Support of Shaping the Post Kyotot Climate Regime Workshop March, 2009 Budapest

Implications of Post Kyoto Climate Regime on Turkey

Dr. Oğuz CANİSTAÇ A.Ş.

Sysytem Development Manager

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

Milestones to Kyoto Protocol

Responsibility,

Capability,

Potential,

Post Kyoto Regime Negotiations reflections to Turkey

Agenda

Milestones to Kyoto Protocol

Turkey: is an Annex I Party (with special circumstances, which places Turkey in a situation different to that of other Annex I Countries) (Dec. 26/CP.7) Marrakech 9 November 2001

Date of Convention Ratification: 24 May 2004

National Focal Point: Ministry of Environment & Forestry

Turkey has acceded the Kyoto Protocol in 16th of Feb., 2009 by law # 5836 (expected to become a party at the end of May)

Turkey: is not an Annex B Party (has not quantified emissions target)

Australia Austria Belgium Belarus Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic

Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Ireland

Island Italy Japan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Monaco

Norway Netherlands New Zealand Poland

Portugal Romania Russian Fed. Slovakia

Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine Hungary USA

Australia Austria Belgium Belarus Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic

Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Ireland

Island Italy Japan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Monaco

Norway Netherlands New Zealand Poland

Portugal Romania Russian Fed. Slovakia

Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine Hungary USA

Although there was no extreme pressure, asisstance or encouragement to ratify the protocol and without a new sight on the differentiation of countries, Turkey has been ratified the Protocol to show her continous involvement in climate change mitigation effort within the international community.

Milestones to Kyoto Protocol

Responsibility

GHG Emissions:1

2004 : 296,6 million ton CO2-e increase compared to1990: % 742006: 331,8 million ton CO2-e increase compared to1990: % 95,1

Population:1

72,974 million (population increase speed % 1,31 per annum)

GHG per capita:2 Turkey : 4,6 ton CO2-e

World average: 7,2 ton CO2-e

OECD average: 15,0 ton CO2-e

EU-27 average: 10,4 ton CO2-e

EU-15 average: 10,7 ton CO2-e

Historical Responsibilities ?1Turkstat2EC Technical Report-2008-024

Responsibility

If Turkey would had been within the EU-29, then would be the 6th largest emitter after in turn in order Germany (1004,8), UK (652,3), Italy (567,9), France (541,3), Spain (433,3), Poland (400,5)2

2EC Technical Report-2008-024, EU 2006 GHG emissions million ton CO2-e excluding LULUCF

Capability

GDP per capita3

Turkey : 8.766 US$OECD average : 31.364 US$EU-15 average : 31.469 US$

HDI (2005) : 84th over 177 countries

3 OECD Fact Book 2008

Capability

Energy Consumption (million tonnes of oil equivalent)4

Turkey : 1,0 toe per capitaEU-27 average : 2,4 toe per capitaWorld average : 1,2 toe per capita

Electricity consumption per capita5

Turkey : 2500 KWh*EU-27 average : 6500 KWhOECD average : 8000 KWh

Electricity Reference Emission Factor: approx. 0,65[tCO2-e/MWh]

Motorization rate - cars per 1 000 inhabitants6

Turkey : 75EU-25 : 463

4 EEA: European Environment Agency 2005 data5WRI: World Research Institute6 Eurostat 2004 data* Average increase rate in primary energy demand is 6,2%per annum

Potential

Within the period between 1990 and 2006, Turkey implemented significant major shift away from carbon intensive fuels to natural gas, especially for household heating and industrial processes

Most of the realized projects can be considered measures with a co-benefit approach. However there is an analysis necessary to figure out the abatement in compare to BAU

Potential

Energy, as the most important sector is accounted 76,7% of total GHG emission having big potential.

Renewable Energy Law, dated10 May 2005, with # 5346New incentives on the Parliament agenda to boost Renewable investments

Wind, (333,5 MW in operation, 142,8 MW in construction phase, 1070 MW turbine is ordered) Solar, Biomass Nuclear Power Plant

Energy Efficiency Law, dated 18 April 2007, with # 5627 Heat isolation standard at buildings TS 825

Waste (responsible for 9,3% of total GHG emissions ,where 3% of total EU-15 GHG emission results from waste)

Potential

Privatisation efforts in energy production and distributionShifting the balance of Transport modes (i.e. increasing capacity of public transportation in cities, increasing service quality in railroad)

Turkey’s Energy Dependence on foreign sources in 2007 is 74%

Need for rapid Capacity Building, Need for international support from UNFCCC and EU, cooperation in region , Challenge for Integration of climate change policy into national/sectoral policies - Development strategies to shift low carbon economies, Need for to develop policies and measures, Need for an impact assessment and adaptation plan, Need for National communications and national climate action plans in a very short time, Need for to build up National systems for more accurate and bottom up estimation of GHG emissions (for measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments in future ), Registery system for both tracking and accounting proposes

To Do’s

The Post Kyoto Negotiations

Cold Engine Start: Need for transition phase (incl. learning by doing as the other countries did during 2002- 2009 or till 2012)

Accession to the International emission trading including flexibility mechanisms and International funds, will accelerate to capacity building and technology transfer and will not led to negative effect on national development objectives.

Redefinition of “developed” and “developing countries” under the Bali Action Plan (BAP) will help to improve implementation of the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” suggesting various criteria and parameters for such differentiation including that of GDP per capita and share of world emissions. (Please refer to OECD & IEA report on “Differentiating countries in terms of mitigation commitments, actions and Support” by Karousakis, Guay and Philibert)

Possible differentiation of countries and commitments/actions

Developed countries Developing countriesAnnex II Parties (EU-15, USA, Japan, Canada)

Strong national andinternational commitments,funds for mitigation action, adaptation,technical assistanceand technologytransfer

Newly industrialised countries (South Korea, Singapore, Mexico)

National mitigation commitments + limited international mitigation commitments

Emerging economies(China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa)

Sectoral mitigation commitments (binding emission reduction targets per GDP, per capita, etc.)

Economies in Transition and other Annex I Parties that are not in Annex II(Poland, Latvia, Russia, Ukraine)+ countries with similar socio-economic development level, countries wishing to be treated as AI Parties

Substantial national and limited international mitigation commitments

Other developing countries

SD-PAMs, adaptation actions

Least Developed Countries (Bangladesh)

No commitments

Julia DobrolyubovaExpert on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol

+ TURKEY ?

+ TURKEY ?

+ TURKEY ?

Cap and Trade or Sectoral No-Lose Targets ?Sectoral approach (incl. Power, Cement, Transportation) seems one of the plausible alternative.

Absolute emission targets? There are many barriers to be solved out such as:

Time, Data Institutional structure Experts,

Post Kyoto Negotiations

Dilemma!1)Need for re-definition and differentiation of countriesAfter 1992, some countries like S. Korea, Mexico has been become OECD member, and nowadays some countries on accession (e.g. Chili) .

2)Ongoing progress and changes in parametersa) in Sectors

Aviation, Marine, LULUCF etc.

b) in GHG gases

3) Economic recession and its possible effects on the negotiations in Copenhagen4) Candidate country to EU

Post Kyoto Negotiations

Support of Shaping the Post Kyotot Climate Regime Workshop March, 2009 Budapest

Thanks for your attention.

Dr. Oğuz CAN ocan@istac.com.tr

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER