Distr.
GENERAL
FCCC/SBSTA/2000//2
16 May 2000
Original: ENGLISH
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Twelfth session
Bonn, 12-16 June 2000
Item 7 of the provisional agenda
INCLUDED IN ANNEX I TO THE CONVENTION
of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
Paragraphs Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1 - 4 3
A. Mandate 1 - 3 3
B. Scope of the note 4 3
II. PROCEEDINGS 5 - 19 3
III. MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE WORKSHOP 20 - 52 7
A. Generic issues related to "best practices" in policies and measures 20 - 31 7
B. Sector-specific issues and some examples related to "best practices"in policies and measures 32 - 39 9
C. Methodological issues related to "best practices" in policies and measures and the use of indicators 40 - 45 11
D. Possible approaches to advancing the work on policies and measures 46 - 52 12
Agenda of the workshop 15
1. The Conference of the Parties (COP), at its fourth session,
adopted the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, which included work on
policies and measures for the mitigation of climate change as part of
the preparations for the first session of the COP serving as the
meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.1).(1)
2. Also at its fourth session, the COP requested the
secretariat to prepare a report on "best practices" in policies and
measures for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) at its eleventh session, with a view to
strengthening the sharing of experience and exchange of
information.(2) It also requested the
secretariat to organize a workshop to assess "best practices" in
policies and measures on the basis of the conclusions of the SBSTA at
its eleventh session, and to report the results to COP at its sixth
session.
3. The SBSTA, at its eleventh session, concluded that the workshop
should advance the work on sharing experience and exchange of
information regarding " best practices" in policies and measures by
considering, inter alia, Article 2.1 of the Kyoto Protocol
and the elements identified in document FCCC/SBSTA/1999/8
(FCCC/SBSTA/1999/14, para 40 (c)).
4. This report is prepared in response to the request of the COP at
its fourth session, mentioned in paragraph 2 above. It will be
considered at the twelfth session of the SBSTA with a view to
preparing recommendations for the sixth session of the COP. According
to the relevant decisions of the COP, Parties may wish to consider at
the sixth session of the COP further ways of facilitating cooperation
and advancing the work on sharing experience and exchanging
information regarding " best practices" in policies and measures.
5. The workshop on "best practices" in policies and measures was held
in Copenhagen from 11 to 13 April 2000 with the financial support of
the governments of Denmark and France. It was organized by the UNFCCC
secretariat in close cooperation with the Danish Energy Agency and
the Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change, France. The
agenda of the workshop is attached in the annex to this report.
6. In total, 133 representatives from countries and organizations
attended the workshop: 64 representatives were nominated by Annex II
Parties, 10 by Annex I Parties with economies in transition and 31 by
non-Annex I Parties. In addition, 15 representatives of
intergovernmental organizations and 13 representatives of
non-governmental organizations attended the workshop.
7. The workshop was chaired by Mr. Harald Dovland, Chairman of the
SBSTA, who officially opened the workshop. Mr. Svend Auken, Minister
for the Environment and Energy, Denmark and Ms. Dominique Voynet,
Minister for the Environment, France gave welcoming addresses. Ms.
Claire Parker, coordinator, UNFCCC secretariat, presented the
objectives of the workshop and its significance for the future
negotiations in the lead-up to the sixth session of the COP.
8. Three keynote speakers set forth the issue of policies and
measures and, especially, "best practices" in policies and measures
from different perspectives. Mr. Bert Metz from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) centred his presentation on
methodological and scientific aspects of policies and measures in the
light of the recently published IPCC reports and the ongoing work on
this issue in the framework of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Mr.
Jonathan Pershing from the International Energy Agency (IEA)
presented "good practices" in policies and measures and a framework
for consideration of these practices based on the experience of IEA
and the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). Finally, Mr. Ryutaro Yatsu, Japan, provided an
overview of the outcome of the G8 Environmental Futures Forum 2000 on
domestic "best practices" to address climate change.
9. The Chairman then explained the approach to the workshop. He
pointed out that the UNFCCC secretariat had received more than 40
proposals for papers to be presented at the workshop covering
different aspects of "best practices" in policies and measures. These
papers had been grouped into seven topics and were envisaged to serve
as a basis for discussion in seven working groups. These topics
included "best practices" relevant to: (a) national programmes; (b)
cross-cutting issues; (c) measures relating to carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from energy supply and industry; (d)
measures relating to CO2 emissions from transport,
households and commercial sectors; (e) measures relating to emissions
of non-CO2 gases; (f) use of energy and environmental
indicators; (g) methodological and institutional aspects. The
chairman appointed chairs for the working groups and a leader for the
concluding panel discussion.
