Exploding the myths of sectoral approaches (and renaming them sectoral approaches, agreements and measures)
There is a wide range of understandings of what sectoral approaches (SAs) are, and many different claims of what they could achieve have been made by a wide range of stakeholders over the years. This paper tests what it will call these "myths" against what could be achieved in practice, presented here as "realities."
The paper finds that SAs are not dead—but that the realities differ greatly from the myths.
One important example is that the name "SA" is a pejorative term to some important stakeholders: thus, the renaming of "sectoral approaches" to "Sectoral Approaches, Agreements and Measures" (SAAMs)—or some other variant—is highly preferable.
Much of the analysis is based on results from Climate Strategies' 18-month project, "International sectoral approaches and agreements: Case studies of the steel sector in China, India and Japan." This project deliberately shifted the analysis away from the generic by looking at one key sector (steel) and three key countries (China, India and Japan) for their production and consumption in this sector.
The starting point for the three country case studies was to ask firstly what would work domestically, i.e. within the country. This was followed by exploration of whether this would lead to an international approach, or could in some way be internationalised through linking or common methodologies. This differs from the conventional "top down" approach, where it is assumed that an international agreement could be made and then implemented in all countries. The need for international agreement adds a further level of complexity and will almost certainly result in delays compared to a domestic scheme.
In all three countries it is clear that the design of a practical, acceptable SAAM must start from the base of current domestic policies and measures. It should be built on and use these, and only then can an international component be considered. There is little or no enthusiasm for an internationally agreed common solution—all three countries have very strong national priorities and sovereignty concerns.
Practical SAAMs are therefore likely to differ, perhaps very widely, by country. As such schemes are designed and implemented, an important consideration will be how countries recognise the efforts of other countries, in terms of both trade (competitiveness and leakage concerns) and how they feed into the wider international climate change negotiations. For, even if SAAMs retain a domestic basis, there are a number of advantages for including an international dimension within them.
There is no strong momentum behind SAAMs. If they are to be implemented, they need further definition and promotion, starting at the domestic level before moving to the international.
You might also be interested in
September 2024 | Carbon Minefields Oil and Gas Exploration Monitor
Last month, 11 oil and gas exploration licences were awarded across three countries. Among these countries, Australia awarded licences with the largest volume of embodied emissions.
Manitoba Builds Green
This report investigates the potential to scale up a deep energy retrofit industry in Manitoba to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create good jobs, spur green industrial growth, and improve housing quality.
Senegal’s LNG Drive Is an Economic Gamble
Senegal’s plan to drive economic growth through exports of LNG—largely to Europe—is a gamble, new research warns, as forecasts indicate an imminent decline in international demand for gas.
Senegal's Big LNG Gamble
This report explores Senegal's nascent liquefied nitrogen gas (LNG) industry by assessing the impacts associated with a new fossil fuel-based industry on the country's environment, economy, and society. It does this by responding to three questions: What have been the impacts of the development of LNG on Senegal to date? Is it viable for Senegal to invest further into an industry that is projected to decline? What risks can Senegal expect should it forge ahead with its LNG development plans?