MAPS Chile - Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS)
Transcripción
MAPS Chile - Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS)
MAPS Chile Mitigation Options for a Low Carbon DevelopmenT Phase 2 Synthesis of Results Executive summary The project and the context Comments by the Scenario Building Team Who have developed MAPS Chile 1 TABLE OF CONTENTNS PROLOGUE 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 1 The MAPS Project and the purpose of this report 9 2 The 2013-2030 BASELINE 10 3 Mitigation Scenarios 15 4 Macroeconomic Results 22 5 The next steps 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE PROJECT IN CONTEXT27 The context - international negotiations on climate change Principal characteristics of MAPS CHILE MAPS CHILE – objectives and components Who was involved in MAPS CHILE – Phase 2 The MAPS CHILE process - Phase 2 Suggestions for reviewing the Phase 2 results COMMENTS BY THE SCENARIO BUILDING TEAM 41 Who have developed MAPS Chile (in Spanish)51 Steering committee, scenario building team and professional team 27 29 29 32 35 38 51 4 MAPS Chile Mitigation Options for a Low Carbon Development Phase 2 Synthesis of Results 5 PROLOGUE Over 2 years ago, the MAPS Chile Project began an ambitious challenge: to conceptualise, model, analyse and discuss possible future scenarios for effectively mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Chile. And as is seen with many processes which address complex topics with scientific rigour, legitimacy, credibility and social transparency, its results are as important as the process. This initiative by the State of Chile constitutes an unprecedented research effort, which included ample and organised participation by relevant stakeholders, contributing their experience and knowledge on climate change and related topics. An advisory body called the Scenario Building Team was formed by more than 60 professionals from various sections of society (public, private, academic, consultants and NGOs) for this process. More than 200 people met to share their knowledge of diverse productive sectors relevant to the issues and contribute their experiences through a series of more than 20 technical working group meetings. Pablo Badenier Martínez Minister of Environment Government of Chile 6 MAPS Chile provides a positive example of how the country can tackle relevant issues and generates evidence in order to inform and guide decision-making by the different authorities in the country, in a way that is both transparent and legitimate. The present project provides key input for shaping Chile’s position in international negotiations, and paving the way for a resilient, low carbon, competitive and inclusive development path. This report provides a wealth of relevant information in order for public and private institutions and civil society to orientate decision-making on climate change mitigation in Chile. This document provides greenhouse gas emission projections under different scenarios. The scenarios range from the baseline, which excludes specific mitigation measures post 2012, to different levels of mitigation efforts in the near future. These analyses provide details on sectoral and national economic costs obtained via modelling of macroeconomic variables, as well as a complete analysis of the main mitigation measures considered per sector. These efforts form part of President Michelle Bachelet’s principal focus: to fulfil the country’s voluntary commitment made in 2009 to the United Nations to reduce its emissions. Equally, as was recently upheld in the New York Climate Summit, the country is in the process of developing a new climate change policy. It hopes to have a pre-project for public consultation by mid-December that covers the post 2020 timeframe. MAPS Chile, particularly in the Phase 2 results reported herein, presents crucial inputs so that Chile can achieve these intentions in an informed and responsible way. We are deeply grateful to those who have made MAPS Chile Phase 2 a reality: to the project funders who generously made the resources for the project available; to South African partners for their leadership and commitment in creating the MAPS initiative and supporting Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Chile in their projects; to the professionals from the seven ministries in the MAPS Chile Steering Committee who have been involved in meetings and decision-making since the beginning of the project; to the members of the Scenario Building Team and those who participated in the technical working group meetings and contributed relevant sectoral information; to the 50 consultants who participated in the Phase 2 teams; and especially to the MAPS Chile Professional Team, who received support from the University of Chile and the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Pablo Badenier Martínez Minister of Environment Government of Chile 7 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The MAPS Project and the Purpose of this Report MAPS is the acronym for Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios. The project originated in South Africa, between 2005 and 2008, as part of an initiative called Long Term Mitigation Scenarios. Currently, MAPS projects are being run in Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Chile. These are similar initiatives that receive technical support from South Africa. MAPS aims to generate the best possible (data-based) evidence to inform decision making on climate change mitigation and low carbon development in each country. In particular, MAPS aims to identify probable trajectories – based on different levels of mitigation efforts, to analyse their possible consequences, and to disseminate this information to key stakeholders. It is hoped (or anticipated) that these initiatives will contribute significantly to countries in their processes of international negotiation, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). MAPS Chile began at the end of 2011, complying with the mandate provided by six state ministries, to study and provide the best possible options for mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The project has three phases. In the first, which was finalised in mid-2012, the 2007–2030 GHG emissions baseline was developed (a projection of the Chilean economy in 2006, excluding efforts for reducing GHG emissions, but including the natural technological development in the economic sectors). In addition, a study was conducted on possible future GHG emission trajectories which comply with scientific requirements stipulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the international community. The results of Phase 1 have been published. The results of the second phase are summarised in this report and can be downloaded from the project website. Essentially, these results include: the 2013–2030 GHG emissions baseline, the mitigation measures and scenarios, and an analysis of the macroeconomic effects associated with the different scenarios. 9 The third and final phase of MAPS Chile will include, among other products, a review and refinement of the results obtained in the second phase, an estimate of the co-benefits associated with the main mitigation measures, and an analysis of the possible focuses and mitigation measures for the long term (2030–2050). The third phase of MAPS Chile will end in December 2015, in time for the twenty-first UNFCCC Conference Of the Parties, which will be held in 2015 in Paris. An Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee, in which representatives from seven ministries regularly and actively participate, directs the project. These are: Foreign Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, Mining, Transport and Telecommunications, Energy and Environment. From the start, a Scenario Building Team was formed in which more than 60 people from the public, private and academic sectors and civil society participated continuously and voluntarily. In addition, more than 200 people have participated in the Technical Working Groups sectoral meetings. Considering all of the above, it is estimated that more than 300 people, including the various consulting teams from universities and prestigious institutions in the country, have actively participated in MAPS Chile. The project has been financed by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), the Swiss, Danish and Chilean governments, and will total close to four million dollars for more than four years of work. 2. 2013-2030 Baseline Since the project’s inception, two baseline trajectories have been planned: 2007–2030 and 2013–2030. While the first was a requirement for completing Chile’s voluntary commitment (entered into in 2009 and ratified in 2010 under the UNFCCC), the second uses more updated and relevant information for measuring current and future mitigation measures, and especially in the context of the current negotiations, which aim to finalise, by the end of 2015, a binding agreement to reduce GHG emissions for developed and developing countries. The work carried out in phase 1 on the 2007–2030 baseline was a valuable experience and learning opportunity for Phase 2, the current development of the 2013–2030 baseline. Chile’s 2013–2030 GHG emissions baseline was constructed based on the study of the seven most relevant sectors in terms of emission and capture in the country: i) electricity generation and transport of energy; ii) mining and industry, including copper, industrial processes and other industries; iii) transport and urbanisation; iv) commercial, residential and public energy consumptions; v) agriculture ; vi) land use, land use change and forestry; and vii) waste. The method used for projecting the 2013–2030 baseline considered sectoral modelling by using homogeneous and coherent information about the projections of economic performance for the different sectors1. This included Regarding coherence between the sectors in terms of aggregation, that is, the combined effects of economic activity in the country, consultants were provided with shared projection assumptions for the following variables: i) GDP growth rate, ii) fuel price, iii) projected types of change, iv) projections of the nominal interest rate, v) criteria for projecting regional GDP, vi) criteria for projecting regional population, and vii) climate scenarios to consider. 1 10 a methodological proposal for recognising and outlining how the sectors interrelate. This makes it possible to generate comparable scenarios and therefore to add aggregated results. The following information summarises the main results and Figure 1 shows the projections obtained for the 2013–2030 baseline for the medium GDP growth scenario. • The electricity generation and electricity transport sector is the highest emitter in 2020, reaching emissions of 38.5% of total emissions in the medium GDP growth scenario2. Based on the agreed assumptions, this is a real rate of 4.2% in 2020 and 3.3% in 2030, followed by the transport sector (21.2%) and mining and industry (17.5%). • The two next biggest emitters in the sector are the transport and mining-and-industry sectors. Estimated total emissions for the medium GDP growth projection for the transport sector are 30.5 million tCO2eq in 2020 and 43.0 million tCO2eq in 2030. For the mining and industry sector, a total of 24.9 million tCO2eq in 2020 and 31.0 million tCO2eq in 2030 are estimated. Emissions in the transport sector grow mainly due to the increase in travel in private transport (motor-cars), the increase in domestic air travel and, to a lesser degree, an increase in cargo transport. In the case of the industrial sector, emissions grow mainly from an increase in productivity, an increase in international demand for minerals and a reduction in extraction (mining) regulations. • The electricity generation sector would reach an average level of emissions of 55.1 million tCO2eq by 2020 and 64.1 million tCO2eq in 20303. The increase in emissions in this sector is mainly due to increased demand and projections of increased electricity generation using coal. After 2025 there is decrease in the emission increase rate in the sector, owing to a reduction of electricity generation using NLG after 2025 and an increase in renewable energies (geothermal, wind and solar). • For the commercial, public and residential (CPR) and the agriculture and land-use-change sectors, emissions are estimated each at around 15 million tCO2eq in 2020. This similarity between emissions changes in 2030 when the CPR sector exceeds the agriculture sector by 4 million tCO2eq. The increase in emissions in the CPR sector is a response to a decrease in the use of firewood. This is as a result of environmental restrictions on its use and of the resulting increase in the use of other fuel energies such as liquid gas and kerosene. The projection of the GDP growth rate for 2013–2050 was constructed based on a series of criteria, which gave rise to three scenarios: Low, Medium and High. It was decided in discussions with the SBT and the CD to use and present the results based on projections made for the medium GDP growth scenario. 3 The plan to expand the 2013 baseline was carried out using an optimization model which minimises the investment costs of new electrical plants and the operation and maintenance costs for the different hydraulic scenarios and for demand (see sectoral report for more detail). The selected expansion plan minimised the anticipated costs, considering 10 scenarios constructed from projections of electricity consumption and five hydrological scenarios. It deals with an average level of emissions since it simulates the release from plants resulting from the expansion plan, considering an analysis of uncertainty in the projection of electricity demand, hydrology, fuels prices and factors regarding wind and solar plants. The average value corresponds to the simple average of emissions for the 100 scenarios that were constructed based on the uncertainty variables. The electricity demand scenarios resulted from the projections made by sectoral consultants from the mining and industries, CPR and transport sectors, considering the various GDP growth scenarios. The hydrology was constructed based on a series of previous observations. 2 11 In addition, an increase in GHG emissions in the commercial sector, which is most noticeable in 2025, is projected due to greater use of diesel in the sector. In the agriculture sector, emissions grow mainly as a result of an increase in livestock. • For the waste sector, total emissions of 4.1 million tCO2eq are estimated for 2020 and 5.3 million tCO2eq for 2030. The urban waste subcategory is the biggest contributor to emissions in this sector and its growth is mainly due to population increase. • The forestry sector sustains its role of absorbing emissions; however, there is a trend towards a reduction of net capture (million tCO2eq) ranging from 28.3 to 18.7 in 2013 and from 25.3 to 16.4 in 2030. The reduction is mainly as a result of a loss of surface of secondary forests that becomes ‘mature’ forest, which, since it is in equilibrium, does not capture emissions, and also due to the reduction of capture by plantation subsectors. • In the medium GDP growth rate scenario, total emissions grow by almost 50% between 2013 and 2020, and increase by 100% between 2013 and 2030. The equivalent annual growth rate of GHG emissions averages 4.1% between 2013 and 2030. The growth rate of emissions between 2013 and 2030 is similar to the average GDP growth rate. In part, emission increase is due to economic growth in the country. However, it is important to note that the GDP was not the variable used for explaining emission increase in all sectors. More detail on this can be found in the complete results report. • After 2025, a reduction in the total emission increase rate is estimated mainly due to stabilisation of emissions from the electricity generation sector. • Per capita emissions in 2020 reach 5 tCO 2eq and by 2030 increase to nearly 8 tCO 2eq. Figure 1 shows the results of the 2013–2030 baselines for the medium GDP growth scenario. Figure 2 shows the relative contribution of each sector to total emissions in the 2013–2030 baselines. The forestry sector is not considered here as it is categorised as an emissions sink. The trend is similar at present, with a relative emissions reduction in the agriculture and mining and industry sectors, and lower growth in the CPR, electricity generation and transport sectors. 