10. The working group on national programmes chaired by Mr. Harald
Dovland discussed the issue of "best practices" in policies and
measures from the point of view of the climate change policy-making
process at national level. Several presentations were made (among
others by Australia, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom ) providing
various examples of "best practices" or "good practices" and
elaborating on what constitutes "best practices" in the context of
national circumstances. Representatives of Bulgaria and Poland
addressed "best practices" in policies and measures in the light of
the political priorities of the countries with economies in
transition.
11. The working group on cross-cutting issues conducted its work
under the chairmanship of Mr. Lambert Gnapelet (Central African
Republic). Saudi Arabia made a presentation on the implementation of
Article 2.1 (a) (v) of the Kyoto Protocol and the importance of
reducing market imperfections, including the phasing out of fiscal
incentives and subsidies in the sectors with high levels of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Brazil presented steps taken in the
energy and transportation sectors, including its ethanol and energy
conservation programme. Norway discussed the role of carbon taxes and
emissions trading in GHG emission mitigation. The representative of
the European Commission (EC) reported on the Commission's
consideration of common and coordinated policies in the field of
energy efficiency, renewables and transport. Climate Action Network
(environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO)), presented what
it considers to be key measures in the discussion on "best
practices", including financial incentives (taxes and subsidies),
green procurement, public awareness and research and development.
12. The working group on "best practices" in addressing
CO2 emissions from energy supply and industry was chaired
by Mr. Terry Carrington (United Kingdom). Seven presentations were
made, each covering one of the two sectors under consideration. The
presentations ranged from a wide and comprehensive overview of
policies across the OECD countries to country-specific presentations
on experience with policies and measures and examples of "best
practices" in the sectors under consideration. Participants from
Australia, Denmark, Egypt, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United
States of America, and OECD gave such presentations.
13. The working group on "best practices" in policies and measures
relating to CO2 emissions from transport, households and
commercial sectors was chaired by Mr. Maciej Sadowski (Poland). The
six presentations extended from a very specific presentation of a
single measure being implemented (Denmark) to general coverage of
policies and measures in these sectors (IEA). The transport sector
received the most attention. Presentations included several case
studies of policies and measures implemented in Denmark, Japan and
the United States. Ensuing discussions dealt with the different
characteristics, objectives and approaches in the formulation of
"best practice" policies and measures in the transport, household and
commercial sectors.
14. The working group on "best practices" in policies and measures
relating to emissions of non-CO2 gases from energy,
industry, agriculture, forestry and waste was chaired by Ms. Marianne
Wenning (EC). Five presentations were made, on subjects ranging from
possible approaches to design of policies and measures to reduce
emissions of fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) at
national and international level (presentation by the Netherlands) to
specific sectoral examples. A proposal for phasing out the use of
these gases through regulations was presented by Denmark.
Presentations by Austria and France provided examples of combinations
of regulatory and fiscal measures to reduce methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from waste, the chemical industry and aluminium smelting.
Finally, a presentation by the United States described approaches to
reducing emissions of methane and the fluorinated gases, which are
for the most part voluntary.
15. The working group on indicators chaired by Mr. Francois Moisan
(France) discussed the use of indicators for the monitoring and
assessment of energy and environmental policies, and their possible
links to "best practices" in policies and measures. Most
presentations gave a summary of the experience in the use of
indicators gained by international organizations, such as IEA and the
Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, and a national institution, the
Agency for Environment and Energy Management (ADEME), France, which
coordinates the activities of EC countries on indicators in the
framework of the SAVE programme of the EC. A presentation by Portugal
provided information on the process of establishing criteria and on
the use of indicators for the evaluation of policies and measures on
renewables, combined heat and power (CHP) and energy efficiency.
