The Challenge of Low-Carbon Development - World Bank Internet ...

y providing value to standing forests. It also seeks toprovide incentives and financing for the sustainable use offorest resources and biodiversity conservation. The Facilitybecame operational in 2008.The facility has two parts: a readiness mechanism, supportedby the Readiness Fund, and a carbon finance mechanism,supported by the Carbon Fund. Under REDD Readiness,the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility will help developingcountries prepare national reference scenarios for emissionsfrom deforestation and forest degradation, developcountry-owned strategies for reducing deforestation andforest degradation, and establish national measurement,reporting and verification systems for REDD. The CarbonFund will pilot and test REDD carbon transactions in thecountries that have established a sound national frameworkthrough the readiness mechanism.Thirty-seven REDD countries had been selected for the readinessmechanism by the end of fiscal 2009 (compared with theoriginal design target of 20). Thirty of these had signed participationagreements, and 18 had submitted detailed grantproposals (with three of the grant agreements fully signed).In this first year, the Facility has increased the target volumefor the Readiness Fund from $100 million to about $185 million;as of March 2010 the Readiness Fund has $115 million.By the end of fiscal 2009 each country’s Readiness PreparationIdea Note was submitted to the Facility and receivedone to three Technical Advisory Panel reviews/discussions,Facility Management Team reviews, and informal reviewsby World Bank country teams.REDD methodology support claims progress in the followingareas: establishing the first Team Advisory Panel; developinginstruments to support the process of the ReadinessMechanism; advancing thinking on reference scenarios,REDD modeling efforts, reporting and verification systems,and economic analysis of the costs of REDD; and creationof a capacity-building program for forest-dependent indigenouspeoples and other forest dwellers.Recent Activities: Low-Carbon Growth StudiesStarting in 2006, ESMAP’s Low-Carbon Growth CountryStudies Program began helping Brazil, China, India, Indonesia,Mexico, and South Africa assess their developmentgoals and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. Thecenterpiece of the program is a series of country studiesdesigned to identify low carbon opportunities across arange of sectors, including energy, transport, waste, andland use/land use change. The studies or summary casestudies have been publically released for Mexico, Brazil,and India. Most studies generate a baseline scenario anda low carbon alternative and describe the technical solutionsby which the alternative could be achieved. Energyaccess objectives are not highlighted in the studies publishedso far.The studies recognize that climate change harms developmentand that mitigation actions form part of a developmentstrategy. In each case, the studies recognize the vulnerabilitiesof the particular country to climate change, and thusthe need for both mitigation and adaptation. However, theygenerally support the need for mitigation through an internationalclimate agreement, and emphasize that any mitigationobligations must not harm the development rightsof the poor. Low carbon development is also emphasizedas a means of supporting negative cost no-regrets options,energy security, nonclimate pollution reduction, and abilityto access carbon market opportunities.Though the studies consider mitigation options in each sectorsequentially, they attempt to take a systemic approach bymaking cost comparisons across sectors. Most studies developa unified marginal abatement cost curve, where optionsare ranked by cost and scope. These lead to different strategiesacross countries, depending on the specific details ofeach case. In each case, there are many negative or zero costchanges, particularly in energy efficiency or land use change.For example, for Brazil, the emphasis is on agriculture anddeforestation, with emission reduction goals of 11.7 GtCO 2eper year. There are few low-cost mitigation options in theenergy and transport sectors, because emission intensityis already low by international standards because of thereliance on hydropower and ethanol fuel. The Brazil studyidentifies negative cost options for roughly 1.1 GtCO 2e peryear (mostly energy efficiency) and a further 7.1 GtCO 2eper year of roughly zero cost changes for avoided deforestation,livestock and zero-tillage cropping options.For Mexico, the emphasis is still on agriculture and forestry,but energy and transport are also important in achievingemission reductions of 5.3 GtCO 2e per year. Under the lowcarbon scenario, the share of power from coal would dropfrom 31 to 6 percent, of which roughly 23.5 percentagepoints would come from increases in geothermal, biomass,wind, and small hydropower sources. Negative cost interventionswould save 3.4GtCO 2e per year, including bus systemoptimization, cogeneration, charcoal production improvements,fuel economy standards, biomass power andimproved cookstoves.The strategies recognize that energy efficiency (includingtransport efficiency) and demand-side management willplay a major role in any cost-effective mitigation strategy.In nearly every case, the scope for efficiency improvementsis large and can be achieved at lower cost than increases inincreasing generation through renewable energy.Energy access issues were considered in the India study,though not in Brazil, China, or Mexico.Appendix J: Recent WBG Developments in Emission Mitigation Activities | 117