Title: Doing GHG Mitigation in the South - co-benefits from hands-on learning-by-doing experiences
1Doing GHG Mitigation in the South - co-benefits
from hands-on learning-by-doing experiences
- Panel Socio-economic aspects of mitigation
- Steve Thorne SouthSouthNorth Regional
Co-ordinator Sub-Saharan Africa and Director
Technological Receptivity - SBSTA Plenary 23rd May 2005 Bonn
2Points of departure for CDM
- SD and CDM CDM is the first trading mechanism
insisting on SD article 12 of KP assist Parties
not included in Annex 1 in achieving SD and
contributing to the ultimate objective of the
Convention. - SD Race to the bottom? Parties have by-and-large
raced to the bottom in applying SD requirements
through DNA (stringent SD should not be a barrier
to FDI)? - Low hanging fruit large quantities of low-cost
emissions reductions from industrial chemicals
and methane reduction crowding out high SD CO2
projects.
3Doing GEF in the South
- SSN used maximum SD benefits as the starting
point to maximise benefits to the South. - The GEF mitigation projects in Africa
by-and-large are renewable energy with some
efficiency projects - The projects with which we have experience all
utilise solar energy for electricity or heat - Providing small quantities of electricity changes
QOL enormously - Small amounts of electricity can be used to
provide draft control in tobacco barns reducing
impact on indigenous forest
4Experience limited to the front end of the cycle
5First project participant
6Bellville South Reduced landfill gas to industry
replacing LSO/HFO
124000 CO2 e tonnes/year
7Lessons from a landfill
- Public sector is slow to respond to
opportunities, enable new institutions and
procure services - Public sector is not the right institution to
trade credits - Public waste management dept. is not used to
receiving income - People who live near landfills hate them and
distrust any attempt to prolong their life - Project architecture can increase SD benefits
through designing local benefits into projects
8Institutional arrangements to max SD
9Socio-economic co-benefits of Bellville
- Landfills are low hanging fruit with large
emissions reductions but few SD benefits - Few jobs created
- Reduction in particulate emissions if replacing
other fuels - Odour reduction and leachate management
- With income from CDM plus gas sales city can
comply with licensing requirements - Could mean modernisation of landfills capping
and gas management - Using private funds saves on public funding of
infrastructure that would otherwise tend to crowd
out social spending
10Kuyasa low cost housing upgrades
Insulated ceilings, solar water heaters and CFLs
reduce electricity for services
112.8 tonnes CO2/house/year
- 2.8 tonnes CO2e/house/year
- Total 6558 tonnes CO2e/year
12A community learns
- Lwandle installed 300 SWHs in hostels to homes
project upgrade in 2001
13Facilitators learned
- Projects with many beneficiaries are process
heavy but this capacity has security and
ownership co-benefits - CDM can be used to leverage funds for new energy
services, new classes of energy service and
poverty reduction (while it is a novelty) (high
hanging fruit) - CDM can avoid future emissions (current
suppressed demand for energy services)
14Accounting for Suppressed Demand
An example of space heating in low income housing
Thermal power required to reach 21oC
Outdoor ambient winters day temperature profile
Thermal energy required without insulated ceilings
Suppressed demand for thermal energy
Thermal energy required in houses with insulated
ceiling
Current level of space heating
Morning Evening
15co-benefits of Kuyasa low cost housing upgrade
- Poverty reduction New services and energy
savings - Employment creation demand management increases
employment prospects (500 plus person years for
2309 upstream and installation) - more for
maintenance - Prices and risk use of renewable energy
stabilises future fuel price and availability
uncertainties - Spill over large-scale procurement can drive
economies-of-scale in price of technologies
16co-benefits of Kuyasa low cost housing upgrade
- Building on good practice The poor are efficient
managers of energy services within the
constraints of the fuel and appliances they have
access to. The projects builds on this - Replicability 1million new low-cost houses since
1994 in SA most built without insulated
ceilings or water heaters
17(No Transcript)
18Mondi Richards Bay biomass project
Biomass replaces coal and methane avoided 122000
tonnes CO2e /year
19Socio-economic co-benefits of Mondi projects
- Prices and risk use of renewable energy
stabilises future fuel price and availability
uncertainties - Cleaner practices CDM is leveraging cleaner
practices - Branding Mondi leads in SA and sees possibility
to re-brand itself as linked to cleaner
production practices - Job creation SMME entrepreneurs jobs created in
sourcing and delivery of biomass to plant - Landfill longevity Landfill space freed up
extending its life - Replication Champion created within Mondi
20Doing CDM in the South
- CDM is not easy it requires specialists
- It results in no net emissions reductions
- It can result in a short term net increase of
emissions - CDM has very little to do with SD sadly
unless - Attracting FDI appears to be higher priority that
SD - CDM can leverage technology leapfrogging
- CDM can address poverty by improving
affordability of energy services and creating
employment on the demand side - The uncertain lifespan already slowing interest,
but is a good stick for speeding project
development - Possibilities exist for combined
mitigation-adaptation projects in future
21 Conclusions of experiences
- CDM and GEF GHG mitigation gives value to GHG
mitigation - TREC monetizes value of renewables
- Until SD given value in the market, benefits will
remain incidental rather than sought after - SD benefits could be granted monetized value
through Gold Standard if a premium is paid - CO2 projects may increase SD benefits in general
perhaps argument for a premium for CO2 or
decreased GWP of other GHGs
22Conclusions of experiences (cont.)
- SD remains merely a gate that may be shut if
undesirable projects are promoted under CDM - So can socio-economic benefits really be driven
in the CDM? Yes, but there is a need for a
mechanism that enables a sustainable development
dividend