16. The working group on methodological and institutional aspects of
"best practices" in policies and measures was chaired by Mr. John
Lowe (Canada). Seven presentations were made covering different
aspects of national, local and private sector approaches to the
selection, monitoring and evaluation of policies and measures,
including ex ante and ex post evaluation. A set of presentations
elaborated on the ongoing methodological work on implemented policies
and measures. Denmark presented an evaluation of its green tax scheme
and its macroeconomic impacts; the Netherlands reported on the
lessons learned from climate change policy evaluation and the
increasing analytical rigour required for policy making; the Russian
Federation gave a talk on that country's "best practice" policies as
outlined in the Russian climate action plan and Switzerland presented
the evaluations used to measure the success of the Swiss energy model
in which industries are committed to attaining specified energy
efficiency goals.
17. Other presentations covered activities of institutions such as
the Energy Charter, which concentrated on a review of implementation
of its Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental
Effects; of a business NGO, BP-Amoco, which outlined its emissions
trading system; and of the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives on a methodology to attain a cost-effective
approach to GHG reduction. The last-mentioned presentation emphasized
the need for more involvement of local government in policy-making,
especially in emissions analysis, monitoring and reporting.
18. The chairs of the workings groups reported to the plenary on the
key issues identified in the presentations and the discussions in
each of the groups. The ensuing discussion helped to better identify
several generic issues, which emerged from the discussions in each
group, such as the preference for the "good practice" concept (rather
than "best practices"); the importance of national circumstances; the
value of sharing information; the possible next steps in advancing
work on policies and measures; the challenges of the Kyoto Protocol
commitments and the need to find cost-effective solutions to
implement them; and the need to improve the data quality and
transparency of methodologies, in order to make the assessment of
policies and measures more comparable.
19. The panel discussion was chaired by Mr. Steen Gade (Denmark). The
panelists reinforced most of the key messages which had emerged from
the earlier discussions and outlined possible approaches as to how to
advance further the work on policies and measures in general, and on
"best practices" in policies and measures in particular.
20. The discussion on the concept of "best practices" suggested that
countries are approaching it from different angles and see its
potential usefulness in different contexts, i.e. national and
international. It also suggested that countries are taking initial
steps to better define this concept with a view to using it in the
future to advance the work on policies and measures. In this context,
a preference was expressed for the concept of "good practice" rather
than "best practice". The "best fit" concept was also mentioned as
being of more relevance than that of "best practice". "Good practice"
appeared more relevant in the international context, while "best
practice"could be to a large extent country specific. "Best practice"
could also be a useful concept in those areas where a more
cooperative and coordinated approach at the regional and
international level could be relevant.
21. The importance of national circumstances in defining "good
practices" in the international context was a recurrent theme
throughout the discussion. Because of difference in these
circumstances, the approaches to designing and implementing policies,
even when they are similar, vary from one country to another. Such
approaches have been successful and have helped to achieve
significant emission reductions when they were tailored to countries'
circumstances. At the national level, the circumstances differ among
different sectors and regions, and according to the different policy
instruments used. As a result, a common analytical framework appeared
necessary, which could help define criteria that take into account
these disparities and add them to the criteria for "good practices".
At the same time, some of the national circumstances outlined in the
discussion included elements such as behavioural and institutional
ones, which could change when the barriers to the implementation of
policies need to be removed. In addition, the "best practices" could
be approached methodologically in such a way as to reduce, when
possible, the effect of national circumstances.
22. All participants recognized the value of sharing information and
of using the "learning by doing" approach in helping countries to
enhance the effectiveness of their domestic policies. They stressed
the importance of propagating good and innovative ideas, approaches
and practices within and among countries. For such sharing of
information to be of added value, it needed to be coherent (i.e. to
occur within an agreed methodological framework) and transparent
(i.e. any deviations from cost-effectiveness and environmental
effectiveness would be explained).
23. Parties face significant challenges in meeting their commitments
under the Kyoto Protocol; finding cost-effective solutions to meet
these challenges is essential. The cost-effectiveness of policies and
measures is therefore considered to be a very
important criterion for "good practices", along with
environmental effectiveness in terms of GHG emissions saved and
ancillary benefits, including, inter alia, benefits across
different sectors, and benefits to the environment other then climate
change mitigation.
