Checks and Balances
Recap of the Multilateral Assessment Working Group Session (Part 4)
Monday marked the end of the first ever working group session of the multilateral assessment (MA) under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI). The 4-part session was divided over two days — you can read Libby’s recap of part 1 here . The meeting aimed to be a forum for transparency and knowledge sharing of national climate mitigation strategies. During the session countries presented their progress and current state of emissions reductions, followed by a Q&A period during which other party had a chance to react and assess the material. Seventeen Annex 1 parties presented their progress for multilateral review during the 4-part session: the European Union, Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United States. The remaining Annex 1 countries are tentatively scheduled to present during the next MA working group session to take place in June 2015.
In this post, I will recap the fourth part of the 4-part session that took place on Monday from 3:00–6:00 pm, during which the final three countries, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States, presented their national mitigation progress and were assessed by the other parties.
Sweden
In its own words, Sweden is “overachieving” in all areas of carbon emission reductions. The country has surpassed the EU-established greenhouse gas (GHG) targets by 15%, beat its own domestic targets, and is on track to meet the 2020 target of 40% reductions over 1990 levels. Furthermore, it aims to become emissions-neutral, i.e. zero net GHG emissions, by 2050. All the while, the country continues to maintain a strong industrial sector (20% of its economy), grow its GDP, and prosper. Sweden’s success illustrates the potential for aggressive reduction measures given the right resources and technical capacity.
Both Canada and China questioned Sweden’s approach to the land use sector, with particular attention to forestry, as it plays a notable role in the country’s overall reductions. In its response, Sweden tied the question back to fuel, noting that there is a growing use of bio-energy (i.e. biomass) to replace fossil fuels; and that while the demand for forest-based biomass is increasing, the country has been able to maintain the overall carbon sink of the forests.
Brazil asked what policies were primarily responsible for Sweden’s impressive mitigation results. Sweden noted that a carbon tax, a ban on organic materials in landfills, green certificates and various investment programs had the greatest impact.
Pakistan questioned how Sweden intends to reach the 2050 emission-neutral goal while maintaining a strong economy. Sweden noted that the government is in the process of developing a national roadmap to this end.
Switzerland
Switzerland has achieved its Kyoto Protocol target of 8% reduction relative to 1990 levels for the first commitment period (2008–2012) and is confident that it will meet the 20% reduction target for the second commitment period (2013–2020). The country notes that its current per capita GHG emissions level, 5 tonnes/capita, is about equal to the global average level — an impressive level for a developed nation with one of the world’s highest GDP per capita rankings. Unlike Sweden, the industrial sector in Switzerland is relatively small, and thus the industry-based emissions are also less significant. The majority of emissions are attributed to the transport and building sectors. Switzerland reviewed specific measures and policies that are being taken within these sectors and overall to reduce emissions: CO2 emissions legislation, policy programs, CO2 tax, and a technology fund.
Brazil brought up the fact that Switzerland has committed unconditionally to a 20% reduction target alongside a conditional target of 30%, and questioned why they are not considering the latter option. Switzerland responded that it would be ready to consider the 30% target if its conditions are met — namely that developed countries commit to comparable reduction goals and developing countries contribute according to their capabilities. China followed up by asking how Switzerland would meet this elevated goal if they were to pursue it. Switzerland noted that further reduction opportunities exist in the building and transport sectors, along with a higher CO2 tax, but conceded that a large amount of the additional reductions would have to come from international offsets — while not explicitly stated, one can assume that he was referring to the flexible mechanisms of emissions trading and carbon credits.
United States
The United States’ presentation keenly reflected the political polarization and congressional stalemate that has divided the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. federal government in recent years. The United States, represented by Rick Duke, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, spent a good portion of the presentation outlining American governmental structure and legislative process, thereby setting apart the actions that have been taken by President Obama from those that have been taken (or not taken) by Congress. He outlined the President’s Climate Action Plan, a national initiative instated by Obama in 2013 using his executive power that outlines steps to combat climate change. The plan, administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has three pillars: cut US carbon emissions, increase preparedness for impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address global climate change. Concurrent to the Climate Action Plan, the United States described the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan (CPP) that establishes CO2 limits for existing power plants, the source of nearly 40 percent of total CO2 emissions in America. In addition to the actions taken at the federal level, the United States highlighted the laudable efforts taken by states and cities that have proven to be generally more effective than federal legislation.
In terms of overall reductions, the United States had little to show, particularly following the impressive numbers presented by Sweden and Switzerland. Nevertheless, the country remains committed to reducing emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, as well as the newly announced 26–28% reduction by 2025.
South Africa poignantly noted that the United States’ target 17% reduction below 2005 levels is equivalent to a reduction of only 4.4% below 1990 levels, and that this is far from adequate. He asked how the Unites States intends to lead the global climate response with this level of commitment. The United States responded by stating that the pace of reductions has been accelerated and will continue to increase to meet the established goals in time. The UK asked its counterpart to elaborate on the CPP’s specific measures and expected quantitative impacts that will lead to the overall target 40% reduction of CO2 emissions. The U.S. noted that the projections are under development and will come as the rule is formalized. Fiji and Brazil both asked about the discrepancy in the United States methodology for calculating emissions in different sectors. The United States acknowledged the issue, noting that the different approaches did not vary results significantly, but also confirming that in the next Biennial Report the IPCC-endorsed method, that which is listed in the Fourth Assessment Report, will be used throughout all sectors.
Ending Thoughts
The MA session proved to be not just medium for knowledge sharing and transparency, but also a checkup on the status of individual countries, their progress, and their climate change ambitions. While poignant and tough questions were posed, the atmosphere was collegial. The structured format of Q&A process was restrictive time-wise, limiting how detailed the countries could get in their explanations; but at the same time, the open multilateral forum ensured that each country was held accountable for their actions and words publicly. In this way, the scrutiny of the multilateral review served as form of checks and balances for the countries presenting.
