National Climate Policy Design & Implementation: Comparative Lessons & Considerations

309 views

Published on

John Costenbader, Climate Focus
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
17 July 2013
Presentation to PNG Office of Climate Change & Development Civil Society Stakeholder Consultation Meeting on National Framework Climate Change Policy

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
309
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

National Climate Policy Design & Implementation: Comparative Lessons & Considerations

  1. 1. National Climate Policy Design & Implementation: Comparative Lessons & Considerations John Costenbader, Climate Focus Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 17 July 2013
  2. 2. Overview • Introduction / Motivation • Role of National Framework Climate Policy • Comparative Perspectives – Brazil – South Africa – Australia – Mexico • Lessons for Success
  3. 3. What is a national climate policy: • Framework climate policy = blueprint for climate action • Cohesive clear outline for national climate work – *KISS* – Guiding vision & catalyst for country – Manage expectations while keeping country on task • Integrates low-emissions development goals into powerful driving forces in country (business case) … & what is not: • Cannot substitute: – Brainstorming (green & white papers) – ‘How-to’ planning (action plans, strategies) – Detailed sectoral policies (REDD, adaptation, MRV) – Law (legislation & regulations)
  4. 4. Role of National Framework Climate Policy • Identifies & prioritizes impacts, responses, goals • Promotes balance in competing needs: – Mitigation vs. adaptation – Different sectors – Environment vs. economic growth/poverty alleviation • Transparent participation helps ensure national ownership – But need for common understanding: ‘enemy of good is perfect’ • “Less is More” – including too much can mean: – Confusion, conflict in goals, priorities… & low implementation – Stakeholders excluded as few understand; less inter-sectoral integration – Frequent need for general policy revision
  5. 5. General Climate Policy Process Roadmap ID Issues Expert Inputs Green Paper Public Comment Action Plan(s) Climate Policy Public Comment White Paper Public Comment Legislation Regulations Monitor, Review, Adapt
  6. 6. National climate policy as common anchor REDD+ • Timber Harvesting • Agriculture Adaptation Energy Policy Instruments • Hazards • Natural Resource & Ecosystem Resilience • Renewables • Transportation • LNG • Market-based • Regulatory
  7. 7. Comparative Perspectives: Brazil National Policy on Climate Change (2009) • Sweeping & large (130 pages!) • Comprehensive multi-stakeholder development • Mainly focused on energy & forest sectors; overlooks adaptation, water & ecosystems – 2020 deforestation reduction targets for Amazon and Cerrado – Increases biofuel production, afforestation & hydroelectric generation (overlooking adaptation & water sector impacts) – Mining & Energy Ministries launched expansion plan w/o coordination w/ CC Policy – conflicts created • Ongoing policy processes put in place to revise • Independent review: Sustainable Development Commission
  8. 8. Comparative Perspectives: South Africa National Climate Change Response Policy (2011) • Focused heavily on energy & economic aspects • Extensive public hearings on Green & White Paper versions • ‘Carbon Budgets’ assess mitigation options costs & benefits • Proposed range of economic instruments – (incentives, emissions offset or trading mechanisms) • Relative to 2004 and 2008 policy versions, increased: – Senior leadership ownership – Water sector, ecosystem & adaptation considerations – Short, medium & long-term vision (strategies up to 2050)
  9. 9. Comparative Perspectives: Australia • Initial voluntary measures ineffective (BAU) • Later legislation developed without unifying national policy: ad hoc measures, some conflicting – reducing emissions via carbon pricing (energy & land use) – originally little consideration of water, ecosystems, biodiversity • 2007 National Climate Change Adaptation Framework – focused on research and planning • Integration / coordination mechanisms: • • Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (2010) Select Council on Climate Change (2011) – Independent review: “state-of-the-environment” reporting
  10. 10. Comparative Perspectives: Mexico National Strategy on Climate Change (2007) & Special Program on Climate Change (2009–2012) - Numerous policies, but unclear implications on ecosystems & water - Largely mitigation-focused (biofuels, hydro, forests) - Strong institutional development: Multistakeholder & expert-based - Lack lower level implementation mechanisms
  11. 11. Common ‘Success Elements’ • Public inputs given valued, meaningful role • Balancing trade-offs (sectors; mit & adapt) – Targeting integrated, no/low regrets solutions • Cyclical review processes (built-in flexibility of policy to respond to new understandings) • Review & accountability mechanisms • Senior leadership engaged • Multi-level governance/implementation mechanisms (all ministries & subnational govts) • Clear national targets to drive action & attract finance
  12. 12. Thank you for listening! John Costenbader j.costenbader@climatefocus.com

×