12 MM tCO MM2eqtCO2eq 180 160 180 140 160 120 140 100 120 80 100 60 80 40 60 20 40 0 20 -20 0 -40 -20 -40 Forestry Transport Forestry CPR Transport I&M CPR Electricity generation I&M Waste Electricity generation Agriculture Waste 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Balance Agriculture Balance Figure 1: 2013 Baseline (medium GDP growth projection) considering all sectors. Source: MAPS Chile, 2014. Participation Participation in emissions, in emissions, % % 100% 90% 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 20% 30% 10% 20% 0% 10% 0% Transport CPR Transport I&M CPR Electricity generation I&M Waste Electricity generation Agriculture Waste Agriculture 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Figure 2: Relative contribution of each sector to total emissions, Baseline 2013–2030, excluding forestry sector capture. Source: MAPS Chile, 2014. 13 45 40 Chile BL2013 Chile BL2013 (2013) (2030) 35 Number of countries 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Emissions per capita (tCO2/per capita) Figure 3: Per capita emission distribution in countries. The per capita emission distribution in 2030 is not necessarily the same as in 2010. The relative position of Chile is only referential. Source: Own compilation based on 2010 World Bank emission data. 14 3. MITIGATION SCENARIOS In its second phase, the MAPS Chile Project identified, analysed and evaluated more than 96 GHG emission mitigation measures, to which different levels of application were assigned. The number of measures analysed for each sector varies according to the existing technical and economic possibilities. The following identification and evaluation process was carried out: • The MAPS Chile professional team conducted an exhaustive review of available studies in the country on climate change mitigation for a variety of sectors. • Based on this review, a group of measures were identified for further assessment – in the terms of reference of the contracting done by tendering administered by the UNDP require to at least assess these specific measures– on behalf of the sectoral consultant teams. • The terms of reference also included specific requirements regarding identification and evaluation of larger list of mitigation measures. • From the series of discussions and feedback obtained, the final list of measures was drawn up and evaluated. • This process of research and discussion took more than one year. • It must be mentioned that the measures that were analysed in this project do not cover all existing possibilities. In fact, during the project, other measures4 arose which were not addressed for various reasons, such as time constraints, consulting processes, etc. Table 1 shows the mitigation measures that have the greatest potential for abatement between 2013 and 2030. While 96 mitigation measures were analysed in the MAPS Chile project, a smaller group of these contribute to the majority of reductions. Moreover, evaluation of the scenarios analysed in the project considered the interrelation between these measures and a variety of levels of application thereof (Level 1 to Level 3). Therefore, the individual sum of emission reductions does not necessarily correspond to the reduction gained by simultaneous implementation of the measures. • The measures that were identified and evaluated by the sectoral consulting teams were submitted for revision to the technical working team (also sectoral), to the Scenario Building Team and to the Project Steering Committee. Some examples of measures not included are: emission capture in peat bogs, biofuels made from microalgae, use of natural gas in truck cargo transport, and electrical busses for public transport. 4 15 Sector Measure 5 16 Average annual reduction Accumulated reduction (million tCO2eq) (million tCO2eq) Electrical Energy (electricity) Substantial increase of LNG (subsidising LNG) Hydroelectrical expansion in Aysén5 Incentives for a specific NCRE technology – Wind (Level 2) Regional interconnection with other countries Incentives for a specific NCRE technology – Solar Photovoltaic (Level 2) Modification of the NCRE Law (30/30) 11,9 12 5,0 6,6 2,7 6,2 118,9 107,6 79,3 66,2 42,9 31,1 Transport Energy consumption and CO2 emission targets for the new vehicle fleet (Level 3) Zero and low emissions vehicles (Level 3) Cycling infrastructure (Level 3) Technological improvements in air transport (Level 3) Preparation plan for electrical taxis (Level 3) 2,1 34,3 1,1 0,5 0,3 0,2 15,8 7,7 4,7 2,8 Industry & Mining Energy efficiency measures for mining transport Efficient use of energy in industry enforced through energy audits and application of identified measures. (Voluntary) standard of energy efficiency in new mining projects Renewable energies for thermal use/heating in new and existing installations Self-generation of electricity using NCRE in industrial and mining plants 0,9 0,7 14,4 10,9 0,6 0,4 9,9 6,3 0,3 4,8 The feasibility of implementing hydro-electrical projects in the Aysen region is uncertain. This measure was included in evaluations in the medium effort, high effort and renewable energies scenarios. Sector Measure Average annual reduction Accumulated reduction (million tCO2eq) (million tCO2eq) Forestry Promoting afforestation Building and capture in harvested timber products 4,4 0,05 66,5 0,7 CPR Restrictions on new residential lighting equipment via minimum efficiency standards (MEPS) Programme of solar heating systems Energy heating of existing households Programme replacing airconditioning units RRestricting new commercial fridges via minimum efficiency standards (MEPS) 0,5 8,5 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,2 5 3,6 2,9 2,9 Waste Biological mechanical treatment (TMB) Increase biogas capture and burning using torches (Level 1) Anaerobic digestion plants based on municipal solid waste (Level 3) 1,2 1 0,2 16,5 15,4 2,4 Agriculture Improvement of cattle diet Using non-conventional renewable energies (NCRE) in agriculture for irrigation Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils by application of organic matter 0,2 0,1 2,7 1,7 0,1 1,4 Table 1: Selection of measures with the greatest abatement potential between 2013 and 2030. The measures are divided per sector, in order of most to least abatement potential. 17 The next challenge was to create the mitigation scenarios. These were conceived as ‘packages’ of measures. In other words, instead of scenarios that imagine a vision for the future, the scenarios created by MAPS Chile were created through a pragmatic focus on grouping measures based on their logical use and relevance for the project. • Scenarios defined by the Scenario Building Team (SBT): This involves a group of mitigation scenarios that were produced during the sixth SBT meeting (SBT6 in Spanish), in which working sessions were held to identify scenarios for different ‘levels of effort’ of mitigation. The general method proposed for identifying a limited group of mitigation scenarios is as follows: Mitigation scenarios measures can be grouped (or packaged) in various ways. MAPS Chile, driven to fulfil the inter-ministerial mandate which guides the project, and respectful of the main stakeholders participating in the project – the Steering Committee and the Scenario Building Team – agreed on the following taxonomy: The level of effort relates to: abatement costs, feasibility of a specific mitigation measure and its mitigation potential. • Scenarios defined by the MAPS Chile Steering Committee: The committee developed a mitigation scenario (MS) concerning policy on carbon tax6. This simulation was done independently of the other mitigation measures (in order to observe the independent effect of carbon tax on the economy). The steering committee deemed it necessary to reserve the possibility of simulating a mitigation scenario that corresponds with the 2013 baseline (2013BL or ‘greenline’ scenario), to which a group of measures or mitigation actions belong. This would finalise the emission reduction contribution of early measures or actions contemplated in the 2013 baseline. This scenario is only evaluated for 2013. Three main attributes are used by the SBT members to differentiate and prioritise a mitigation measure. This information firstly makes it possible to define levels of effort that inform whether or not to incorporate a specific measure into a specific mitigation scenario. For example, a mitigation scenario with a ‘base’ level of effort should include measures that have low abatement costs, a high mitigation potential and a high feasibility of implementation. On the other hand, and by the same logic, a mitigation scenario with a ‘high’ level of effort should include mitigation measures with high abatement costs and low feasibility. Feasibility, evaluated by the consulting teams, can be divided into technical, institutional and financial dimensions. It is necessary to specify that the scenarios were developed in 2013, before the tax reform was introduced in the technical and political scene. On the other hand, content analysed by MAPS Chile is different in various ways concerning carbon tax considered in the above-mentioned reforms. In particular, the tax considered by MAPS Chile addresses all sources (fixed and mobile) of CO2eq emissions. 6 18 At this stage, given the difficulty of formalising a qualitative evaluation of the co-benefits (positive and negative environmental, social, institutional and economic externalities) of the mitigation measures, and given that this information can be used as a criterion for shaping a mitigation scenario, these elements, to the extent that they were highlighted by the SBT members, have been treated as preliminary markers and complementary in the analysis of the different levels of effort. They have also been used to package mitigation measures in order to define a mitigation scenario. Evaluation of co-benefits of the various mitigation scenarios will be conducted in a post-study, in 2014–2015, via an exhaustive, participative and structured analysis according to methodological guidelines that were explored in phase 2. Development of the mitigation measures involved preliminary work of compiling and disseminating relevant information on each considered measure (exhaustive list and dates). During the sixth SBT meeting (SBT6), specific information on the abatement costs, mitigation potential and feasibility of each measure was presented (abatement cost curves and graphs, and feasibility for each sector). At the SBT6, work in sectoral groups provided the opportunity for analysis and adjustment of this information. Then in multi-sectoral groups, three scenarios were identified according to ‘level of effort’: base, medium and high effort. Finally, a plenary discussion was held to collect observations and comments, and to suggest and discuss possible specific scenarios (see below). • Specific scenarios: In addition, the SBT6 made it possible for the group to suggest other mitigation scenarios, apart from those defined by the Steering Committee (SC) and also scenarios related to levels of effort. The SBT defined five specific scenarios (which were later confirmed by the MAPS Chile Steering Committee). - Energy efficiency: packaging of mitigation scenarios related to energy efficiency. - Renewable and non-conventional energies: a package of all measures, which include renewable non-conventional energies considering amongst these: solar, geothermal, wind, biomass and small hydro. - Renewable energies: a package that includes all measures; renewable energies from the NCRE scenario and the major hydroelectrical plants. This scenario considers, for example, implementation of the HidroAysén project in 2021. - Nuclear energy: package that incorporates nuclear energy development post 2030. - 80/20: this refers to a scenario which combines a limited group of measures that in total have a high mitigation potential. Emission reductions from each scenario are calculated based on the 2013 baseline. Out of the total mitigation measures simulated in the scenarios (92), 16 are from the electricity generation sector, 22 from transport, 16 from industry and mining, 12 from CPR, 8 from agriculture and land use change, 7 from forestry and land use change and 11 measures are from the waste sector. The mitigation measures are also different in terms of their levels of implementation. In other words, the same measure can be implemented on different levels of effort and rates of affects. 19 160 Medium GDP 2013 BL Million tCO2eq 140 EE Scenario 120 Carbon tax Scenario 100 ERNC Scenario 80 Base Scenario 60 ER Scenario 40 80/20 Scenario Medium Scenario 20 High Scenario 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Figure 4: Emission projection for each mitigation scenario analysed. Source: MAPS Chile, 2014 Figure 9,04 shows the main results of emission trajectories for the various scenarios that were analysed. The total costs associated with each scenario, 8,0 and other macroeconomic variables, are addressed in the next section. Carbon tax Scenario 7,0 tCO2eq per cápita These results show the following: 6,0 • The emission reductions in 2020 (reference year for the voluntary emission5,0reduction commitment made by Chile) vary between 4.1 and 16.8 million tCO 2eq annually, which equals a 3.5% and 14.4% reduction 4,0 compared to the 2013 BL. This is for all scenarios analysed using the sectoral 3,0 models and without considering the results of the macroecono2013 20 mic model (described in the next section). It needs to be noted that the Medium GDP 2013 BL 2013 BL does not incorporate the effects of the early mitigation measures EE Scenario contained in this baseline. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Scenario • The percentage emission reduction ERNC in 2030 is greater than that observed for 2020. This is mainly due to the increase in implementation levels of Base Scenario the measures during the period of evaluation. ER Scenario 80/20 Scenario • The sectors with the greatest potential to contribute to emission reMedium Scenario ductions are the electricity generation, transport and forestry sectors (in High Scenario absolute terms). 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 9,0 Medium GDP 2013 BL 8,0 EE Scenario Carbon tax Scenario tCO2eq per cápita 7,0 ERNC Scenario 6,0 Base Scenario ER Scenario 5,0 80/20 Scenario 4,0 Medium Scenario High Scenario 3,0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Figure 5: Per capita emission projections for each mitigation scenario analysed. Source: MAPS Chile, 2014 • It is evident that the medium and high effort scenarios manage to reduce the rate of emission increase after 2025 (without considering eventual Medium GDP 2013 BL macroeconomic effects – see the next section). 8,0 • The 80/20 scenario effectively shows that there is a small group of measures 7,0that reduce the highest quantity of emissions. The emission trajectory of this scenario is slightly above the emission trajectory of the 6,0 medium scenario. Carbon tax with Scenario each of these scena• The per capita CO2eq emissions associated rios fluctuate between 5.4 (high effort scenario) and 6.3 CO2eq (2013 baseERNC Scenario forestry line) (figure 5). If emission capture in theBase Scenariosector is not considered (figure 6) the indicator varies between 6.8 (high level scenario) and 7.7 ER Scenario CO2eq (2013 baseline). The figures are for the 2020 per capita emissions. tCO2eq per cápita • In percentile terms, the sectors that contribute the most are the elec10,0 tricity generation, waste and forestry sectors (reduction of emissions in their own 9,0 sectors in sectoral models). 