VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ACTION PROGRAMME

1
VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL
ACTION PROGRAMME

• Presentation to the Workshop
• Impacts of the International
• Renewable Energy Policy Process
• Paris, 13 and 14 December 2006
• Paul H. Suding, Philippe Lempp

2
Content of Presentation

• International Action Programme (3)
• IAP follow up procedure, response (4-10)
• IAP follow up implementation status (11-16)
• Impacts of IAP (17)
• Features of IAP-type commitments (18)
• Feasibility, quality, costs of IAP (19)
• Merits of IAP and open questions (20-22)
• Conclusion (23)

3
International Action Programme

• Major outcome of the International Conference for
  Renewable Energies, held in Bonn in June 2004
  (renewables 2004)
• 197 concrete commitments for developing RE
• Submitted by all participating stakeholder groups
  (governments, IGOs, civil society, private
  sector)
• Voluntary commitments to goals and targets by
  Actors within their own spheres of responsibility

4
IAP Follow Up Procedure

• REN21 mandated by the Bonn conference conveners
  to carry out follow up
• Self-reporting by actors through a simple
  submission format
• Principle of voluntary reporting, encouraged by
• Frequent interaction with partners (verification
  of contacts)
• Real time disclosure on website
• Printed interim publications for wide audience
• Newsletters
• Opportunity to showcase good examples
• Result project database of best practices

5
IAP Follow Up Response Rates

• March 17 begin of follow up
• April 27 42
• June 1 (2nd anniversary) 56
• October 15 69 (135 responses)
• Expected maximum 70

6
IAP Follow Up Response Structure

• Balanced structure of responses
• Most regions of origin (of leading Partner) and
  target regions (where Action is implemented) are
  represented
• All types of actors showed strong participation
  (e.g. governments, IGOs, NGOs, research,
  industry, finance)
• Responses received for all types of actions (e.g.
  policies, deployment, RD, financing)
• Result The sample of responses received can be
  considered fairly representative for all of the
  Actions put forward in the IAP

7
IAP Follow Up Response Structure Actor origin
region
8
IAP Follow Up Response Structure Target region
9
IAP Follow Up Response Structure Lead Actor type
10
IAP Follow Up Response Structure Type of Action
11
IAP Follow Up Implementation Status

• Encouraging results
• Most (79) reports show that the commitments are
  being or have been implemented. They are either
  completed (15) or underway (64)
• Others are still under preparation (16)
• 2 actions not yet begun
• Only 4 of reported commitments have been
  abandoned

12
IAP Follow Up Implementation Status Target
Region
13
IAP Follow Up Implementation Status Lead Actor
Type
14
IAP Follow Up Implementation Status Type of
Action
15
IAP Follow Up Implementation Status Policies (1)

• 2 categories of policies distinguished Those
  that deal with the regulatory framework and those
  that use economic incentives
• Both reporting and implementation better for
  regulatory framework Actions
• gt reflects recent trends, which favour
• general targets combined with programmes
• specific market quota often combined with public
  bidding, and feed-in laws
• Purely fiscal measures that rely on taxes or
  subsidies are becoming less common

16
IAP Follow Up Implementation Status Policies (2)

• Cross analysis quite a number of deployment,
  capacity development and financing Actions are
  taken by governments gt Therefore they are policy
  Actions in a wider sense
• Multiple category also contains cases of
  policies in the narrower sense (e.g. in Pakistan
  and Egypt targets are set together with
  investment programmes which help achieve them).
• The feedback yields encouraging results regarding
  the implementation of national RE policies Many
  countries not only usual suspects are
  implementing RE targets of various types Egypt,
  Uganda, France, UK, Czech Republic, Turkey, Iran,
  Pakistan, China, Japan, Australia, New Zeeland,
  Pacific Islands.

17
Impacts of IAP

• Estimated impacts of the IAP implementation as a
  whole (content study 2005 Öko Institute)
• additional 163 GW capacity from RE by 2015
• this corresponds to investments of USD 326
  billion
• estimated CO2 reduction of 1.2 billion ton/annum
  in 2015
• access to energy to a large number of people by
  2015
• Forthcoming Updated study based on IAP follow up

18
IAP features vs. other commitments

• IAP-type commitments a third way between
• multilaterally agreed binding targets
• unspecific declarations of intent / exchange of
  lessons learnt
• Evade lengthy negotiations (risk of failure or
  insignificance)
• Initiative of one government, outside UN
• Flexible complement to formal institutions
  procedures
• Accountability through peer group and public
  exposure
• Multi-stakeholder deal that goes beyond
  governments
• Individual, measurable, impact-oriented
  commitments
• Bottom-up approach (leading then to a common goal)

19
Feasibility, quality, cost

• IAP not all-embracing, but proved feasibility
  of a considerable catalogue of far-reaching
  commitments with enormous scope and impact.
• IAP was established in a short period of time
  without requiring negotiations gt very low
  transaction costs
• Monitoring proved possible at reasonable cost. To
  the surprise of many, the follow-up was straight
  forward!

20
Merits and questions to be discussed in the
Workshop (1)

• Commitments programmes can be the most important
  outcome of international conferences.
• Association to a visible event important!
• Supports timely submission and meaningful content
  of commitments
• Creates incentives to present something catalyst
• Opportunity to announce national RE programmes
  amplifier
• Opportunity to seize interest and external
  support
• Renders the event itself more effective
• Additionality is a challenge delineation
  difficult in case of IAP How can additionality
  be ensured?

21
Merits and questions to be discussed in the
Workshop (2)

• Catalogue programme more than the sum of its
  pieces
• Mutual assurance You are not alone gt silent
  agreement increases readiness to submit
  courageous measures
• Mutual support Actions often interdependent,
  require synergies to work
• Mutual encouragement monitoring (internal and
  external) prolongs the mutual assurance and
  support

22
Merits and questions to be discussed in the
Workshop (3)

• IAP Action catalogue is a Reference
• for policies and programmes to be expected in
  near future
• Online presentation exposes good
  practices/successful policies
• Exchange of experience provides basis for new
  partnerships to be forged between Actors with
  related projects
• and may inspire further Action by other Actors.
• Information for investors, consultants,
  researchers (IAP pages on website visited 3000
  times/month during follow up)
• Opportunities for anyone to follow Action
  development may increase Actors perseverance,
  preventing slow death
• Successful IAP monitoring established a reference
  methodology, can be applied in further
  international policy processes related to RE or
  beyond.

23
Conclusion the way forward!

• Meaningful binding agreements often hard or
  impossible to achieve. Voluntary commitments are
  the politically feasible alternative.
• Positive experiences made, and reporting system
  in place gt this kind of policy-motivation
  recommends itself for the future, calling for
  further rounds of commitments.
• Focus should be on policy commitments, the other
  Actions to follow as a result.

24
Thanks for your attention!

• Paul H. Suding, Philippe Lempp
• www.ren21.net