November 2002 IES-Korea Workshop Summary
Collin Green, Mark Heil, Keumhee Jung, and Seunghun Joh November 2002
Workshop Summary Korea-US Joint Workshop for Korean Policy Makers on Integrated Strategies for Climate Change and Air Quality
November 11, 2002 Kwachun Government Complex Seoul, Korea
Collin Green1, Mark Heil2, Keumhee Jung3, Seunghun Joh4 Introduction: The Korea-US Joint Workshop for Korean Policy Makers on Integrated Strategies for Climate Change and Air Quality5 was held at the Kwachun Government Complex on November 11, 2002. About 60 participants from the Government of Korea, universities, the private sector, and NGOs attended including: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea Environment Institute, Office of the Prime Minister, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and many others6. The objective of the meeting was to present and discuss the Integrated Environmental Strategies (IES) Program for Korea and to provide a forum for the Ministry of Environment to gather opinions from stakeholders to develop policy priorities on air quality and climate change to enhance effective policy making in Korea in the areas of GHG mitigation and air quality management. The IES program in Korea has been an intergovernmental collaborative analytical effort involving the Ministry of Environment of Korea (MOE) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) along with technical institutions such as the Korea Environment Institute and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The IES program involves a multidisciplinary approach integrating analysis and development of greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollution mitigation scenarios, air quality modeling, air pollution health effects analysis, and economic valuation of health effects to inform policy makers about the co-benefits of GHG and air pollution mitigation measures. Summary of presentations: Dr. Keumhee Jung, Director of the Global Environment Office of the Ministry of Environment opened the meeting. She remarked that the purpose of the meeting was to present and discuss the
1 2
Senior IES Project Leader, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA Senior Program Manager for IES Korea, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA 3 Director, Global Environment Division, Ministry of Environment, Korea 4 Principal Investigator, Korea Environment Institute, Korea 5 Meeting agenda is attached in an appendix. 6 A complete list of participating institutions and a copy of the agenda can be found in an appendix.
Integrated Environmental Strategies Program for Korea and to provide a forum for MOE to gather opinions from stakeholders to develop policy priorities on air quality and climate change. Dr. Mark Heil presented an overview of the USEPA’s Integrated Environmental Strategies program. Dr. Heil conveyed USEPA’s recognition and appreciation for the excellent work on the initial phase of the project by KEI to develop the benefits assessment methodology and apply this methodology to a case study of Seoul. He complimented MOE and KEI for adapting this methodology to conduct an assessment for Korea of the potential benefits and co-benefits of GHG mitigation. Dr. Heil expressed USEPA’s strong interest in continuing bilateral collaboration with MOE on a new phase of this project and noted that USEPA would be interested in supporting a second phase effort with both direct financial contributions to Korea and technical/management assistance for the project. Dr. Heil also noted the US/Korea bilateral agreement on climate change signed in July 2002 that elaborated on opportunities for collaboration in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, research and development, and methane recovery. These areas of agreement are compatible with the programs of USEPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs that include: methane recovery projects, clean energy technology cooperation, emissions trading and promotion of integrated environmental strategies. Specifically related to Integrated Environmental Strategies, Dr. Heil noted that USEPA would be interested in continuing bilateral cooperation with MOE to assist with improving the methodology and scientific basis in Korea for co-benefit analysis so that this type of sophisticated analytical tool could become a standard part of the policy making process in Korea. Further, Dr. Heil suggested that the next phase of cooperation could be focused on development of a specific case study application of the co-benefits assessment methodology to provide analysis of specific air quality and GHG mitigation measures to support the improvement of air quality, public health and GHG mitigation in the Seoul Metropolitan area. Collin Green of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory presented the methodology and primary results of the IES program. Mr. Green outlined the program objectives as: identifying cost-effective strategies to meet local sustainable development objectives, improve public health and reduce GHG emissions; provide quantitative data on costs and benefits of mitigation strategies, policies and technologies to policy makers; engage policy makers in the development and application of policy analysis tools for co-benefits assessment; and build lasting in-country capacity for multi-disciplinary co-benefits analysis. Mr. Green described the approach and framework employed in the analysis of public health ancillary benefits which most often follows the damage function approach. Such an approach involves the analysis and quantification of co-control measures to simultaneously control air pollutants and greenhouse gases; analysis and quantification of the co-benefits of these measures including the estimation of the potential reductions in air pollution-caused morbidity and mortality and the associated economic value of these benefits. The final aspect of this approach is the development and implementation of innovative policies, investment projects and integrated planning to realize and capture the anticipated benefits of these alternate control measures. Mr. Green provided information from the case studies from Argentina, Chile, China and Korea regarding the potential for GHG mitigation, avoided mortality and morbidity, and the associated social benefit that could be expected from implementation of mitigation measures. Further, for Chile, results of an analysis that ranked specific mitigation measures in terms of their mitigation and benefit potential was discussed as a very valuable resource for policy makers developing the Santiago air quality management plan.