5,0 EE Scenario 80/20 Scenario 4,0 Medium Scenario High Scenario 3,0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 21 10,0 Medium GDP 2013 BL tCO2eq per cápita 9,0 EE Scenario 8,0 Carbon tax Scenario 7,0 ERNC Scenario Base Scenario 6,0 ER Scenario 5,0 80/20 Scenario 4,0 Medium Scenario High Scenario 3,0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Figure 6: Per capita emission projections for each mitigation scenario analysed, without considering the forestry sector. Source: MAPS Chile, 2014 4. MACROECONOMIC RESULTS Due to the contribution from, and cooperation of the Ministry of Finance, MAPS Chile was fortunate to be able to contract and work directly with a consulting team from the Institute of Structural Research (IBS) from Warsaw, Poland. The MAPS Chile team and its partner, the Ministry of Finance, worked at length with the Polish consultants to develop a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model. This was used for evaluating the impacts of general equilibrium on: the whole economy 22 while considering the interaction between the diverse sectors analysed in the project; on aggregated emissions, and on macroeconomic indicators (GDP, employment, salaries, etc.). The model was informed by inputs such as: the 2013 – 2030 national GDP emissions baseline; sectoral baselines; the capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) expenditure of each of the mitigation measures from the various scenarios. The structure of the model is based on a small, open economy that is divided into three major sections: households, businesses and government. Business is divided into 10 productive sectors. The interrela- tions between these agents are specified using the information from the Chilean economic input-output matrix. The general equilibrium context that was developed makes it possible to estimate the macroeconomic impacts and impacts on CO 2 emissions, considering the simultaneous interaction existing between the different agents of the economy when a mitigation scenario is implemented. scenario In contrast to the traditional tools used for analysis of climate change mitigation (such as the marginal abatement curves (MAC)), the DSGE model that was developed makes it possible to see the temporal dynamics resulting from implementation of the measures in both the sectors and the economy as a whole. A summary of the results obtained is provided in table 2. GDP 2020 Employment 2030 2020 2030 Emission Reductions 2020 2030 Carbon tax (5 US$)7 -0,2%-0,2% -0,4% -0,4% -3,1% -3,4% Carbon tax (20 US$)8 -0,9% -0,8% Base 0,1% 4,1% -0,1% 3,5% -8,2%-9,3% Medium -0,3% 6,7% -0,7% 5,5% -10,9%-23,4% High -0,1% 7,4% -0,2% 6,3% -12,2%-26,2% Energy efficiency -0,6% -0,8% NCRE 0,0% 0,6% 0,3% -0,2%-3,8%-9,1% Renewable energies -0,1% 0,3% 80/20 0,2% 1,2% 3,3% 0,7% -1,5% -1,6% -12,3%-13,5% 2,6% -0,2% -4,2% -4,1% -6,2% -15,2% -0,3% 0,0% -9,9%-18,8% Table 2: Summary of the macroeconomic effects and emissions for each scenario (the figures provided represent deviations from the 2013–2030 baseline, %) Source: MAPS Chile, 2014. 7, 8 The estimates in the table refer to the GDP valued at market prices, which include price increases resulting from carbon tax. The same calculation done for prices without tax, as an approximation of economic activity measured in national accounts, results in deviations from 2030 of -0,5% and -1,8% for taxes of 5 US$ and 20 US$, respectively 23 As a result, the following can be said: • It must be noted that the carbon tax exercise carried out in this study is different to that which was included in the tributary reform. In the MAPS Chile case, the exercise was applied to carbon taxing irrespectively on all emission sources in the economy, while the tax designed for the tributary reform only includes certain emission sources. In addition, in the fiscal income model, it is transferred directly to households as a lump sum in order to evaluate the impact of taxes without additional effects, as it could be politically complementary to direct the funds to another specific purpose. • There are differences between the emission reductions estimated for the sector models and the DSGE model. Specifically for scenarios which involve gains in energy efficiency due to the general equilibrium effect, the emission reductions estimated in the DSGE model are lower than in the sectoral models since improvements in efficiency result in greater economic activity and increased emissions. On the other hand, the macroeconomic model estimates greater reductions in emissions in the carbon tax scenario. The reason lies with two elements: a) the tax is imposed on the whole economy and not only on the electricity sector as in the sectoral analysis; and b) the general equilibrium causes additional emission reductions. • In the short term (2020), there is an insignificant negative impact on employment and in production in almost all scenarios, except for the carbon tax scenario. • The mitigation scenarios are cost effective by 2030 in the sense that they verify an increase in the GDP and in levels of employment, except in the carbon tax scenarios. 5. THE NEXT STEPS 5.1 International negotiations on climate change and how these relate to the MAPS Chile project results In accordance with the international mandate given to MAPS Chile, the project has delivered the best possible information that could be developed to date. It is now up to the authorities to proceed, in terms of the voluntary commitment, to inform the United Nations of the extent of the 20% deviation from emissions defined in the commitment and furthermore, in terms of the national contribution to the binding agreement currently under negotiation, to explore feasible options for the country based on the background information and projections provided in this project. In this regard, the following can be noted: • The mitigation scenarios that have been evaluated provide evidence of the possible emission reductions by 2020. The evaluation of accomplishing the voluntary commitment lies in the hands of the Government of Chile and in their specific interpretation thereof. • These scenarios do not include quantification of co-benefits (savings on health spending, amongst others), which is to be done in phase 3. 24 • There remains space for increased ambitiousness in terms of increasing the levels of implementation of some of the sectoral measures. • In absolute terms, the sectors that can contribute the most to emission reductions are: electricity generation, transport and forestry. • Under the MAPS Chile Steering Committee requirements, the effects of early mitigation measures in the 2013–2030 baseline have been quantified. On this the following can be said: - 11 measures implemented between 2007 and 2013 were evaluated. 5.2 Phase 3 of MAPS Chile The third phase of the project, which began in the second half of 2014 and will be finalised at the end of 2015, will include, among other components: refined results of phase 2, an evaluation of the co-benefits (co-impacts) of the mitigation measures studied to date and an analysis of the focuses of appropriate mitigation for the long term (2030–2050). - The measures include, among others: Law 20.57 (10% NCRE 2024), Law 20.698 (20% NCRE 2025), energy efficiency in mining, Law 20.365 (solar water heaters) Law 20.283 (native forest), DL701 renewal (forest plantations). - Emission reductions for 2013 vary between 1.8 and 5.06 million tCO2eq (which equals a reduction of 2.3%–6.5% in terms of the baseline with medium GDP in 2013). - An estimation of the effect of the measures between 2014 and 2020 is yet to be made. 25 26 THE PROJECT IN CONTEXT 1. THE context International negotiations on climate change Since 1992 the world has been undergoing a process of shaping an international approach to responding to climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has articulated the global response to the situation, via multilateral negotiations where the participating countries establish technical and political agreements to make joint progress towards reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This responds to the fundamental principle of recognising common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and to the principle of equity between developed and developing countries. As part of the guidelines issued by the convention, all legal and political parties have commitments (or have the responsibility) to formulating, implementing, publishing and updating national and regional programmes that contain responses to climate change. An important milestone in the process of shaping an international response to climate change was the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, as the only instrument holding legally binding and quantifiable obligations to reducing emissions for developed countries, those in annex 1 of the convention. Chile, which is not included in annex 1, does not have quantifiable commitments to reducing GHG gasses under the Kyoto Protocol. In 2007, two years after the Kyoto Protocol came into force; the Bali Plan of Action9 was created and subsequently, in 2009 at the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen10 (COP15) the Parties of the Convention created the ‘Copenhagen Accord’, responding to the challenges posed by this route. It was in this way that the need to intensify national and international measures taken to address climate change 9 United Nations, 2007, Bali Roadmap. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/spa/06a01s.pdf#page=3 United Nations, 2009, Covention of the Parties, Copenhague.. 10 27 mitigation in order to prevent global average temperature increase above 2°C was established. In order to achieve this goal, the adoption of quantifiable and verifiable commitments by developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) to be implemented by 2020 by developing countries was promoted, along with policies for tackling adaptation challenges. In this context, in August 2010, Chile officially presented its voluntary commitment to the United Nations as follows: ‘Chile will take nationally appropriate mitigation actions in order to achieve a 20% deviation from the growth trajectory of the business-as-usual emissions by 2020, projected from the year 2007.’ This was a voluntary commitment, politically binding but not subject to any sanctions for lack of compliance. In order to reach this goal, Chile needs to have precise emission estimates, identify mitigation measures and generate a relevant level of international support for achieving its goals. In 2011, the countries motioned towards negotiating a new legally binding agreement applicable to all the parties that will be adopted in 2015, and will come into force in 2020. At the COP18 (2012) and COP19 (2013), the countries reaffirmed their voluntary commitment to reaching a new agreement in 2015 and set a schedule for negotiation to deal with two essential processes: the content of a new global agreement and contributions from all countries to mitigation post 2020 (work stream 1) and on the other hand, to find ways in which to enhance ambition to mitigate climate change pre-2020 (work stream 2). 2014 and 2015 are important years for making progress in consolidating an international climate change regime and to reduce global emission levels. The 20th Conference of the Parties will be held in Lima in December 28 2014, where it is expected that a decision will be made about the information to be presented by the parties and with their contributions, and where some countries will possibly present their final drafts. At COP21 in December 2015 in Paris, the legally binding protocol which is applicable to everyone will be celebrated. When evaluating Chile’s commitments in the global agreement, it is important to note that according to the international community, Chile is a country in a state of increased development. As a result, it has been a member country of the OECD since 2010. This means the country is subject to growing standards of performance on social, economic and environmental levels. Chile should continue to grow and develop and would therefore need to have social, economic and environmental policies that integrate growth, with a focus on sustainability aimed at integrated development that promotes among other things, the efficient use of resources. In this context, the commitments that Chile makes and the mitigation options the country implements will have important effects for its development path. Likewise, inaction – non-implementation of specific climate change mitigation measures on a global and national level – will also have impacts on the country. In this way, international commitments and the need to maintain competitiveness in a market where conditions call for higher standards of sustainability go hand-in-hand with the challenges that the country needs to face on a national level. The government of Chile trusts that these significant challenges will also provide opportunities to drive a more integral development of the country. 2. Principle characteristics of MAPS Chile MAPS is an acronym for Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios. It started in 2005–2008 when South Africa developed a similar initiative, called Long Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS). LTMS aimed to create a solid national position, based on the best available science and supported by the main stakeholders in the country for negotiations in Copenhagen at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15). The South African cabinet mandated and financed the LTMS project which was carried out by the University of Cape Town. The good results of this initiative, evaluated independently by the World Bank, gave rise to MAPS International. Towards the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011, the LTMS project managers received financing which was offered to Brazil, Chile, Peru and Colombia in order to begin similar initiatives on climate change mitigation. The idea was to involve countries that had, in recent years, been characterised by significant emission increases despite their potential for preventing high GHG emissions. As such, the MAPS international programme began at the end of 2011, based in South Africa at the University of Cape Town and at the non-governmental organization, SouthSouthNorth, and the MAPS Projects in Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Chile. The MAPS initiative was proposed as a scientific and socially rigorous way to analyse possible future options or possibilities for these countries to i) reduce GHG emissions, ii) report on their positions in international negotiations and iii) progress in terms of low carbon development paths. 3. MAPS Chile objetives and components In early 2011, the Government of Chile agreed to set in motion a MAPS Chile initiative as part of the MAPS programme. In the same year, the government began to regularly hold inter-ministerial committee meetings on climate change, which was the beginning of the MAPS Chile Steering Committee. It was the task of this body – whose secretariat was from the Climate Change Office of the Ministry of Environment – to begin the first steps in assembling and developing the project. In 2012, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, Mining, Transport, Energy and Environment gave a mandate to the MAPS Chile project to generate scientific evidence on GHG emission projection scenarios which would make it possible to evaluate different courses of action for the country. As such, the MAPS Chile project was an adequate option for exploring different options in tackling the challenges in mitigating climate change, and to convert these into opportunities for sustainable development. The inter-ministerial mandate signed by six ministries of the state for the MAPS Chile project confirms this vision and focus. MAPS Chile is recognised for providing the country with the best available science via a structured participative, inclusive, transparent and constructive process that goes hand-in-hand with the project’s research efforts and modelling. It is a non-binding exercise, however, it is hoped that with the support of the majority of the interested parties, it will provide substantial input in the decisions that Chile needs to take in the coming years concerning climate change matters. 29 EMISSIONS (MtCO2eq) Uncertainties associated with Base line 2013 Unrestricted growth Base line 2007 (PHASE 1) Base line 2013 + Mitigation strategies (PHASE 2) Base line 2013 Required by science at the national level (PHASE 1) Specific mitigation scenario TIME 2007 2013 2020 2030 2050 Figure7: Trajectories for emissions analysed in the MAPS Chile project. The red shows the 2007 baseline, green the 2013 baseline, red the mitigation scenarios and light-blue the Required by Science Scenario (Source: MAPS Chile Project. Phase 2, 2014). 