24. Other important criteria encompass consistency with other
national policy goals (e.g. employment improvement), widespread
political, public and cultural acceptability; simplicity of
implementation; equity and perception of fairness (e.g. readiness to
sacrifice, providing that others do the same). Financial and
environmental additionality were also viewed as criteria which could
define "good practice" policies, as well as the requirement that
these policies contribute to the promotion of technological
innovation; are integrated (i.e. addressing issues from different
angles); are inclusive (i.e. incorporate key stakeholders, such as
industry and local governments); are flexible and dynamic (so as to
permit an update of their targets should circumstances change); and
minimize adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on
developing countries.
25. Specifically for fluorinated gases, along with the criteria
relevant to "best practices" for policies and measures concerning
other gases, the "comprehensive approach" was considered as an
important criterion: meaning that HFC, PFC and SF6
reductions should not be offset by a decrease in energy efficiency.
Other important criteria for these gases such as "health and safety"
have to be taken into account. These criteria could be of relevance
for policies concerning emissions of GHGs other than the industrial
gases.
26. Not only did the sets of criteria used to define "good practices"
vary from country to country, but also the priority given to these
criteria varied. For example, some countries expressed a preference
for environmental effectiveness over cost-effectiveness and vice
versa. Establishing a common set of criteria for "good practices" and
a hierarchy of these criteria could be very difficult at this stage
in the absence of further methodological work, as comparisons across
countries, sectors and policy instruments cannot readily be made.
27. It is almost impossible to define at national level a single
policy, which in itself would provide a solution to a country's
challenges regarding climate change. Countries use broad portfolios
of policies and measures, which are, in general, country specific and
encompass, inter alia, economic, fiscal and regulatory
instruments, voluntary agreements, information, education and
research. These portfolios could be considered as "best practice" if
in addition to individual policies being designed properly, the
optimum mix of policy instruments and the best synergy between them
is sought: this would maximize the effect of their
implementation.
28. In the discussions about the design and implementation of
individual policies, it was noted that fiscal policies should aim to
remove market imperfections, with the underlying aim of achieving the
GHG emissions reduction objectives. For example, in the energy
sector, taxes should be based on the carbon content of the different
sources of energy and prices should internalize the environmental
externalities associated with each energy source. An example of "good
practice" using these instruments is the Norwegian carbon tax. For
countries with economies in transition, removing market imperfections
in the energy sector could be of special relevance as in all of them
energy was subsidized in the past and it continues to be subsidized
in many of them at present.
29. The most frequently used approach to address fluorinated gases
encompasses voluntary, regulatory and fiscal instruments and their
combination. Voluntary agreements also appeared to be a frequently
used policy instrument in the energy and industrial sectors. These
agreements have proved to work well in some cases, for example in the
Netherlands, but it was suggested that, in general, they may not
bring the emission reductions expected because of problems associated
with their monitoring.
30. Establishing a common reporting framework on "good practice"
policies and measures could intensify the process of sharing
information and learning from the experience of other Parties, and
could improve the transparency of the assessment of policies and
measures. This reporting framework could include common evaluation
criteria for "good practices". It was noted that the new guidelines
for the preparation of national communications adopted by the COP at
its fifth session, in their part on policies and measures, could be
used as a tool for sharing such information. However, these
guidelines do not refer explicitly to "good practices". Additions to
these guidelines could be considered in the appropriate forums, for
example in the course of discussions on Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the
Kyoto Protocol, covering, among other subjects, specific evaluation
criteria and indicators, with a view to reporting on these additions
before 2005.
31. Technology transfer was mentioned as an important vehicle for
encouraging steps to control GHG emissions in developing countries,
and several participants expressed an interest in participating in
the capacity-building framework with developing countries and
countries with economies in transition. Comprehensive presentations
from the developing countries and their statements during the
workshop confirmed that developed countries do not necessarily have
all the answers on policies and measures, and that the exchange of
information and sharing of experience will benefit from a more active
participation of developing countries. Moreover, these presentations
demonstrated that some developing countries are taking successful
steps to address climate change. Countries with economies in
transition have a great potential for energy saving and emission
reductions. This potential could be realized, inter alia, by
implementing capacity-building activities in areas such as public
awareness and institutional strengthening.
32. The energy sector and especially improvements in energy
efficiency were areas where most of the cost-effective solutions to
problems of climate change have been sought and found. Energy market
liberalization and the promotion of market reform were given as
examples of "good practices" in the energy sector, e.g in the United
Kingdom. Renewable energy and energy efficiency in industry,
households and commercial sectors were also important areas for
policy interventions, particularly for interventions associated with
"good practices". There is widespread support for renewable energy in
spite of the higher cost compared to conventional energy. There is
also support for CHP and, in a few countries, for nuclear power.