In conclusion, Mr. Green described how the results of the IES program in other countries has contributed to development of long range energy and environment planning in Shanghai, planning for improving air quality for the Beijing 2008 Olympics, development of the UNFCCC national communication in Argentina, and development of measures for the air quality management plan in Mexico City. Dr. Il-Soo Park of the National Institute of Environment Research (NIER), presented an Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Air Polluting Facilities. Dr. Park presented the SOCO2 (Source Data CO2 Analyst) system that estimates the emissions of carbon dioxide in air polluting facilities and had been developed with the inventory sources surveyed by NIER. The SOCO2 system is based on IPCC emission factors and covers over 2,000 point source facilities in Korea, representing about 180 MT CO2 emissions or 36% of total CO2 emissions in Korea. Emission factors for CO2 for large industrial sources were measured by a portable gas analyzer and the emission factors measured were found to be higher by factors of 4.2, 1.9 and 1.8 than those put forward by IPCC for COG, LNG and bituminous coal respectively. Dr. Seunghun Joh of the Korea Environment Institute presented the Integrated Assessment of GHG and air pollution mitigation strategies in Korea as part of the IES program. Dr. Joh described the evolution of the MOE/EPA collaborative program from its beginning as the ICAP (International Co-control Analysis Program) in 1998, the development of the ICAP analysis for Seoul from 1999 to 2001, the KEI lead assessment of the benefits of national mitigation programs in Korea to reduce CO2, SO2, NOx and PM10 and finally, KEI’s latest effort to develop a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of Korea to estimate health benefits obtainable from reduction of energy use due to introduction of a fuel tax and a carbon tax. This final effort is still under development and quantifies potential synergy effects achievable from integrated policies compared to air and GHG policy implemented separately. Dr. Joh described the approach and methodology employed in these analyses as development of mitigation scenarios for air pollutants and GHGs, estimating emissions in the base year and future years, calculating concentrations of harmful air pollutants such as PM10 and SO2, estimating the changes in anticipated health effects on mortality and morbidity of the different scenarios, and finally, assigning an economic value to these health impacts. In the original ICAP study, mitigation scenarios developed by MOCIE in 1998 were used and augmented with additional assumptions to achieve modest GHG mitigation at very low costs. The results of this study showed that modest greenhouse gas reduction scenarios (5-15% reductions in 2020) could result in significant air pollution health benefits through reductions in PM10 concentrations. These greenhouse gas reduction measures for Korea’s energy sector could avoid 40 to 120 premature deaths/year and 2800 to 8300 cases/year of asthma and other respiratory diseases in the Seoul Metropolitan Area in 2020. The cumulative value of these avoided health effects is estimated to range from 10 to 125 million US$/year (in 1999 dollars with annual discounting rate 7.5%). This is equivalent to a benefit of $10 to $42 per ton of carbon emissions reduced in 2020 for the climate change scenarios. At the conclusion of this first phase of the project, a policy makers meeting was held to present the results and discuss the project implications with Korean policy makers. Policy makers at that meeting recognized that the approach and results of this project were very useful for policy making at both local levels (on air quality management) and national levels (on GHG mitigation). Policy makers noted that the project demonstrated the potential for real, positive economic and social ancillary benefits from mitigation scenarios and commended the project activities to provide these estimates. An important next step in this process would be to more widely
disseminate the outcome and results of this project to achieve greater recognition and understanding of the results in the policy making community and the general public. Dr. Joh also described an effort by MOE and KEI to analyze potential benefits of GHG mitigation at the national level for Korea based on similar benefits assessment methodologies. By adjusting GDP and applying geographic factors based on European studies, damage costs were estimated as a function of emissions for air pollutants including TSP, NOx, and SOx. The study found the expected benefits of the mitigation policies that would reduce GHG emissions to 10% below business as usual assumptions would be equivalent to approximately 71% of the total estimated abatement costs, or $270 per ton of carbon reduced in 2015. In 2002, KEI initiated a third integrated GHG and air quality policy assessment to estimate health benefits obtainable from reduction of energy use due to introduction of fuel and carbon taxes. The objective of this analysis was to quantify potential synergy effects achievable from integrated policies compared to policies to mitigate air pollutant and GHG emissions separately. The approach employed a hybrid modeling approach combining a top-down (CGE) model with bottom-up (impact path way) benefits assessment to conduct a multi-region analysis of Seoul, Inchon, and Kyonggi for the time period of 2000 – 2030. Preliminary results of this project indicate ??? [Dr. Joh, could you add here a few sentences about the preliminary numerical results of this new project]??? Thus it appears that there is great potential for integrated environmental policy analysis to improve the efficiency of GHG and air