30 Part of the MAPS Chile project results includes projections of a series of emission trajectories, developed through a process of research, modelling and simulation. Figure 7 illustrates the group of trajectories that are analysed throughout the entire project. implemented or approved by December 2012. During the project, different mitigation scenarios were analysed. The 2013–2030 baseline studies and estimations and the mitigation scenarios were coordinated by the UNDP and had the participation of various sectoral consulting teams. TThe red line shows emission scenarios according to the development trends that existed in December 2006, and special GHG mitigation actions implemented post December 2006 are not considered. This is called the 2007–2030 baseline scenario, or the growth without constraints scenario11. It is relevant as it constitutes the basis of the voluntary commitment adopted by the country in the Copenhagen Accord. The red outline shows the uncertainties (expressed as sensitivities) associated with the projections. In addition, MAPS Chile contracted international experts, via the Ministry of Finance, to generate a macroeconomic tool (a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model – DSGE) which made it possible to evaluate the GHG mitigation options, analysing their impacts on macroeconomic variable such as economic growth. The light-blue line represents the Required by Science Scenario for stabilising Chile’s emissions, which aims to sustain coherence with the emission limits estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the world. This illustration reflects the ways in which it is feasible to interpret the global requirements for reducing emissions in the country12. The 2013–2030 baseline, in green, shows the GHG emission projections considering current development trends and the mitigation measures, plans and laws that have all been approved up to December 2012. Lastly, the purple line shows a specific mitigation scenario, which deviates from the 2013–2030 baseline. The mitigation scenarios are the result of a joint application of a series of additional mitigation measures to those already 11 12 The following are included in the results of the MAPS Chile project: • An estimate of quantitative scenarios (2007-2030 baseline, 2013-2030 baseline, Required by Science and Mitigation Scenarios) and options for mitigating climate change in Chile in 2020, 2030 and 2050 per productive sector, as well as an analysis of the main uncertainties. • A selection of mitigation measures for the key economic sectors and economic evaluations for each. • Visualisation tools in order to easily share and communicate the results. • A variety of communication channels used to reach key stakeholders, emphasising recommendations on possible public policies and private initiatives. For more details consult the Complete Results of Phase 1 Report available here www.mapschile.cl. The name “Required by Science” is taken from the South African experience; for more details, consult the Phase 1 Report, www.mapschile.cl. 31 • Implementation of knowledge management systems related to climate change in Chile, which are available in a dynamic online format. • Feedback (on opinions, problems, ideas, etc.) from interested parties on key topics relating to climate change. 4. Who was involved in MAPS Chile Phase 2 4.1 Steering Committee • Best practices and experiences on a multi-stakeholder participative process that could provide a methodological reference for responding to issues of sustainability. The MAPS Chile Project is divided into three phases: During Phase 1 (results presented in July 2013), the 2007–2030 baseline (or Growth without constraints) and the Required by Science Scenarios were developed. In Phase 2, as presented in this report, the 2013–2030 baseline is presented. Mitigation measures were evaluated for the seven economic sectors included in the project, a variety of mitigation scenarios were identified and evaluated, and results are provided through a general equilibrium model, regarding the macroeconomic impacts of implementing the measures and mitigation scenarios. Finally, in the third phase of the project, the results of phase 2 will be defined, tools for visual communication will be developed, co-benefits of the mitigation measures will be analysed and mitigation options for 2030–2050 identified, with a non-transitional, out the box focus. 32 The steering committee is the major decision making body in the project. It has met monthly since 2011. The research and process leaders participate in the meetings, and the UNDP officer. The steering committee reviews proposals, preliminary and final results, and can partner up in carrying out project studies in the interests and line of expertise. . Waldemar Coutts, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Julio Cordano, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (since April 2014) Luis Gonzales, Ministry of Finance (up to April 2014) Jorge Valverde, Ministry of Finance (since April 2014) Daniel Barrera, Ministry of Agriculture (up to July 2014) José Antonio Prado, Ministry of Agriculture Ángelo Sartori, Ministry of Agriculture (up to January 2014) Osvaldo Quintanilla, Ministry of Agriculture (since January 2014) Jacqueline Espinoza, Ministry of Agriculture (since September 2014) María de la Luz Vásquez, Ministry of Mining Viviana Parra, Ministry of Mining Pablo Salgado, Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications Ana Luisa Covarrubias, Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (up to March 2014) Celia Iturra, Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications Juan Pedro Searle, Ministry of Energy Nicola Borregaard, Ministry of Energy (since April 2014) Virginia Zalaquett, Ministry of Energy (up to March 2014) Alberto Ugalde, Ministry of Energy (up to March 2014) Andrea Rudnick, Ministry of Environment (up to May 2013) Fernando Farías, Ministry of Environment Andrés Pirazzoli, Ministry of Environment Claudio Meier, Joost Meijer, Oscar Melo, Pilar Moraga, José Tomás Morel, Cristián Mosella, René Muga, Rodrigo Mujica, Aquiles Neuenschwander, Marcelo Olivares, Óscar Parra, Vicente Pérez, Guillermo Pérez del Río, Francisco Pinto, Rodrigo Pizarro, Bernardo Reyes, Teodoro Rivas, Hugh Rudnick, Ximena Ruz, Lake Sagaris, José Luis Samaniego, Eduardo Sanhueza, Ignacio Santelices, Heloisa Schneider, Carlos Silva, Rubén Triviño, Alberto Ugalde, Francisco Unda, Soledad Valenzuela, Julio Vergara, Julio Villalobos, Juan Pablo Yuhma, Virginia Zalaquett. 4.2 Scenario Building Team (SBT in Spanish) The Scenario Building Team is a multi-stakeholder group that contributes to the development of the project. First convened in January 2012 with about 60 participants, it gathered professionals from diverse sectors (public, private, academic, consultants and NGOs) with experience and knowledge on climate change and/or the sectors under study. The members of the SBT participate in their personal capacity. The group works according to the guidelines agreed by the steering committee and in sessions facilitated by head of project processes. It acts as an advisory body and its recommendations are not binding. The steering committee and the research and process team also participate in the SBT (not included in the accompanying list). María Teresa Arana, Richard Aylwin, Ricardo Bosshard, Waldo Bustamante, Rodolfo Camacho, Andrés Camaño, Rodrigo Castillo, Gustavo Chiang, Paulo Cornejo, María Emilia Correa, Marcos Crutchik, Cristóbal de la Maza, Michel de Laire, Annie Dufey, Javier del Río, Laila Ellis, Andreas Elmenhorst, Carlos Finat, Fernando Flores, Javier García, Andrè Laroze, Sara Larraín, Flavia Liberona, Diego Lizana, Gianni López, 4.3 Technical Working Groups (TWG) Two rounds of 6 Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings each were held during 2013 and 2014. The following sectors were included in the groups: electrical energy, transport and urbanisation, mining and other industries, forestry and agriculture, public-commercial and residential consumption and waste. In each case, around 40 sectoral specialists were convened. The meetings each had an average of 20 attendants. The TWG has provided valuable knowledge and sectoral experience. 4.4 Phase 2 Consulting Teams The MAPS Chile project was developed via the work by various consulting teams. The consulting teams and respective contributors are listed here: 33 Electrical Energy Centre for Global Change UC: Enzo Sauma. Mining and Other Industries UNTEC: Jacques Clerc. Transport Sustainable Systems: Sebastián Tolvett. Forestry and agriculture INFOR-INIA: Carlos Bahamondez. Commercial, public and residential Chile Foundation: Cristóbal Muñoz. Waste GreenLab UC: Claudio Huepe. Macroeconomic model Institute for Structural Research, (DSGE)Poland: Piotr Lewandowski. In additional to these teams, MAPS Chile Phase 2 included two complimentary sectoral studies. These covered the agricultural sector (Headed by Oscar Melo, PUC) and the electricity sector (headed by Rigoberto Torres). Both studies were conceived of by the MAPS Chile professional team in response to the need to try out other focuses and information, in order to provide the strongest options for the final results of phase 2. 4.5 Executive Committee – research and processes team This is made up of the head of research and process leaders. They are responsible for design, supervision, implementation and reporting of the MAPS Chile project. 34 Carlos Benavides, Research Team, Researcher from the Centre for Energy at the University of Chile (Civil Electrical Engineer, Master of Science in Engineering). Hernán Blanco, Head of Participative Processes (Civil Engineer, Master of Philosophy in Environment and development). Paulina Calfucoy, Process Team (Sociologist, Master in Public Affairs, Ph.D. (c)). Manuel Díaz, Research Team, University of Chile (Civil Engineer, Master of Science). Rodrigo Fuentes, Research Team, Associate Professor, Institute of Economy, Pontificia Catholic University of Chile (Master of Arts, Ph.D.). Gonzalo García, Research Team, Research Associate, Institute of Economy, Pontificia Catholic University of Chile (Commercial Engineer, Master in Economics). Francisco Molina, Research Team (since August 2014) (Sociology, Ph.D. in Geography). Marcia Montedonico, Research Team, University of Chile (Agronomist, Master in Sustainable Development and Management of Agro-environmental Systems). Rodrigo Palma, Head of Research, Centre for Energy, DIE, FCFM, University of Chile (Civil Engineer, Master, Doctorate in Engineering). Catalina Ravizza, Research Team, Associate Researcher until August 2014, Institute of Economics, Pontificia Catholic University of Chile (Commercial Engineering, Master in Economics). Andrea Rudnick, Civil-Industrial Engineer and MSc (since February 2014). Lupe Santos, Communications Manager (Journalist; until March 2014). Anahí Urquiza, Research Team (since August 2014) (Anthropology, Ph.D. in Sociology). 4.6 Executive Secretariat This is the project coordination body. It is responsible for all national and international communications and directly supervises the Executive Committee work, reviewing the administrative issues and technicalities of research and participation. Andrea Rudnick, Head of the Climate Change Office, Ministry of Environment, Civil-industrial Engineering and Msc (up to May 2013). Fernando Farías, Head of the Climate Change Office, Ministry of Environment, Civil Engineering, MSc and Ph.D. (since May 2013). Andrés Pirazzoli, Climate Change Office, Ministry of Environment, Lawyer, Masters in Environmental and Natural Resources Law. Ángela Reinoso, Climate Change Office, Ministry of Environment, Engineer in Environmental Execution/Implementation. 4.7 Implementation Agency – UNDP UNDP is in charge of administering the project funds. The officer of the UNDP participates in the MAPS Chile steering committee meetings Raúl O’Ryan, Official Environment and Energy Programme, UNDP (up to January 2014). Paloma Toranzos,Professional in the field of Environment and Energy UNDP. 4.8 Financing of MAPS Chile The main funders are: • Children Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). • Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). • Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (COSUDE). • Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Construction. • The Government of Chile. 5. The MAPS Chile Process Phase 2 As in Phase 1 of MAPS Chile, Phase 2 has seen the participation by experts who have enriched the results obtained by consultants and the research team. The Scenario Building Team (SBT) in a structured, multistakeholder participatory study oriented towards optimal robustness and validity of both the preliminary and final results of the study, have worked within the modelling parameters of the 2013 baseline and its results to define the mitigation measures, the method for packaging measures and constructing scenarios, and the results in terms of emissions, costs and implications of the scenarios that were modelled. The contribution of this group of experts and those involved in the TWG has been fundamental in enriching the results obtained during the project. 35 A participative process of this scale involves huge challenges in terms of management and decision-making. The generic approach to operation and decision-making has been: • The research and process team of the development project develops methodological proposals and/or content. • The proposals are reviewed, modified and approved by the Steering Committee. • They are then presented to the Scenario Building Team and/or the Technical Working Group, where they are discussed and suggestions and contributions are made. Table 3: Main activities in the phase 2 participative process (2013 and 2014). Fuente: Proyecto MAPS Chile. Fase 2, 2014. Activity Date/ Place Approximate number Main topics addressed of attendants 36 SBT4 17 and 19 April 2013 70 • Phase 1 Results • Central Elements, Phase 2 Breakfast 5 SBT 7 June 2013 19 • Dissemination of MAPS Chile • Modelling of parameters, baseline 2013–2030 • Definition of Mitigation Scenarios TWG (third June 2013 100 round of 6 meetings) • 2013–2030 Baseline • Identification and evaluation of mitigation measures Concepción 1 July 2013 40 seminar • Phase 1 Results • Central Elements, Phase 2 SBT5 5 and 6 August 2013 70 • 2013–2030 Baseline • Mitigation Measures TWG (4th September 2013 100 round of 6 meetings) • 2013–2030 Baseline • Mitigation Measures Activity Date/ Place Approximate number Main topics addressed of attendants Breakfast 6 SBT 9 October 2013 31 • Method for packaging measures for construction mitigation scenarios SBT 6 17 and 18 October 2013 65 • 2013–2030 Baseline preliminary results • Packaging measures for construction mitigation scenarios Breakfast 7 SBT 17 December 2013 32 • 2013–2030 Baseline preliminary results • Packaging mitigation measures SBT 7 8 and 9 January 2014 70 • 2013–2030 Baseline results • Presentation of preliminary results of mitigation scenarios • Macroeconomic model Breakfast 8 SBT 11 April 2014 43 • International negotiations on climate change • Carbon taxes SBT8 5 and 6 June 2014 60 • Results, Phase 2, excluding the macroeconomic model • Panel of experts on carbon taxes. Breakfast 9 • Results of the macroeconomic model 28 August 2014 35 • The research team prepares new versions and presents them again to the steering committee, where they are approved (or modified) definitively. This sequence has been repeated for key moments of development, specifically at the beginning to develop the terms of reference, mid-process to review the preliminary results, and at the end of each phase. MAPS Chile’s participatory process in 2013 included the activities detailed in Table 3. In each case, reports were written and distributed to participants to make observations and suggestions. In addition, workshops were held with the international MAPS team to present results to different audiences, and follow up meetings with the steering committee and project funders were held. 37 6. Suggestions for reviewing the Phase 2 results The results of Phase 2 are numerous and address diverse topics and sectors. It is not easy to compile them in a single report and evidently it is neither easy to review them. For this reason, the results are presented in categories that are relevant to the specific interests of different readers. In particular, a distinction is made between the results for the 2013–2030 baseline, the mitigation scenarios and the analysis of macroeconomic effects. Section V is about the mitigation action scenarios. It contains a description of the general process of identifying the measures and their definitions, a library of mitigation actions by sector, which looks at the main descriptors of the mitigation measures that were considered in the project and the definition of the scenarios that were selected, as well as their results on national and sectoral levels. Various additional and complimentary background reports, such as the sectoral reports and all the detailed characteristics of each mitigation measure considered can be accessed on the MAPS Chile website. Section VI contains the background to the macroeconomic model, including a general description, detail on calibration of the macro model and functioning of the baseline and methodological considerations for integration of the mitigation scenarios into the macroeconomic model. Finally, it contains the macroeconomic results of the mitigation scenarios. The complete report of the Phase 2 results has six sections, which succinctly summarise the main results of phase 2. In section IV the results of the 2013–2030 baseline are presented. This includes key assumptions used in the study, such as the projected GDP growth rate, the projection population growth rate, the fuel price projections and the type of changes, and the criteria for correctly dealing with early mitigation actions. It also contains an analysis of coherence existing between the sectors, and shows the prospective aggregated results for each of these in terms of GHG emissions, energy consumptions and the balance of emissions and captures. 