33. The concept of "best practices" in energy supply and
transformation has been linked to several innovative and
comprehensive approaches. Denmark, for example, is among the
countries which have developed and prepared to launch a comprehensive
certificate market, including green certificates for electricity
supply from renewable sources, as part of its green electricity
reform. The aim of this reform is to double the share of electricity
produced from renewables to 20 per cent by 2003. The market is
envisaged to expand to the regional level, as a pilot scheme
involving five EC member States is due to be launched shortly.
34. As part of Australia's greenhouse gas abatement strategy, a
measure has been taken to achieve movement towards "best practice" in
the efficiency of power generation from fossil fuels and to reduce
the greenhouse gas intensity of energy supply. Performance standards
were set for individual plants and the performance of plants is
audited by a third party at least once every five years. However,
differences in the efficiency of plants due to their location were
noted as an example of how local circumstances may affect "best
practices".
35. An example given by Egypt demonstrated an approach to reconcile
the objectives of climate change measures with sustainable
development. As a result of a comprehensive review of the energy
production sector, a number of measures have been taken within the
framework of a national energy and environment strategy with
implications for GHG emissions reduction. These measures include:
phasing-out of energy subsidies, promotion of renewable sources,
improvement of energy efficiency, restructuring of the electricity
sector and regional cooperation.
36. In the Netherlands, long-term voluntary agreements between
industry and the central government are likely to produce a 20 per
cent improvement in energy efficiency between 1989 and 2000. The
industrial sectors involved in such agreements report yearly on the
results of energy efficiency monitoring. The Dutch Organization for
Energy and Environment (NOVEM) has played a vital facilitative role:
it finances an inventory of options, assists in preparing plans for
individual companies, and helps with monitoring and research and
development activities. Monitoring of implementation is crucial to
ensure credibility of voluntary agreements. Energy efficiency
benchmarking is envisaged as a next step.
37. As a main objective of "good practice" policies and measures in
transport, households and commercial sectors the need to influence
the structure of incentives for consumers and producers was
emphasized, as this could enable them to fulfil their needs in the
most energy-efficient and cost-effective way, based on the expected
market outcome within the context of the specific national
circumstances. This objective is relevant to other sectors as
well.
38. Several approaches to formulating policies and measures have been
deemed successful in transport, households and commercial sectors by
different countries. The use of empirical evidence from historical
data has proved useful in estimating more precisely the effectiveness
of planned policies and measures, an example being the United States
experience in assessing the net benefits of adopting fuel-efficiency
standards. Similarly, transferring successful measures from one
sector to another, such as applying the experience gained in
appliance labelling to the current vehicle labelling programme in
Denmark, has also been shown to be a useful strategy. Other good
approaches include efficiency benchmarking through setting targets
established by the product with the highest energy efficiency within
each product class, such as Japan's "Top Runner" programme.
Partnership programmes between the different stakeholders have been
considered successful by some countries, such as the Building America
programme for sustainable households in the United States, which
involves a private/public partnership that enhances widespread
acceptance, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility to provide for
customization and to respond to feedback.
39. While the examples of "good practice" policies and measures for
non-CO2 gases from energy, industry, agriculture, forestry
and waste are not yet as numerous as for other gases and sectors,
some have emerged recently. The absence of presentations on
agriculture and forestry policies and measures does not imply that no
good practices exist in these areas. It was suggested that carbon
sequestration should be considered in the "best practices" discussion
and a reference was made to the ongoing work on these sectors at
various forums, e.g. IPCC and the G8 Environmental Futures Forum
2000.
40. In establishing approaches to selecting, monitoring and
evaluating "good practice" policies and measures, synergies among
policies are an important factor. Due to these synergies
and, especially, given that in many cases multiple measures may
affect a single output, an assessment of the effect of specific "good
practices" is not always possible. In addition, several stakeholders
could be involved and behavioural change could influence this output,
but these effects are difficult to capture. These synergies impose
additional challenges in terms of the institutional coordination as
well as the evaluation of such policies. Moreover, the analytical
capacity to measure and model the full impacts and benefits of a
specific "good practice" policy or group of such policies is
important.
