Title: An introduction to technology-oriented agreements
1An introduction to technology-oriented agreements
- Heleen de Coninck (ECN/IVM)
- ECN side-event COP13 December 7th, 2007
2Background status post-2012
- Agreement to agree. But on what?
- EU continues on cap-and-trade track
- United States might not sign up to an
international carbon cap - US Congress difficulty to agree on meaningful
climate act - US Senate not favourable to cap-and-trade
(filibustering) - Emerging economies no strict commitments
- A post-2012 treaty a la Kyoto with broad Annex-I
participation unlikely - Complex patchwork of treaties more conducive,
including cap-and-trade, sectoral and technology
agreements - Question
- What can we expect from sectoral and technology
agreements?
3Alternative or complement to cap-and-trade?
- Disinterest in cap-and-trade can be explained for
countries with low climate change impacts and
high mitigation costs - Provision of a global public good free-rider
incentives - Sectoral agreements (IEA, Pew Center) and TOAs
might provide participation incentives - Predictable costs
- Innovation market failure
- Potentially smaller number of parties (club good)
- Interests of current technology leaders
(first-mover advantage) - and large developing countries (targeted and more
effective technology transfer)
4Context and forms of TOAs
- International agreements that are aimed at
advancing specific technologies - Four types
- Knowledge sharing and coordination
- Research, development and demonstration
- Technology transfer
- Technology mandates, standards and incentives
5Context and forms of TOAs
Type 1 Knowledge sharing and coordination Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and the International Platform on the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE) Methane to Markets Partnership (M2M) Task sharing within IEA Implementing Agreements (IEA-IA) Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) Energy Star bilateral agreements
Type 2 RDD European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) ITER fusion reactor Cost sharing within IEA Implementing Agreements (IEA-IA) The Solvent Refined Coal II Demonstration Project (SRC-II)
Type 3 Technology transfer Multilateral Fund under the Montreal Protocol Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Type 4 Technology incentives, mandates, standards International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) European Union Renewables Directive
6Context and forms of TOAs - conclusions
- Knowledge sharing and coordination, and RDD
(Types 1 and 2) not environmentally effective on
their own, but can be useful for low-cost or
underdeveloped technologies - Technology transfer agreements (Type 3) can be
effective if substantial funds committed, but
unlikely to be sufficient in scope on their own - Technology incentives, mandates and standards
(Type 4) can be environmentally effective on
their own, although in most cases less
cost-effective than cap-and-trade approaches
7Context and forms of TOAs - conclusions
- Type-4 agreements may be more effective for
- Sectors with significant ancillary benefits
- Highly trade-sensitive sectors
- Sectors not covered by cap-and-trade systems
- Sectors that might benefit from international
coordination
8Conclusions
- Technology-oriented agreements can take many
forms and can be appealing for different reasons,
e.g. more manageable number of actors, greater
cost predictability, innovation benefits, large
emission reductions - It makes sense to explore TOAs, as they may offer
political advantages - However, global cost-effectiveness and simplicity
of one global cap-and-trade are sacrificed - In order to be environmentally effective, TOAs
should primarily be aimed at technological
implementation (Type-4) - It is possible to pursue such agreements without
straying from the cap-and-trade track
9Thank you
- More information and report copies
- Heleen de Coninck
- Energy research Centre of the Netherlands
- Unit Policy Studies
- Radarport 60/P.O.Box 56890
- 1040 AW Amsterdam
- deconinck_at_ecn.nl
- Tel. 31-224-564316