38 Section VII presents the MAPS Chile Knowledge Platform, developed by the research team. Section VII includes a brief report written by voluntary members of the SBT as an interpretation and ‘narrative’ of the results obtained by MAPS Chile. This section became a necessity for interpreting and contextualising the diverse and numerous results presented as results of the project. The text in this section is under the exclusive authority and responsibility of the SBT. Finally, the main conclusions of the MAPS Chile Phase 2 results are presented in section IX. 39 This text is written under the sole authority of the members of the Scenario Building Team (SBT). It serves to present an interpretation, a contextualisation, and the implications (and/or a narrative) of the MAPS Chile Phase 2 results from the specific point of view of the SBT members involved in compiling the present text. It was prepared after two breakfast meetings attended by approximately 20 members of the SBT (13 July and 28 August 2014). The ideas and opinions expressed in this text are the exclusive responsibility of the respective authors and, therefore, do not necessarily reflect a SBT consensus. The authors identified in each section are responsible for their specific text and do not necessarily subscribe to the information in the remaining sections. Despite this, all members of the SBT had access to this text and were able to state their non-subscription to the content; however no member of the SBT made an objection. 40 BY THE SCENARIO BUILDING TEAM comMENTS 1. Issues associated with energy 1.1 Electricity (Electrical power ) 13 The energy sector (composed of the following subsectors: industry manufacturing, construction and mining, transport, public commercial and domestic energy consumption, fishing and electrical energy generation) is the most relevant sector in terms of its responsibility for national emissions of greenhouse gases. From 1990 to 2010, emissions in this sector doubled from 34 million t/CO2eq to 68 million. These account for nearly 75% of total emissions in 2010, which is much higher than other sectors such as Agriculture (15%) and Industrial Processes (6%). Simultaneously, total emissions in the electricity generation subsector increased from 17% to 26% for the same period. Based on this information and the need to estimate sector performance in the future emission grid in the country, the MAPS project has made important contributions to the process of constructing possible baseline emission trajectories, on both national and sectoral levels. As such, in the 2013–2030 baseline projection, the electricity generation subsector is the greatest emitter (due to projections of increases in coal based electricity generation), reaching an average level of 55.1 million CO2eq in 2020 and 64.1 million CO2eq in 2030. Rates of emission increases diminish post 2025. In terms of mitigation, MAPS evaluated the impact of 10 scenarios for reducing emissions compared with the 2013–2030 baseline. For the electricity generation sector, a series of specific measures were considered, moderated by abatement costs, levels of technological penetration, regulations, and demand management, among others. The electricity generation sector plays a relevant role here, in both absolute reduction as well as within the energy sector. 13 Section compiled by Juan Pedro Searle and Nicola Borregaard, Ministry of Energy. 41 Considering all included sectors, a surprising aspect of the general results is the huge range in mitigation anticipated for all the scenarios. For example, if you take the results of 2020, the mitigation range anticipated for all the scenarios is between 4 and 14.4% compared with the 2013–2030 baseline. At first sight, this sets off alarm bells concerning the 20/20 voluntary commitment established in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. It is interesting to recognise the significant difference between the base mitigation (low effort) and the medium mitigation scenarios in the electricity sector, where much higher reductions are obtained in the latter. It shows that the former includes very few measures and the latter includes a much higher number of measures. Therefore, viability of the medium scenario needs to be analysed, even more importantly since the results of this scenario are practically the same as the 80/20 scenario for the electricity generation sector. Considering the significance of the energy sector, and specifically the electricity generation sector, in its role in emission projections and the impact of the mitigation measures, it is important to realise a more indepth evaluation of the results. An in-depth evaluation should be carried out in order to gain a more detailed view of the scenarios, of the measures and of the importance of the required levels of effort. This would provide a clearer idea of the route that should be taken for a series of measures covering institutional, political and regulatory material; which have been under development in the energy sector and which seek the development of a cleaner, safer and more sustainable energy grid. A combination of measures is included in the Energy Agenda, which was launched in May 2014. This will hopefully constitute an important step towards the development and implementation of an Energy Policy for the state, which is long term, inclusive and participatory, and which will furthermore govern the development of the energy sector in view of 2050. 42 Measures such as reducing existing barriers to non-conventional renewable energies (making a commitment to providing 20% of the electricity capacity by these sources of energy by 2025) and promoting the use of efficient energy as an energy resource (establishing a saving target of 20% by 2025) form part of the specific goals and objectives of the aforementioned agenda. Given that MAPS has worked on similar material, regarding defining scenarios and specific measures for the energy sector, it is interesting for the Ministry of Energy to be able to incorporate the low carbon development component underlying each scenario and measure proposed by MAPS into the discussion on the content and scope of the Energy Policy. The links and congruencies between the MAPS measures and the measures and lines of action in the Energy Agenda, as well as the eventual long-term Energy Policy, can create synergies to make measures more viable and gain political support. The MAPS exercise is interesting not only in terms of quantitative results, but also in terms of the process of dialogues that have occurred in the sector. Progress has been made on reaching social agreements on such issues as the need for differentiating cost scenarios for each type of technology, recognising that there can be significant differences in the costs of various projects using the same technology – or for example, the issue of classifying feasibility of different mitigation measures by recognising that some technologies will be socially difficult to introduce (such as nuclear energy). These types of conversations need to be delved further into in the future, so that progress can be made on decision making with increased social legitimacy. • Energy Efficiency14 Even though Chile has low levels of energy consumption compared to developed countries, consumption will increase significantly as the country continues to develop. In contrast to the trajectory followed by developed countries, Chile can and should follow a path of decoupling energy consumption from economic growth. The most important mitigation measures in the Transport, Industry and Mining and the Commercial, Public and Residential Sectors are measures concerning energy efficiency and they are closely related to the incorporation of new regulations. Measures which stand out are: setting energy consumption and CO2 targets for new vehicles, promoting the use of energy management systems (audits, EE targets) for major mining and industrial consumers, and setting efficiency standards for devices. Over the past decade, Chile has made progress in developing public infrastructure in terms of energy efficiency, in educational campaigns, in pilot studies, improving information on consumers and in setting standards. However, in order to meet the goals set by MAPS, there is a need for a qualitative leap in promoting energy efficiency in Chile which undoubtedly needs to be state policy, as opposed to one depending on the voluntary political will of governments. In light of this, the products stemming from the MAPS process are very valuable, where multiple experts and representatives from various segments of society have agreed upon the importance of progressing in this direction regarding energy efficiency. 14 15 2. OTHER SECTORS 2.1 Commercial, Public and Residential Sector15 The importance of these results is that for the first time ever, an exercise was conducted to construct probable GHG mitigation scenarios for the country. In addition, value was also added by developing a 2050 Baseline, as this was an unprecedented exercise in which we were invited to go beyond one single presidential term and to establish probable paths to follow as a society. The project attempted to establish alternative development paths defined by levels of mitigation efforts that would be needed. This is valuable and will remain available for those who make public policy today and into the medium-term future. The MAPS report should be viewed as an attempt to analyse the repercussions of different GHG emission mitigation actions in different sectors. Future readers and users of the information expressed herein should be pay attention to the goal of this exercise: the focus is on emission mitigation scenarios. Quantification of the mitigation actions is often found in a different sector to where they originate. This is the case for the CPR sector where the following occurs: This section was compiled by Ignacio Santelices, Ministry of Energy. This section was compiled by Juan Pablo Yumha, Ministry of Finance and Urbanisation.. 43 • The CPR sector is directly responsible for 26% of the consumption of energy generated in the country. However, for purposes of the MAPS exercise, emissions and reductions are quantified at the source, which is (mainly) the electricity generation sector. • On the other hand, firewood is considered carbon neutral. As a result, carbon emissions are not reflected in the report, despite being the main source of PM2.5 emissions in the south of Chile, and for being directly associated with the CPR sector and contamination in cities. All the information generated throughout the project will serve as a basis for other studies that attempt to define new mitigation scenarios for either specific sectors or sectors in combination. It is without a shadow of a doubt that the work carried out in this project and the resulting documentation is of great value and will assist with visualising challenges and opportunities for mitigation and low carbon development in Chile. 2.2 Transport16 EIt is essential to understand that the MAPS exercise was oriented towards estimating the evolution of CO2 emissions generated in the economy, and the probable effect of the trajectory of certain phenomena that are conside- red in mitigation measures. In this regard, the report is neutral in terms of quantification of certain phenomena, but is silent on its convenience or inconvenience in terms of the of the nation’s global interests. The quantified data in the report is the result of major research efforts and calculations by the MAPS team and the consultants, and probably represents the best approximations available on the topic. However, in the transport sector there is a dearth of valid data, meaning that the results should be considered with caution, specifically in the case of cargo transport. One should take into consideration that the ‘mitigation measures’, in many cases, represent anticipated results as opposed to actions for implementation in order to achieve the results. They define the ‘anticipated effect’ but not ‘how to achieve it’. Certain emissions reductions that they anticipate to achieve are studied, if certain phenomena materialise; however, they do not discuss the measures in order to effectively bring this about. For example, the impact on emissions is estimated if 100% of the taxis were electrical, but the course of action required to make this happen is not examined, not to mention the probability of this occurring. As a consequence, MAPS has not yet evaluated the practical feasibility of applying the measures17. The cost of the mitigation measures is also an issue that should be considered with caution. The problem is that while it is not exactly understood how the phenomena that will reduce emissions is to be brought about, it is This text was compiled by Francisco Unda, transport consultant. Note by MAPS Chile: it must be noted that during phase 2, the consulting team conducted a feasibility analysis (technical, economic, and institutional) which was shared and discussed with the steering committee and the Scenario Building Team. The information on feasibility was a determining factor for how to package mitigation measures into the mitigation scenarios. 16 17 44 difficult to evaluate the costs thereof, and even less so to assess who will absorb them – private users or the state. The MAPS team and consultants have made the greatest effort to obtain statistics that are as realistic as possible; however, it is difficult to anticipate all the potential impacts and the total costs of a measure. This is particularly applicable when these measures involve significant investments, such as with mode changes from road cargo transport to rail or shipping. Estimates of the possible contribution of transport to reducing CO2 emissions are often interpreted as ‘modest’ compared to the proportion of fossil fuel consumption. This relative limitation is largely due to a technological factor: the prevalence of the internal combustion motor as the main technology in all forms of transport, except in the case of rail transport. The two most interesting alternatives that could possibly replace this in the future are electrical cars and fuel cell vehicles, however, these have not yet been developed in terms of large-scale practical and commercially viable applications. Electrical vehicles have limitations related to available power, self-efficiency, weight, charging systems and timing, and cost. Regarding the application of fuel cell vehicles, limitations are: available power, weight, distribution of fuel (hydrogen) and very importantly, extremely high production costs. 2.3 Mining18 The mining sector assessed a multi-actor process for finding solutions to climate change mitigation in Chile. Seventy percent of GHGs in our sector are indirect (Range 2, by energy consumption). As such, the mining sector’s contribution to the total GHG reduction potential through direct emissions (Range 1.30%) is low. Therefore, on a national level it is important that MAPS Chile and the government prioritise the measures which ensure the required reductions are made and that this is done with a national perspective, and not only on sectoral levels. We believe that with direct emissions it is important to continue with energy efficiency measures and to gradually introduce clean energies. In terms of the measures addressing Range 2 (basically measures which address indirect emissions from transport and energy consumption), the most relevant is to introduce an emission factor for supply contracts. Finally, we believe that low impact measures (aggregated on a national level) should be avoided at all costs as they could have significant impact on the mining sector in terms of perceptions on investment and the consequent impacts on the Chilean economy. 