41. In assessing, when possible, the actual performance of a specific
policy or programme, the importance of using policy-specific
evaluation methodologies, including ex ante and ex post evaluation,
was emphasized. Such an approach not only helps to ensure that the
policies are on track to achieve their objectives, but also provides
very useful insights into the performance of specific technology
markets and individual programmes.
42. Using economic, energy and environmental indicators as one
possible approach for selecting, monitoring and evaluating "good
practice" policies and measures was discussed in detail. Different
sets of indicators have been used by countries for different
purposes in different policy areas, including for the formulation and
implementation of energy and environmental policy. These include
aggregated and disaggregated indicators. The experience gained so far
suggests that disaggregated indicators are more useful for policy
making within countries, including for monitoring and assessment of
policies, than aggregated macroeconomic indicators. The disaggregated
indicators may be deemed useful for comparison of energy use and
associated GHG emissions across countries, but such comparison should
be done very cautiously. However, the international application of
indicators for monitoring and assessment of GHG mitigation policies
is a new area. Participants expressed divergent
views on this application and stressed that much work needs to be
done to obtain reliable results from the use of indicators in an
international context.
43. The experience of using indicators suggests that they may
significantly enhance the ability of countries to assess the effect
of a mix of policies and measures influencing a certain output, for
example car efficiency being influenced by taxes, incentives and
voluntary agreements. At a more aggregated level, i.e. at the
sectoral and national levels, the emission inventory appears as the
appropriate tool to prove that the sectoral and national emissions
are within the targets set.
44. Indicators appear to be a useful tool for setting
national and sectoral goals in policy development, and in monitoring
the implementation of policies. Monitoring the implementation of
policies can provide useful information on whether or not these
policies are on track to deliver the effect expected. In this
context, indicators could also be employed to show that by 2005 the
Annex I countries are demonstrating progress in achieving their
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3.2). Developing
countries could use indicators in the areas of environmental impact
assessment of energy consumption and the implementation of the clean
development mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol. In terms of
monitoring, the performance of different policies is specific to
different countries; this is difficult to capture by means of
indicators only and needs complementary approaches, e.g.
policy-specific methodologies, referred to in paragraph 42 above.
45. The need to improve data quality, data comparability and
transparency of methodologies was acknowledged. This could yield a
better understanding of the assessments of policies and measures
among countries and enhance the comparability of such assessments. It
could facilitate both the exchange of experience and the setting of
climate change policy, and could help to address some underlying
difficulties in assessing the secondary impacts and benefits of
certain policies. It could also enable indicators to be used for
monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of mitigation policies.
46. Sharing information and exchanging experience on policies and
measures is vital for cooperation among countries, to enhance the
individual and combined effectiveness of their policies and measures.
There seems to be support for launching a process for the periodic
sharing of experience and exchange of information, including through
workshops and other meetings, which could enable each country to
benefit from what other countries consider to be successful examples
of "best practice" policies and measures. This
process should be coherent and transparent. Creating a clearing-house
mechanism and database with information on "good practices" or "best
practices", open to all countries, could be an element of this
process. The process could benefit from the more active participation
of non-Annex I countries in it.
47. International organizations with relevant experience could
support this process and these workshops from a methodological point
of view. These include, among others the IEA, OECD, United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP).
48. Possible topics for future meetings could include, but would not
be limited to: "best practice" policies and measures in sectors which
did not receive enough attention during this workshop, such as
agriculture and forestry as well as in the sectors addressed during
this workshop; establishment of framework criteria to define "good
practices"; use of indicators and other methodological approaches,
including policy-specific approaches for selecting, monitoring and
evaluating "good practices" in policies and measures at national and
international level; use of methods for emission projection; and data
availability, quality and consistency.
49. Particularly with regard to sharing of information on fluorinated
gases, it was suggested that ways should be found of pulling together
existing information in order to make it more easily accessible. In
this context it would also be important to identify possible gaps in
current data collection, and possible links that need to be made with
regard to the Montreal Protocol. There is also a need for further
research and development on new technologies, alternatives and
substitutes for fluorinated gases.
