9 million

GDP: 50, 145.2 billion pesetas

Emissions per capita: 7.75 ton

Emissions per million pesetas of GDP: 6 ton

GDP per capita: 1.3 million pesetas

Regarding the future evolution of these factors, we may be able to provide more precise information at COP 3.

It has to be understood that the estimated emissions for 2000 (336,9 Mton) and 2010

(362 Mton) that can be found in the second national communication are not projections of present conditions, but they incorporate the required additional action that the international strategy and legal obligations on climate change will impose.

At the last AGBM meeting chairman Mr Raoul Estrada proposed that Parties could submit data according to "Annex C" in draft negotiating text.

Enclose please find data for selected indicators from Sweden. This is not intended to prejudge whether we will have a differentiated approach or a flat rate approach. As an EU country, Sweden favours a flat rate target for the year 2005 and 2010. After 2010 more sophisticated methods to allocate reduction targets should be implemented, eventually leading to convergence of emissions levels based on appropriate indicators.

Indicator	1990	1995
CO2 equivalent/capita EU-proposal1 (ton/cap)	7,83	7,66
CO2 equivalent/capita US-proposal2 (ton/cap)	2,31	2,53
CO2 equivalent/GDP3 EU-proposal (kg/USD)	0,46	0,41
CO2 equivalent/GDP US-proposal (kg/USD)	0,14	0,14
GDP/cap (USD/cap)	17004	18673
GDP/cap growth (%/year)	4,7	6,2
Share of renewable energy4 in energy supply (%)	25	26

Population growth
1990-1995 (%/year)	0,63
1995-2000 (%/year)	0,35
2000-2005 (%/year)	0,27
2005-2010 (%/year)	0,21

¹ Includes CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O

² Includes CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, HFCs, PFCs, SF₆ and all anthropogenic sinks; net/net approach

³ GDP expressed as purchasing power parities current prices

⁴ Includes waste heat from heat pumps; UN/ECE-methods have been used to calculate energy supply from nuclear power plants

Additional information

The total area of Sweden is 450,000 km². Compared with other OECD countries, population density is low, on average 19 inhabitants per km² However, a large part of the population is concentrated in three major urban areas. Sweden has a long coastline and a very large number of lakes. Transport needs are high due to the low population density and the long distances.

Forest covers 62% of the total land area. The forest is one of Sweden's most important natural resources. Historically, the forest industry, together with the iron and steel industry, has been the backbone of the Swedish economy.

Energy-intensive industries play a large role in the Swedish economy. Sweden has large and growing surpluses in foreign trade and barter.

Sweden's climate is temperate, influenced by the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean. The annual average temperature is only +1.8^oC, ranging from +7^oC in the south to -2^o in the north. The heating requirement for homes and other premises is considerable during the winter season.

Swedish energy demand has been more or less unchanged at 450 TWh/year during the past 25 years, according to the traditional Swedish way of calculating. The fossil fuel share of the total energy supply has fallen from 80% in 1970 to about 50% in 1995. During a normal year, nuclear and hydro power account for more than 90% of the total electricity generated.

From a level of about 100 million tonnes CO₂ per year by in 1970, emission of CO₂ have declined between 1980 and 1990 from about 82 to about 55 million tonnes per year.

A new energy agreement was launched in 1997. The deliberations were concluded on the 4^th of February 1997 with an agreement between the Social Democrats, the Centre Party and the Left Party on guidelines for a national energy policy.

The energy agreement calls for shutdown of the two nuclear power reactors in Barsebäck, equivalent to 1200 MW. The Government Bill "A Sustainable Energy Supply"⁵ states that negotiation shall be commenced with the owner to close one reactor prior to 1 July 1998 and the other reactor prior to 1 July 2001. The Bill was passed in Parliament in June 1997 and in addition, the Parliament will discuss in December this year a new law which specify the conditions to close reactors.

⁵ Gov. Bill 1996/97:84