2.4 Forestry19 EIt is important to highlight that the main emission captures generated by the forestry sector no longer come from the timber plantations sector but from native forests. Due to a reduction in the annual rate of deforestation, biomass harvested from plantations is starting to equalise with the growth 18 19 This section was compiled by María de la Luz Vásquez (Ministry of Energy), Diego Lizana (Mining Company Doña Inés de Collahuasi), and Laila Ellis (Angloamerican) This section was added to by José Antonio Prado and Osvaldo Quintanilla, Ministry of Agriculture. 45 of forest plantations, thus creating a situation of equilibrium. This means that the contribution of plantations to carbon capture, at least according to the GHG Inventory, is almost zero. Considering the efficiency of forest plantations in carbon capture, and the commitments made by Chile in the UNFCCC to reducing national emissions, it is important to revise the forestry policy and to consider expanding and improving forestry plantations, this time with a clear focus on creating environmental services with an emphasis on carbon capture. Native forests, particularly those categorised as saplings, are the main contributors to carbon capturing in the forestry and land-use change sector. This is contrary to previous analyses in which plantations were analysed as having a greater impact (Second National Report to the UNCCCF). It must be noted that carbon capture by native forests will diminish gradually over time as the saplings stabilise. According to the method applied, this happens when the sapling reaches 80 years or when their average quadratic diameters reach 50cm. The majority of saplings that currently capture carbon are nearly reaching these limits20, meaning that the contribution of native forests to CC mitigation could be only slightly significant for just over 20 years. According to the analysis, it is possible to improve information, as there is now sufficient available data to be able to differentiate between captures by the main types of forests – on growth rates, expansion factors and emission factors21. This could provide information with lower levels of uncertainty, in addition to obtaining more precise information on captures when dealing with saplings, adult forests and forests in transition. Faced with the situation of diminishing carbon capture contributions from native forests, which consequently generates an increase in national emissions, it is important to apply more dynamic native forest laws; expanding conservation areas and forest management. Although this will generate emissions when implemented (which in most cases will be deducted from registered firewood consumption), it can reactivate the capacity of native forests to contribute to carbon capture. Another relevant aspect related to native forests is emissions from burning firewood. Better information is needed on this activity as data is currently based on estimations generating high levels of uncertainty. Concerning emissions from forests fires, the interoperability of geographic and statistical information systems registering fires must be improved in order to know more about the affected land-areas. For this analysis, general parameters were established using figures on average biomass per region and per type of forest, without connecting them to management schemes and other elements22. MAPS Chile note: In 2013 approximately 3 million hectares of ‘sapling’ forest was calculated and 0.15 million hectares of ‘adult sapling”. MAPS Chile note: It must be noted that for native forest, growth rates per type of forest were used, differentiating between “sapling” and “adult sapling”. The expansion factor used for native forest was not differentiated for this, however a sensibility analysis was made for this parameter. 22 MAPS Chile note: this is the case for native forests and other exotic plantations. In the case of pine and eucalyptus plantations, the parameters were associated with management schemes, here the land-surface affected by fires is considered endogenously in the timber availability model. 20 21 46 2.5 Agriculture23 The Chilean agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This added to the entry of the sector into international markets in food exportation, presents an enormous challenge for reconciling an increase in productivity to satisfy a growing global demand for its products with the sustainable use of natural resources, meeting the emerging environmental requirements and tariffs where reducing GHG emissions is key. The work done in the MAPS project has generated valuable information on the relative magnitude of the efforts that the different economic sectors need to make in order to mitigate GHG emissions. Although there are opportunities for the agriculture sector to directly or indirectly reduce its GHG emissions, it is clear that by comparison with the results per economic sector, the cost-benefit relation of mitigation measures for the agriculture sector is much higher than that for other sectors of the economy. In the same way, and in agreement with the MAPS results, the agriculture sector should concentrate on the efficient use of nitrogen fertiliser, a reduction of methane coming from animal farming, promotion of agro-energy and energy efficiency with machinery and agro-industry. It should also focus on improving productive efficiency, promoting better management practices and the use of more efficient technologies. Higher productivity will protect the development of the agri-food sector and simultaneously has the capacity to reduce emissions per unit of production. This would render the sector more profitable, sustainable and competitive. The MAPS project has proven that Chile needs to advance in generating its own GHG emission factors for the agricultural sector, in function of our ecosystems, land and productive networks. This will make it possible to measure emissions more suitably to our own agricultural conditions and techniques, to identify gaps more precisely and to implement more efficient actions for reducing emission gases per unit of food produced. 3. 2013 Baseline 24 Since 1990, there has been an international attempt between nations to agree on a regime for responding to one of the most constraining environmental challenges possible in terms of socio-economic development planning, i.e. accelerated climate change the planet has been experiencing over the past century and a half. The cause is fundamentally anthropic in origin and now, a quarter of a century later, each day it is experienced more obviously and incurs more costs. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established the main goals of the international agreement on the matter, the guiding principles on agreements for achieving these goals and the institutional needs for nations to tackle the task. Despite the efforts made by signatories to carry this out, the results on scientific research on the causes of the problem and its potential impacts on inhabitants of this This section was compiled by Teodoro Rivas, Ministry of Agriculture. 24 This section was compiled by Eduardo Sanhueza, consultant. 23 47 planet, as well as the tight margin of time available to keep it under control which emerges from this knowledge, we can only conclude that this international agreement is still far off from reaching its goal. However, this is not to say that there has been no progress at all. Numerous and significant advancements have been made. These highlight the magnitude of the task and the difficulty of creating global forms of governance in order to tackle the causes and impacts of climate change that adequately address the interests and priorities of diverse economic contexts of global nations. A fact, which clearly shows the existing diversity but also illustrates the progress in terms of the goals set for the international community is the gradual evolution in recent years of an understanding of one of the basic principles set out in the convention text for achieving its goals. This is establishing that the measures adopted by the parties of the international agreement should meet common responsibilities but should be differentiated by capacities. As a consequence, the parties that are developed countries should take the initiative on both climate change and their adverse effects. In essence, during the first 15 years of these efforts in international negotiations there was a prevailing understanding by developing nations that initiatives should not be made solely by developed nations but that the problem and solutions were a shared responsibility. Implementation of voluntary mitigation actions was concentrated within countries that received support in terms of economic resources from developed countries, through the funding mechanism established by the convention and later, via the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. The latter was set up such that the developed world could contribute, if it so wished, to the quantified achievement of commitments to controlling and reducing emissions established by this legal entity for developed countries. 48 Negotiations only really gained momentum in 2007 when the parties of developed countries entered into discussions on finding agreements on long-term cooperative actions, including a detailed global goal for reducing emissions, based on common but differentiated responsibilities. For this purpose, additional promotion of nationally appropriate mitigation actions was considered for developing countries, in the context of sustainable development, enabled by technological, financial and capacity building support. In coming years, a new reading of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities will reaffirm the following: i) firstly, the wide acceptance of the invitation to developing nations to subscribe to the agreement in which a group of developing countries was defined in the Copenhagen Accord at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) in 2009, allowing these countries to set voluntary commitments to controlling GHG emission patterns and to register these commitments with the Secretariat of the Convention. The goals are to be achieved via nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), with or without international support by 2020; ii) secondly, the decision taken at the COP17 held two years later in Durban, South Africa is noteworthy. The decision was to negotiate a new legally binding agreement for all parties to be adopted in 2015 and to come into force in 2020. The parties who agree to do this must communicate their ‘intentions of nationally determined contributions’ to Secretariat of the Convention by March 2015, and no later than August 2015. As a consequence of this development, our country as with all developing countries, had access to resources from the Global Environment Facility which was made available to cover ‘incremental costs’ and to enable development projects to simultaneously create significant reductions of GHG gases. Chile has since been active in providing results of project activities that included emission reduction co-benefits under the Clean Development Mechanism framework of the Kyoto Protocol. In August 2010, Chile officially presented its voluntary commitments to the United Nations as follows, ‘Chile will carry out nationally appropriate mitigation actions in order to achieve a 20% deviation by 2020 from its currently increasing business-as-usual emission trajectory, forecast from 2007’, and is currently identifying and making economic evaluations of mitigation measures in the sectors where this is possible. In 2012, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, Mining, Transport, Energy and Environment mandated MAPC Chile to generate scientific energy on GHG emission forecast scenarios in order to inform responses to the needs for the country on this matter. In context of the considerations and the specifics of any modelling exercise, the MAPS project has met this challenge through an unprecedented exercise. Although there is always room for improvement, this project provides the material necessary to respond to the mandate, as described in the presentation of the Phase 2 results. The voluntary commitments made in 2010 and the contributions that the country needs to announce in 2015 present major methodological challenges. These are to establish emission patterns where the business-as-usual scenario is dominant – in other words, economic development that does not include implementing measures and/or public policies aimed at affecting GHG emission reductions or capture. Establishing the emission patterns was an intrinsic requirement for the country when announcing its commitments in 2010, and is fundamental in terms of evaluating the progress in achieving the voluntary commitments by 2020. It is also important for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the measures that could form the basis for contributions to mitigation that the country must announce post 2020. An exercise of this nature is even more challenging due to its complexity, in this case it does not only involve modelling future emissions of an economy that is extremely susceptible to an unstable global economy (with no timeframe available for when it will stabilise), but it also requires delving into the past in order to find out about emissions in the country, without implementation of any relevant public policies. 49 36 50 MAPS CHILE WHO HAVE DEVELOPED Steering committee, scenario building team and professional team 1 María Teresa Arana Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad de Chile. Fue gerente de estudios de la Corporación Chilena de la Madera y desde hace seis años ocupa el cargo de Gerente General. Es miembro del Comité Asesor en Productos Forestales de FAO (ACPWP). 2 Richard Aylwin Ingeniero Civil mención Estructuras Universidad de Chile, Executive MBA UC. Últimos diez años dedicado a gestión de uso eficiente de energía/energía sustentable en Codelco. Actualmente se desempeña como Director de Energía Sustentable y Cambio Climático. 3 Daniel Barrera Pedraza Ingeniero Forestal y M.Sc. en Economía Agraria de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Se desempeña hace siete años como especialista en Apicultura, Sector Forestal y Cambio Climático de la Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias, Odepa, del Ministerio de Agricultura de Chile. 4 Carlos Benavides Farías Ingeniero Civil Electricista y Magíster en Ciencias de la Ingeniería de la Universidad de Chile. Coordinador de investigación de MAPS Chile. Actualmente trabaja como investigador del Centro de Energía de la Universidad de Chile. Sus principales intereses son la operación, planificación y regulación del sector energía. 5 Hernán Blanco Ingeniero Civil Hidráulico de la Pontificia Universidad Católica y Master of Philosophy en Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de la Universidad de Cambridge. Consultor con más de 20 años de experiencia en procesos de partici51 pación ciudadana, manejo de conflictos, responsabilidad social, sustentabilidad, cambio organizacional y evaluación ambiental estratégica. Miembro del Directorio Internacional de Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano. Miembro internacional de IIED (RU; 2007-2011). Líder de Proceso Participativo de MAPS Chile. 6 Nicola Borregaard Doctor en Economía de Recursos Naturales de la Universidad de Cambridge, Inglaterra y Máster en Economía de la State University New York de Estados Unidos. Fue directora del Programa País de Eficiencia Energética del Gobierno de Chile y miembro del Consejo Consultivo del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Ocupó cargos directivos en diversos centros de investigación de medio ambiente y en Fundación Chile. Actualmente es Coordinadora de la División de Desarrollo Sustentable del Ministerio de Energía. 7 Ricardo Bosshard Ingeniero Agrónomo de la Universidad Austral de Chile, Magister en Administración Ambiental de la Universidad de Dalhousie, Canadá y Diplomado en gestión y liderazgo en el IMD, Lausana, Suiza. Ha sido gerente de un centro de logística de productos químicos peligrosos, gerente del equipo de Sustainable Business Solutivos de Pricewaterhouse Coopers. El año 2008 asume como Director de WWF en Chile, cargo que sustenta hasta hoy. 8 Waldo Bustamante Gómez Ingeniero Civil Mecánico de la Universidad de Chile. Magister en Desarrollo Urbano de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y Doctor (PhD) en Ciencias Aplicadas de la Universidad Catholique de Louvain, Bélgica. Profesor Titular e Investigador de la Escuela de Arquitectura UC. Investigador del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable CEDEUS. 