50. Further work on better defining the concepts of "best practice"
and "good practice" in policies and measures, and the most
appropriate analytical framework and context for consideration of
these practices appeared important. This work could also cover the
approaches to assessment of "good practices" or "best practices" at a
national level and ways to use, and, where appropriate, to extend
these approaches to an international level. It could extend also to
further defining the criteria which characterize "good practices", in
order to improve the understanding of countries as to why a specific
policy has been considered better than other policies, and should
enhance the comparability of these practices. In terms of policy
instruments, interest was expressed in further work and sharing
experience on the use of market-type instruments, including,
inter alia, taxes and emissions trading as part of the
national policy package. Such further work could be very useful given
that currently many countries are designing new climate-driven
policies largely using such market-type instruments, while policies
with impact on GHG emissions in the past were not climate driven.
51. An improvement is needed in data, methodologies and analytical
capacity for countries to select, monitor and evaluate policies and
measures, including "best practice" policies and measures, and to
allow for a more fruitful sharing of information on policies and
measures with a view to replicating such practices. This is
valid for all sectors, but is of utmost importance for fluorinated
gases, as countries are in the early stages of developing policies
for these gases.
52. There could be further exploration of possible areas where
regional or international cooperation could be beneficial and of
added value, and "good practices" could be identified. Examples of
such possible areas include application of an international aviation
tax, and removal of barriers to achieving
emission reductions in specific sectors which are similar across
countries, and could be addressed in a similar, or coordinated
manner. Other examples include controlling emissions of fluorinated
gases through voluntary agreements, construction and heating of
buildings in cold countries, construction and air-conditioning of
buildings in hot countries, energy efficiency of household
appliances, fuel economy of new vehicles, territorial planning aimed
at reducing commuting, and the use of renewables for electrification
of rural areas.
Day 1: Tuesday, 11 April 2000
Morning session (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.)
PLENARY SESSION
(With presentations)
Welcoming addresses
Mr. Svend Auken, Minister for Environment and Energy/Denmark and
Ms. Dominique Voynet, Minister for Environment/France
Objectives of the workshop
Ms. Claire Parker/ UNFCCC
Policies and measures as a tool to achieve the objectives of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Bert Metz/ IPCC
Climate change responses:
"Good practices" in policies and measures
Mr. Jonathan Pershing/ IEA and OECD
Main conclusions of the G8 Environmental Futures Forum 2000 on
domestic best practices addressing climate change in G8 countries,
held in Japan in February 2000
Mr. Ryutaro Yatsu/ Japan
Afternoon session (2 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.)
PARALLEL SESSIONS ON NATIONAL
PROGRAMMES AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
(With presentations)
NATIONAL PROGRAMMES
The UK climate change programme and examples of best practice
Ms. Gabrielle Edwards/ United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Best practices in policies and measures in Poland
Prof. Maciej Sadowski/ Poland
Good practice in policies and measures for combating climate change in the context of national circumstances
Mr. John Lowe/ Canada
Australian greenhouse gas abatement programme
Ms. Gwen Andrews/ Australia
Best practices for policies and measures in the Republic of Bulgaria
Ms. Daniela I. Stoytcheva/ Bulgaria
Legislative framework and coordination mechanism
Mr. Ryutaro Yatsu/ Japan
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
EU common and coordinated policies and measures:
A way towards best practices
Ms. Marianne Wenning/ European Commission
The implementation of Article 2.1a(v) of the Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Mohammed Al Sabban/ Saudi Arabia
Steps taken in the Brazilian energy and transportation sectors that contribute to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC
Mr. Haroldo de Oliveira Machado Filho/ Brazil
CO2 taxes and domestic emissions trading in Norway
Mr. Peer Stiansen/ Norway
NGO perspective of best practices policies and measures to reduce domestic greenhouse gases
Ms. Kimiko Hirata/ Climate Action Network
Day 2: Wednesday, 12 April 2000
Morning session (9 a.m. to 1 a.m.)
