Suchergebnisse

Nombreux sont les achoppements entre hémisphères sur l'enjeu climatique, trop longtemps découplé de celui du développement. En cause : un multilatéralisme tronqué et des mécanismes financiers internationaux obsolètes.

A temporary gap is generated by the difference between the Social Value of Mitigation Activities (SVMA) and implementable carbon prices. A spectrum of options are available to handle this. These options encompass policy instruments that give different weights to 'command and control' measures and to economic incentives. We analyze here how to combine an explicit carbon price that rewards mitigation activities every year and a notional price embedded in devices that reward low carbon investments beforehand through lowering their risk-weighted capital costs.The latter option is essential in order to hedge against two uncertainties that adversely affect technologies having high capital costs1. The first relates to technologies which are at the beginning or mid-way of their experience curve. The second relates to the net signal launched by explicit carbon prices given the presence of noises that swamp it. We first illustrate, based on five case studies, the equivalence curves between carbon prices and percentages of reduction of capital costs. We argue then that a notional price equated to the SVMA can maximize the economic efficiency of financial devices that reduce the capital costs of a low carbon project and we discuss the necessity of a world SVMA and of national SVMAs. We then introduce uncertainty in the analysis and show that contingent risks theoretically need carbon prices to grow to a level well beyond their political acceptability. Reducing the risk-weighted capital costs and rewarding upfront low-carbon investments at the present value of the SVMA is an efficient way of overcoming these barriers.Finally, we show, in the case of India, how to assess a national SVMA that includes the climate benefits and the development co-benefits of mitigation activities. We then discuss how to articulate a World SVMA (paragraph 108 of the Paris Decision), national SVMAs and explicit carbon prices (in line with NDCs) to bridge the funding gap, tackle the '100G$ and +' issue, and maximize the gains of cooperation around climate policies.

In light of the ongoing international discussions about the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action concept, this study takes instead a more 'bottom-up' approach through a comparative analysis of five studies of mitigation actions (MAs) in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and South Africa. The analysis shows that MAs are driven by both developmental and climate objectives. The character, scope, policy horizon and potential success of an action are closely linked to the developmental path of countries such that MAs that directly address poverty and development seem to have a better chance of being implemented since they address issues higher on the policy agenda of developing countries. Where international support is sought, all five countries have some existing measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) and technical competence capacity that can be built upon. The choice of MAs is evidently linked to institutional capacity (both for design and implementation of MAs and possible MRV), emissions profile and the relative resource endowments of countries. The policy environments – from highly planned to less coordinated – and time-horizons – from 4-year plans to 40-year scenarios – differ substantially between the countries. Thus, the comparative analysis underscores the diversity of possible MAs and capabilities and the concomitant need for flexibility in definition, design and implementation.