52 9 Paulina Calfucoy Socióloga de la Pontificia Universidad Católica, Magister en Asuntos Públicos Internacionales de la Universidad de Wisconsin-Madison y Candidata a Doctor en Estudios del Desarrollo de la misma universidad. Trabaja como consultora en energías renovables, energía en general y cambio climático, centrando su contribución en el análisis institucional y político de los problemas. Interesada principalmente en la formulación de políticas públicas y el diseño metodológico de procesos participativos, aplicados a temas complejos como energía, cambio climático, medio ambiente y sustentabilidad del desarrollo. Es parte del equipo de proceso de MAPS Chile. 10 Rodolfo Camacho Ingeniero Civil de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, actualmente se desempeña como Gerente de Medio Ambiente y Cambio Climático para BHP Billiton División Cobre, con supervisión de las operaciones en Chile, Perú y Australia. Fue miembro del Consejo Consultivo del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de Chile entre 2008 y 2014, en representación del sector industrial (CPC). Preside la Comisión de Recursos Hídricos del Consejo Minero de Chile. 11 Andrés Camaño Biólogo Marino de la Universidad de Concepción, con Diplomados en Ingeniería Ambiental y Gestión de Riesgo Operacional. Con más de 25 años de experiencia en compañías del sector minero, forestal y energético. Ha participado en 25 publicaciones científicas y ha sido Editor y Coeditor de cuatro libros sobre Medio Ambiente, Biodiversidad, Contaminación y Humedales. Actualmente es Presidente del Grupo de Contaminación Marina del Comité Oceanográfico Nacional CONA. 12 Rodrigo Castillo M Abogado de la Universidad de Chile. Actualmente es Director Ejecutivo de la Asociación de Empresas Eléctricas A.G. Fue Vicepresidente de Asuntos Legales y Regulatorios de la VTR GlobalCom S.A. Es director académico del programa de posgrado en Regulación Económica de la Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, y profesor de Derecho de Regulación Económica y Derecho de las Industrias Reguladas de la misma universidad. Es académico del programa de Derecho Administrativo Económico de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, y profesor y coordinador del curso de Derecho de Telecomunicaciones del Magister en Nuevas Tecnologías y Telecomunicaciones de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Chile. Es miembro del Comité Consultivo de la Iniciativa Ministerial “Energía 2050”, del Comité Ejecutivo de la Iniciativa “Escenarios Energéticos Chile 2030” y del Comité de Energía de SOFOFA. 13 Gustavo Chiang Ingeniero Civil Químico de la Universidad de Concepción, Diplomado en Gestión Ambiental Universidad de Chile, Diplomado en Desarrollo Gerencial Universidad del Desarrollo. Desde hace 15 años está a cargo de la gestión ambiental de Cementos Bio Bio S.A. Actualmente es Jefe de Medio Ambiente en Cementos Bio Bio S.A. 14 Julio Cordano Licenciado en Historia, Universidad de Chile y Máster en gestión pública, Universidad de Victoria, New Zealand. Diplomático de carrera, egresado de la Academia Diplomática y con destinaciones en Nueva Zelandia e Italia. Actualmente es Jefe del Departamento de Cambio Climático y Desarrollo Sostenible, Dirección de Medio Ambiente, del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. 15 Paulo Cornejo Guajardo Ingeniero Agrónomo, experto en inventarios de gases de efecto invernadero, con amplia experiencia en el sector público y privado. Se desempeña como coordinador del SNICHILE en el Departamento de Cambio Climático del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Es revisor experto de inventarios nacionales de GEI de las Partes anexo I de la CMNUCC y miembro del Comité editorial de la Base de Datos de Factores de Emisión del IPCC. Además, es profesor titular del curso cuantificación, informe y verificación de GEI en el Programa PROGOA de la USACH. 16 María Emilia Correa Co fundadora y Coreógrafa de Sistema B. Ex Presidenta del Directorio de la Fundación Casa de la Paz y Vicepresidente de Responsabilidad Social y Ambiental de GrupoNueva. Miembro de los comités que diseñaron la Global Reporting Initiative – GRI y los Principios Sullivan de Responsabilidad Corporativa, fue delegada ante el World Business Council for Sustainable Development durante diez años, Directora del CECODES y de la Fundación Natura Colombia. Miembro del panel de stakeholders de multinacionales como Alcoa y General Electric y de varias juntas directivas, es profesora invitada en la Maestría (MGA) de la Facultad de Administración de la Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. 17 Waldemar Coutts Licenciado en Derecho y Ciencias Políticas, Universidad de Lovaina, Bélgica. Diplomado en Relaciones Internacionales, ENA, Paris. Ha ocupado el cargo de Subdirector de Medio Ambiente en el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Actualmente es Director de Medio Ambiente y Asuntos Marítimos de dicho ministerio. 53 18 Ana Luisa Covarrubias Ingeniero Civil de Industrias y Master en Ciencias de la Ingeniería de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Entre 2010 y 2014, trabajó en el Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones, donde integró el grupo de profesionales que rediseñó el Transantiago y representó al Ministerio en el proyecto MAPS Chile. Entre 1996 y 2010 dirigió el Programa de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de Libertad y Desarrollo. Fue miembro del Consejo Consultivo de la Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente (2008 – 2009). 21 Michel de Laire P Ingeniero en Ejecución en Electricidad de la Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Ingeniero Civil Industrial de la Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María y MBA de la Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña. Cuenta con una amplia experiencia en proyectos de infraestructura eléctrica, eficiencia energética y energías renovables. Estuvo a cargo del área de Industria y Minería de la Agencia Chilena de Eficiencia Energética. Actualmente se desempeña como asesor de empresas en temas de gestión energética e implementación de la norma ISO 50001. 19 Marcos Crutchik Norambuena Doctor y Magister en energía eléctrica de la Universidad de Tel Aviv, Israel, fue investigador del Lewis Research Center de la NASA, EEUU. Es miembro del centro SERC-Chile y Sub Director del Centro de Energía CDEA, Universidad de Antofagasta, y en la actualidad, Decano de la Facultad de Ingeniería de la Universidad de Antofagasta. 22 Javier del Río Arquitecto de la Pontificia Universidad Católica, AA Dipl (Hons) Energy & Environment Prog, Reino Unido, académico línea arquitectura y energía escuela de Arquitectura UC, consultor independiente para asesorìas de ahorro y eficiencia energética en arquitectura y columnista de Econciencia del Diario La Tercera. Recibió los premios de Fermìn Vivaceta del Colegio de Arquitectos de Chile 2003, Arquitectura Sustentable Batimat 2011, Francia y Construciòn con mirada de futuro Velux Chile 2013. 20 Cristobal de la Maza Ingeniero Civil Industrial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica. Ha trabajado extensamente como consultor de instituciones públicas y privadas. Se desempeñó como Jefe de la División de Información y Economía Ambiental del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Tiene una vasta experiencia en temas de desarrollo sostenible, ejerciendo como miembro del directorio del programa de Naciones Unidas sobre consumo y producción sostenible y como consejero del Centro de Energía Renovable de Chile. El año 2013, dirigió a implementación de la Estrategia Nacional de Crecimiento Verde, comprometida por el país ante la OCDE. 54 23 Manuel Díaz Director del Programa de Gestión y Economía Ambiental (PROGEA) de la Fundación para la Transferencia Tecnológica de la Universidad de Chile e investigador de apoyo en el proyecto. Su experiencia reside en temas de gestión ambiental, energía, minería, cambio climático, análisis de riesgos, y economía ambiental. Tiene un grado de Magíster en Ciencias en Gestión de Proyectos de Ingeniería del Medio Ambiente y Energía de la Ecole des Mines de Nantes, y en Ciencias en Ingeniería Industrial. Es Ingeniero en Minas de la Universidad de Chile. Parte del equipo de investigación de MAPS Chile; encargado de los sectores industria y minería y CPR. 24 Annie Dufey Economista de la Universidad de Chile y Master of Arts en Políticas de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de la Universidad de Sussex. Fue Directora de Políticas, Estrategias y Sociedad en Energía y Cambio Climático de la Fundación Chile, co-fundadora, miembro del Comité Ejecutivo y Coordinadora Técnica de Escenarios Energéticos Chile 2030 e Investigadora Senior del International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) en Londres. Actualmente es Jefe de la División de Prospectiva y Política Energética del Ministerio de Energía. 25 Laila Ellis Ingeniero Civil del Georgia Institute of Technology, Estados Unidos. Se ha desempeñado en cargos de Sustentabilidad, Seguridad, Sistemas de Gestión Integrada y Gestión de Riesgos del Negocio y Operaciones. Ha trabajado en el sector minero en Sudamerica durante los últimos 15 años y actualmente es Gerente de Riesgos en el área de Finanzas en Anglo American Copper. 26 Andreas Elmenhorst Ingeniero Civil (M.Sc.), Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas Aachen, Alemania. Alemán que reside desde 1994 en Chile. Actualmente es gerente de la consultora ambiental ECOING en Chile. Tiene 20 años de experiencia en el área de ingeniería ambiental y consultoría internacional (Alemania, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Filipinas, Honduras y Perú), especialmente en gestión de residuos sólidos y su relación con el cambio climático. 27 Jacqueline A. Espinoza O Ingeniero Agrónomo. Doctor en Economía de la Empresa Agraria y Alimentaria, Agronegocios y Marketing Agroalimentario de la Universidad Miguel Hernández, España. Actualmente es la especialista y encargada de Cambio Climático en la Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA) del Ministerio de Agricultura de Chile. 28 Fernando Farías Ingeniero Civil Químico de la Universidad de Chile, M.Sc, y PhD. Environment del Imperial College London. Lidera el equipo MAPS Chile desde la Jefatura de la Oficina de Cambio Climático del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile. Cuenta con una amplia experiencia en el diseño e implementación de políticas públicas para la reducción de GEI, planes de mitigación de cambio climático y calidad del aire. 29 Carlos Finat Ingeniero Civil Eléctrico de la Universidad de Chile. Cuenta con una vasta trayectoria profesional, en la industria energética, y minera, tecnologías de información, defensa y automatización. Actualmente, es Director Ejecutivo de la Asociación Chilena de Energías Renovables (ACERA), además de integrar el Comité Ejecutivo de Escenarios Energéticos, el Grupo de Construcción de Escenarios de MAPS Chile y el Consejo Consultivo Energía 2050 invitado por el Ministerio de Energía. 30 Fernando Flores Ingeniero Civil Químico de la Universidad Técnica del Estado y Magíster en Administración de Empresas de la Pontificia Universidad Católica, con más de 25 años de experiencia en actividades relacionadas con el sector de pequeña y mediana minería. Desde junio de 2012, se desempeña en la Fundación Tecnológica de la Sociedad Nacional de Minería Federación Gremial (SONAMI) y la representa en instancias de coordinación público-privadas, como la Mesa Minera de Energía Sustentable y el proyecto gubernamental 55 de Opciones de Mitigación para enfrentar el Cambio Climático, MAPS-Chile. Durante su carrera profesional se desempeñó en diferentes cargos en la Empresa Nacional de Minería y como asesor de la Subsecretaría de Minería. En la actualidad ocupa el cargo de Director de la Comisión Minera en representación del Colegio de Ingenieros. 31 Rodrigo Fuentes Ph.D. y Master of Arts in Economics, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Ingeniero Comercial y Magister en Finanzas en la Universidad de Chile. Economista líder del proyecto MAPS-Chile. En la actualidad se desempeña como profesor en la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Fue economista senior en el Banco Central de Chile, Director de la Escuela de Postgrado en Economía y Negocios y profesor de la Universidad de Chile. Ha sido profesor visitante en la Universidad de California (UCLA), AB FreemanSchool of Business en Tulane University y en la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Ha publicado artículos en revistas nacionales e internacionales y ha sido consultor para empresas privadas, oficinas gubernamentales, InterAmerican Development Bank y el Banco Mundial. Sus áreas de interés son crecimiento económico, economía internacional y macroeconomía. 32 Javier García Monge Ingeniero Civil Industrial y Máster en Ingeniería y Gestión de Medio Ambiente de la Escuela Superior de Minas de París. Actualmente es jefe de la Oficina de Asuntos Internacionales del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Fue director del Centro de Energías Renovables y Subgerente de Programas Estratégicos de Corfo, donde estuvo a cargo del programa de promoción de Proyectos de Energías Renovables no Convencionales. Fue encargado de proyectos MDL en Conama y punto focal del IPCC entre 2003 y 2005. 56 33 Gonzalo García Ingeniero Comercial con mención en Economía y Magister en Economía con mención en Macoreconomía, ambos grados obtenidos en la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Actualmente es Investigador adjunto del Instituto de Economía de la PUC. Anteriormente se desempeñó como Asesor Económico del Ministerio de Economía de Chile. Como investigador del equipo MAPS Chile, su trabajo se desarrolla entorno a la modelación macroeconómica. Sus principales áreas de interés de investigación son la Macroeconomía, Economía Internacional, Desarrollo Económico, y Desarrollo Sustentable. 34 Luis E. Gonzales Economista con maestría en Macroeconomía Aplicada de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Fue asesor macroeconómico en el ministerio de Hacienda de Chile y encargado de la modelación macroeconómica sobre Energía, Medio Ambiente y Macroeconomía. Integrante del equipo técnico de negociaciones sobre cambio climático ante OECD. Tiene experiencia en evaluaciones de impacto, análisis econométrico y forecasting. Sus áreas de interés son el Crecimiento y Desarrollo Económico y Políticas Públicas. Actualmente es investigador del Centro Latinoamericano de Políticas Económicas y Sociales CLAPES UC. 35 Celia Iturra Molina Ingeniero y Magíster en Asentamientos Humanos y Medio Ambiente. Especialista en transporte sustentable, transporte público y responsabilidad social empresarial. Ha participado en proyectos ambientales para el transporte público y estudios académicos en Chile y Colombia. Actualmente es Jefe de Transporte Público Regional para la Región Metropolitana en el Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones. 36 André Laroze Doctor en Manejo de Recursos Forestales de la Universidad de Oregón. Fue Jefe de Cambio Climático de la Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias del Ministerio de Agricultura. Actualmente es Secretario Ejecutivo de la Corporación CertforChile de Certificación Forestal. 37 Sara Larraín Bachiller en Estética y Profesora de Artes Plásticas, ambos de la Pontificia Universidad Católica. Directora del Programa Chile Sustentable y Presidenta del Directorio. Con una larga trayectoria y experiencia en el trabajo medioambiental, ha sido Directora de la oficina de Greenpeace Chile, cofundadora de la Red Nacional de Acción Ecológica-RENACE y Directora del Programa Chile Sustentable desde 1997. Ha participado en la formulación de políticas públicas como la Ley Corta I y II, el Programa País de Eficiencia Energética, el Proyecto de Ley para la Protección de Glaciares y la ley de promoción de Energías renovables. 38 Flavia Liberona Bióloga de la Pontifica Universidad Católica de Chile. Se ha desempeñado como docente y coordinadora en diversas redes de trabajo que abordan temas como bosque nativo, institucionalidad ambiental, biodiversidad, transgénicos, entre otros. Desde su ingreso a Fundación Terram ha dirigido el trabajo en líneas temáticas tales como, salmonicultura, cambio climático, contaminación atmosférica, minería y energía, institucionalidad ambiental y biodiversidad. Se desempeña como directora Ejecutiva de Fundación Terram desde agosto de 2007 a la fecha. 39 Diego Lizana Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad de Chile, Máster en Energías Renovables de la Universidad de Zaragoza, España. Actualmente es Superintendente de Eficiencia Energética de Compañía Minera Doña Inés de Collahuasi. 