PARALLEL SESSIONS IN WORKING GROUPS BY SECTORS
(With presentations)
BEST PRACTICES IN POLICIES AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS CO2 EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY SUPPLY AND INDUSTRY
Good practice policies in energy supply:
Lessons from the experience of the OECD countries
Mr. Gene McGlynn/ OECD
The green electricity market in Denmark:
Quotas, certificates and international trade
Mr. Ole Odgaard/ Denmark
Efficiency standards for power generation in Australia
Ms. Gwen Andrews/ Australia
Conditions underlying the development and implementation of "best practice" policies and measures in the U.S. industrial sector
Mr. Jeff Dowd/ United States
Twenty per cent improvement of the energy-efficiency in industry:
Why long term agreements have worked in the Netherlands
Mr. Okko van Aardenne/ the Netherlands
Irish Self-Audit Scheme
Ms. Majella Kelleher/ Ireland
CO2 reduction linked to increase energy efficiency in the Egyptian power sector
Mr. Maher Aziz Bedrous/ Egypt
BEST PRACTICES IN THE POLICIES AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS CO2 EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORT, HOUSEHOLDS AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS
CO2 emission trends and reduction opportunities in transport, households and commercial sectors
Mr. Lew Fulton and Mr. Fridtjof Unander/ IEA
Policies and measures in the transport sector in Japan
Mr. Jotaro Horiuchi/ Japan
Transport-relevant policies and measures:
U.S. Experience
Mr. Kevin Green/ United States
Why labelling is a good measure for CO2 reduction in the transport sector
Ms. Britt Wendelboe/ Denmark
Examination of best practice policies and measures in the U.S. buildings sector
Mr. James R. Powell/ United States
Top Runner Programme
Mr. Jun Arima/ Japan
BEST PRACTICES IN POLICIES AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS EMISSIONS OF NON-CO2 GASES FROM ENERGY, INDUSTRY, AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND WASTE
Towards best practices in policies and measures to prevent or limit emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6
Dr. Leo Meyer/ the Netherlands
The Danish proposal for regulation of the three industrial gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6
Mr. Frank Jensen/ Denmark
U.S. voluntary approaches to reduce fluorocarbon and methane emissions
Ms. Sally Rand and Dina Kruger/ United States
N2O - PFC reductions in France
Mr. Christophe Ewald/ France
Waste management in Austria - GHG mitigation effects of the landfill regulation
Mr. Christopher Lamport/ Austria
Afternoon session (2 p.m. to 6 p.m.)
PARALLEL SESSIONS IN WORKING GROUPS ON METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF BEST PRACTICES
(With presentations)
INDICATORS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF POLICIES AND MEASURES; APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING AGGREGATED AND DIS-AGGREGATED INDICATORS
The IEA energy indicators effort: Applications on the road from Kyoto
Mr. Lee Schipper/ IEA
Energy efficiency indicators in Asia Pacific region:
Initial efforts towards their use as policy instruments
Dr. Yonghun Jung/ Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre
Impact of energy efficiency policies:
What can be learned from indicators
Dr. Didier Bosseboeuf and Dr. Bruno Lapillonne/ France
Methodological framework for the evaluation of policies and measures:
The case of renewables, CHP and energy efficiency in Portugal
Prof. Júlia Seixas and Ms. Sandra Martinho/ Portugal
METHODOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF BEST PRACTICES IN POLICIES AND MEASURES ; APPROACHES FOR THE SELECTION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF POLICIES AND MEASURES, INCLUDING EX-ANTE AND EX-POST EVALUATION
Implementing the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and related environmental aspects: A way to achieving the Kyoto targets
Dr. Tudor Constantinescu/ Energy Charter Secretariat
Experiences with the Danish CO2-tax scheme for industry and the commercial sector and its evaluation
Ms. Lisbeth Nielsen/ Denmark
Ex-post evaluation of energy measures in Switzerland
Mr. Thomas Bürki/ Switzerland
Policies and measures in the Russian Federation
Mr. Valery Sedyakin/ Russian Federation
Climate change policies in the Netherlands:
Analysis and selection
Ms. Merrilee Bonney/ the Netherlands
Practical findings from the BP-Amoco audit and verification process for GHG emissions
Ms. Susie Baverstock/ BP Amoco
Strategic framework for quantifying, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting local greenhouse gas emissions reductions
Mrs. Virginia Sonntag-O'Brien/
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
Day 3: Thursday, 13 April 2000
Morning session (9 a.m. to 12 a.m.)
PLENARY SESSION
Reports from the chairs of the working groups and discussion
Afternoon session (1 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
PLENARY SESSION AND CLOSURE
Concluding panel discussion on the lessons learned and the process forward
Closing remarks