quality management policy as a means to solve air quality problems and GHG control simultaneously. Discussion: Relevance of Integrated Assessment of GHG and air pollution mitigation strategies for Policy makers in Korea There was an overwhelming consensus that the integrated approach to policy analysis developed by the IES program in Korea provides a useful tool for policy makers to better understand and assess the ancillary and co-benefits of mitigation policies as applied to air quality, public health and GHG mitigation objectives. The approach and results presented from this project were very useful for informing policy options at both local levels (on air quality management) and national levels (on GHG mitigation). Several of the speakers expressed a desire to see the integrated analysis of environmental and energy policies implemented broadly in Korea to facilitate increased harmonization and coordination of policies to meet multiple objectives at both the local and global levels. The discussants recognized that the problem of climate change is long-term and global in nature, while the solutions, in terms of policies and projects, are implemented locally. Furthermore, the impacts, whether benefits or costs, of these policies, including public health and socioeconomic impacts, agricultural production and crop yields, health of the environment and natural ecosystems, energy security, and adaptation issues, are also incurred at the local levels. Thus, there is a recognized need for policy makers to be concerned with both local and global issues at the same time. Several participants noted that significant differences and even conflicts in objectives and outcomes exist between energy, air quality and environmental management policies in Korea. Furthermore, integrated environmental policies that assimilate local issues of air pollution and public health with issues of GHG mitigation and climate change are not well understood or practiced yet in Korea. Coordination among government bodies, policy makers, and researchers is needed. Increasing coordination between MOE and MOCIE could develop improved energy and environmental policies with shared and compatible objectives. An integrated framework of
energy measure analysis and benefits assessment could be effective in helping to harmonize energy and environmental policy making in Korea and promote incorporation of external effects. One example mentioned would be to use integrated benefits analysis to incorporate externalities into potential energy and/or emission tax systems to promote market driven changes to improve environmental conditions. There is also limited understanding in Korea regarding the range of impacts of policies affecting diesel fuel. Low cost diesel fuel and fuel subsidies promote increased consumption and emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. Better analysis of diesel policy for Korea is needed to assess the impacts of diesel policies on air pollution and GHG mitigation objectives. As environmental policy in Korea moves forward, there is an increasing need for information on how policies, measures and strategies to reduce air pollutants like PM2.5 may also affect reductions in other pollutants like GHGs. The current Law on Preservation of the Environment does not include provisions for mitigation of CO2, and integrated analysis methodologies could be highly effective in providing policy advice regarding how this law could be modified to include CO2 as an additional pollutant of concern. Discussion panelists expressed a need for more detailed analysis and understanding for policy makers of the types and levels of benefits that could be realized by implementation of various measures, including integrated measures. Panelists also desired analysis of specific measures that have already been taken to assess their impact and for new and innovative measures that could be taken in the future. The IES project affords the benefit of allowing the policy issues of climate change to be viewed in the context of sustainable development, a major issue discussed at the recent COP 8 meetings. Through linking strategies to address local air quality and improve human health with GHG emissions reductions, the relationship between sustainable development and climate change policy becomes more apparent. As those linkages are further developed, it becomes clear that practical measures to address climate change are also practical measures to help achieve sustainable development goals. It was also pointed out that in Korea, as in the US and many other developed countries, pollution regulation has traditionally addressed one criteria pollutant at a time, often resulting in an overall regulatory strategy which is not optimal nor cost effective. The integrated pollutant analysis is useful for air pollution regulation in Korea as it aids policy makers in integrating the regulation of multiple pollutants simultaneously, resulting in more effective, and more cost-effective strategies. The discussants also noted that to be useful in practical application, the methodology for integrated benefits analysis should attempt to analyze and prioritize specific measures and strategies in terms of their benefit potential and cost effectiveness in achieving simultaneous GHG mitigation and human health improvement. Integrated analysis of measures for Korea would help to develop and analyze more specific mitigation measures and technologies related to specific sectors and fuel types to determine the overall impact and benefit ratio for these measures. In this way, the IES approach could more effectively communicate to policy makers and the general public the anticipated level of ancillary benefits of specific measures and build support for implementation of these measures.