40 Gianni López Desde 2004 es parte del Directorio del Centro Mario Molina – Chile. Cuenta con una amplia experiencia de trabajo en temas de contaminación del aire en América Latina. Fue presidente de la Iniciativa de Aire Limpio regional del Banco Mundial de 2000 a 2002, y ha trabajado en varios proyectos con la Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Suecia, Agencia de Cooperación de Suiza y el Banco Mundial. Actualmente es el coordinador de la Alianza para Combustibles y Vehículos Limpios en la Región de América Latina. También forma parte del Grupo de Contacto de la Iniciativa Global de Economía del Combustible, que promueve una reducción del 50% del consumo mundial de combustible para el año 2050. 41 Claudio Meier Ingeniero Civil de la Universidad de Concepción, MSc en Ingeniería Hidráulica, Universidad de Colorado State y PhD en Ecología Fluvial, Universidad de Montana. Profesor asociado en el Depto. de Ingeniería Civil de la Universidad de Concepción. Tiene intereses transdisciplinarios en ecohidráulica y ecohidrología, ciencia y gestión sustentable de ríos, e hidroelectricidad verde. Es miembro del Ecohydraulics Committee de la International Association for Hydro-Environment Research and Engineering, del Board de la International Society for River Science, y del Comité Editorial del International Journal of River Basin Management. 57 42 Joost Meijer Ingeniero Químico de la Universidad de Delft, Países Bajos. Trabajó durante 3 años en Maputo, Mozambique, en un proyecto de cooperación para el desarrollo de la industria local. Desde 1994 se desempeñó como profesional del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, encargado del área residuos. Actualmente su área de investigación es la introducción de la Responsabilidad Extendida del Productor en el país. 58 45 Marcia Montedonico Ingeniera Agrónoma de la Universidad de Chile y Máster en Desarrollo sustentable y gestión de sistemas agroambientales de la Università di Bologna. En MAPS Chile es responsable del desarrollo de las temáticas referidas a los sectores agropecuario y forestal; colabora en el estudio de co-beneficios y visión 2050, y en el vínculo entre adaptación y mitigación. Tiene experiencia en gestión del riesgo climático y su interés se centra en el aporte del sector silvoagropecuario a la mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático. 43 Oscar Melo Contreras Ingeniero Agrónomo de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, M.Sc. y Ph.D en Economía Agrícola y de Recursos Naturales de la Universidad de Maryland. Actualmente es profesor del Departamento de Economía Agraria de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Ha sido consultor internacional para el Banco Mundial, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, FAO, CEPAL y otras instituciones. Su investigación se ha centrado en la valoración y regulación de los recursos naturales, el funcionamiento de los mercados de agua, la competitividad y desarrollo de la agricultura, los efectos del cambio climático y la caracterización de la demanda de alimentos. 46 Pilar Moraga Abogado de la Universidad de Chile, Máster en Derecho Internacional y Comunitario y Doctor en Derecho por la Universidad de Lille 2-Francia. Es Profesora Asociada de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Chile y se desempeña como investigadora del Centro de Derecho Ambiental de la misma Institución. Es investigadora principal del área de dimensión humana del Centro Fondap de la Ciencia del Clima y la Resiliencia e investigadora asociada del Centro Fondap de Energía Solar. 44 Francisco Molina Sociólogo de la Universidad Diego Portales y Magíster en Antropología y Desarrollo de la Universidad de Chile. Posee un PhD en Geografía en la Kings College London. En MAPS Chile es coordinador de Co-beneficios y Visión 2050. Tiene experiencia en investigación, docencia y consultoría, fundamentalmente en temas Socioambientales. Sus áreas de interés son ecología política, participación ciudadana, gobernabilidad, agua, cambio climático y conflictos socio ambientales. 47 José Tomás Morel Ingeniero Comercial con mención en Economía de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y Máster en Economía de Georgetown University (Ilades, Santiago de Chile). Gerente de Estudios del Consejo Minero desde el año 2012. Entre los años 2004 y 2010 fue Jefe de la División Desarrollo de Mercados del Ministerio de Economía y posteriormente, hasta el año 2011, fue asesor de la División de Coordinación Interministerial del Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia. También ha sido Ministro Suplente del Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia y desde 2010 es Integrante del Panel de Expertos de Transporte Público. Profesor de programas de postgrado de las Universidades de Chile y Alberto Hurtado, dictando cursos sobre regulación de mercados. 48 Cristián Mosella Ingeniero Civil Industrial y Magister en Ciencias de la Ingeniería de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, con experiencia en el sector energía, medio ambiente, desarrollo e implementación de energías renovables, mitigación de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, cambio climático, sustentabilidad e innovación. Ha estado involucrado en más de 50 proyectos energéticos, evaluando su viabilidad socio-ambiental, así como su factibilidad técnico-económica. Al mismo tiempo, ha sido responsable de desarrollar y administrar más de 15 proyectos de generación de energía en el mercado del carbono, verificando y comercializando más de tres millones de toneladas de reducción de emisiones de CO2. 49 René Muga Escobar Ingeniero comercial y licenciado en economía de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Vicepresidente Ejecutivo de la Asociación Gremial de Generadoras de Chile. Cursó y fue además profesor del Magister en Ciencias Políticas de la misma universidad. Fue Vicepresidente de Asuntos Corporativos de LAN Airlines, gerente general de la Confederación de la Producción y del Comercio (CPC) y director de Desarrollo de Negocios en Codelco. Además, fue director ejecutivo del Consejo Asesor Empresarial del Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia-Pacífico (APEC). 50 Rodrigo Mujica Hoevelmayer Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad Austral de Chile y Doctor en Ciencias Forestales de la Universidad TU München de Alemania. Fue coordinador de proyecto de la GTZ y coordinador del programa forestal del convenio de cooperación técnica entre Chile y México. En el Instituto Forestal se ha desempeñado como gerente técnico y como director de proyectos y programas de investigación y transferencia tecnológica. Actualmente es Subdirector Ejecutivo del Instituto Forestal, institución adscrita al Ministerio de Agricultura. 51 Aquiles Neuenschwander Alvarado Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad de Chile. Es un profesional de apoyo de la Unidad de Desarrollo Estratégico de la Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA), principalmente en los temas de cambio climático, energías renovables y recursos hídricos para la agricultura. 52 Marcelo Olivares Alveal Ingeniero Civil de la Universidad de Chile y Master of Science Johns Hopkins University, Ph.D. University of California, Davis. Es Profesor del Departamento de Ingeniería Civil de la Universidad de Chile. Sus áreas de trabajo incluyen la gestión de recursos hídricos y el análisis de sistemas ambientales. Su investigación reciente se ha centrado en los impactos ambientales asociados a la operación de centrales hidroeléctricas, incluyendo la búsqueda de esquemas de operación alternativos a nivel de sistemas eléctricos interconectados. Ha participado en estudios y proyectos en temas tales como los impactos del cambio climático sobre los recursos hídricos, priorización multicriterio de proyectos de infraestructura hidráulica, y evaluación de estrategias de gestión de recursos hídricos a nivel de cuencas. Actualmente, está a cargo de la Mesa Central de Hidroelectricidad, inserta en el proceso participativo de la Política Energética. 59 53 Raúl O’Ryan Ingeniero Civil Eléctrico, Magister en Ingeniería Industrial de la Universidad de Chile y PhD en Economía de la Universidad de California, Berkeley. Ha sido profesor asociado y Director del Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial de la Universidad de Chile. A partir del 2008 fue Oficial de Programa a cargo de los temas de energía y medio ambiente en el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) de Chile. Actualmente es profesor regular de la Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez y está a cargo del Centro de Innovación en Energía. 54 Rodrigo Palma Behnke Ingeniero Civil de Industrias, Mención en Electricidad y Magíster de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Doctor en Ciencias de la Ingeniería de la Universidad de Dortmund, Alemania. Profesor Asociado de la Universidad de Chile, Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica. Sus actividades de docencia e investigación se centran en el área de Energías Renovables, Mercados Energéticos y Planificación de Sistemas Eléctricos. Fue miembro del Panel de Expertos. Actualmente se desempeña como Investigador del Centro de Energía de la Universidad de Chile y Director del Centro de Excelencia FONDAP en Energía Solar, SERC Chile. Es el Líder de Investigación de MAPS Chile. 55 Oscar Parra Biólogo de la Universidad de Concepción y Doctorado en Recursos Naturales en la Universidad Libre de Berlín, Alemania. Es Profesor Titular de la Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Oceanográficas, EULA-Chile de la Universidad de Concepción. En el año 2011 fue nombrado Profesor Emérito. Ha participado como investigador y director de numerosos proyectos de investigación en las áreas de los recursos naturales, sistemas acuáticos y medio ambiente, con financiamiento 60 nacional e internacional. Ha sido miembro del Consejo Consultivo Nacional de la CONAMA. Es “Chairholder” o titular de la Cátedra UNESCO en “Gestión de Recursos Naturales, Planificación Territorial y Protección Ambiental”, además de Profesor Visitante en universidades de América Latina, Norteamérica y Europa. 56 Vicente Pérez Vidal Ingeniero Civil Químico de la Universidad Santa María y Diploma de Postgrado en Administración de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez. Analista de Estrategias y Políticas Públicas en la Comisión Chilena del Cobre. Ingresó a Cochilco en el año 1987, donde se desempeña actualmente como analista minero de la Dirección de Estudios y Políticas Públicas. Entre sus diversas labores ha estado a cargo de temas relacionados al desarrollo minero, tales como la inversión en minería, los insumos estratégicos de energía y ácido sulfúrico, y los mercados de minerales industriales. En el ámbito de la energía, ha desarrollado lineas de trabajo relacionadas a la proyección de consumo de la energía eléctrica en la minería del cobre, sobre la base de su desarrollo prospectado para un horizonte de 10 años. 57 Guillermo Pérez del Río Ingeniero Civil Eléctrico, egresado de la Universidad de Chile. Gerente de Regulación y Medio Ambiente, de Enersis. Recibió el premio ‘Ingeniero Sobresaliente’ 2010, otorgado por la Asociación de la Industria EléctricaElectrónica (AIE) y el Instituto de Ingenieros Eléctricos y Electrónicos (IEEE). Presidente de CHICIER 2013. 58 Francisco Pinto Máster en Economía Ambiental y Cambio Climático de la London School of Economics, y Máster en Políticas Públicas de la Universidad de Chile. Fue coor- dinador de los Programas de Recursos Naturales y Economía y Globalización de Fundación Terram. Actualmente se desempeña como profesional en la División de Información y Economía Ambiental del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. 59 Andrés Pirazzoli Abogado de la Universidad de Chile y Master of Environmental and Natural Resources Law de la University of Oregon. Especialista en Negociación Internacional y Mitigación, Oficina de Cambio Climático – Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile. Andrés se desempeña actualmente como encargado de negociaciones internacionales en la Oficina de Cambio Climático del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile. Con experiencia en negociaciones internacionales sobre cambio climático y en la coordinación de procesos participativos nacionales y regionales, sus principales intereses son el diseño e implementación de herramientas legales y participativas para el desarrollo sustentable, resciliente y bajo en carbono en Chile y a nivel internacional. 60 Rodrigo Pizarro Doctorado en estudios ambientales de la Universidad de Stanford y ex director ejecutivo de Terram. Director de la División de Información y Economía Ambiental del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. 61 Jose Antonio Prado Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad de Chile; M.Sc. Silviculture and Forest Influences de la Universidad del Estado de Nueva York; postgrado en Administracion Pública en la Universidad de Carleton, Canada. Fue Director de la Division de Recursos Forestales de la FAO; Director Ejecutivo de la Corporacion Nacional Forestal (CONAF) y Director Ejecutivo del Instituto Forestal (INFOR). Actualmente trabaja como coordinador de las actividades relacionadas con cambio climatico en el Ministerio de Agricultura. 62 Osvaldo Quintanilla Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad Santo Tomás, y Máster en Ética Social y Desarrollo Humano en la Universidad Alberto Hurtado. Actualmente se desempeña en la Unidad de Cambio Climático y Servicios Ecosistémicos de la Corporación Nacional Forestal. 63 Catalina Ravizza Ingeniero Comercial con Mención en Economía y Magíster en Economía mención Organización Industrial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica. Investigadora de asuntos económicos en el equipo de MAPS Chile hasta julio 2014. Actualmente se encuentra en su primer año del Ph.D. en economía en Brown University. Dentro de sus principales áreas de interés se encuentran el análisis de la estructura y el funcionamiento de los mercados. 64 Angela Reinoso Ingeniero de Ejecución en Medio Ambiente de la Universidad de Santiago de Chile, se desempeña en la Oficina de Cambio Climático del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente hace 5 años, encargada de la coordinación del proyectos MAPS Chile y Tercera Comunicación Nacional sobre Cambio Climático. Posee experiencia en proyectos de reducción de emisiones bajo el Mecanismo del Desarrollo Limpio, adquirida como coordinadora técnica del Comité del ANDChile, sus principales áreas de interés son los proyectos de mitigación como NAMAs, Programa HuellaChile y temas relacionados con la Educación sobre Cambio Climático. 61 65 Bernardo Reyes Ecólogo. Director de la ONG Ética en los Bosques, oficial de enlace de NRDC y miembro del Consejo de Defensa de la Patagonia. Ex-director de la ONG ForestEthics durante los años 2007-2008 y líder de la campaña por la protección del bosque nativo. Graduado de la Universidad de Toronto con una maestría en desarrollo en el Instituto de Estudios Sociales de La Haya-ISS de Holanda. Ha trabajado con programas de cooperación internacional de Canadá en Perú, Bolivia y Centro América. Actualmente es investigador, docente universitario, analista de políticas públicas y activista en varias campañas de protección de ecosistemas, territorios y del patrimonio comunitario. 66 Teodoro Rivas S Doctor y Máster en Economía Agraria de la Universidad de Connecticut y Médico Veterinario de la Universidad de Chile. Fue investigador asociado en la Oficina de Asuntos Internacionales de la Universidad de Connecticut, consultor de organismos internacionales y asesor del Ministro de Agricultura. Actualmente es Subdirector Nacional de la Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias del Ministerio de Agricultura y Profesor Invitado de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias de la Universidad de Chile. 67 Claudia Rodríguez Arquitecto y Magíster en Desarrollo Urbano de la Pontificia Universidad Católica. Especialista en planificación estratégica urbana y de movilidad. Se desempeñó como Urbanista y Gestor de proyectos en la Subsecretaría de Transportes por más de 7 años, donde destaca la coordinación de proyectos de transporte y sustentabilidad para el Banco Mundial y la iniciativa “Ciudad Modelo de Transporte”. Actualmente se desempeña como consultor en el Observatorio de Ciudades de la Dirección de Extensión y Servicios Externos PUC. 62 68 Andrea Rudnick Ingeniero Químico, Máster en Ciencias de la Ingeniería. En la actualidad ejerce el cargo de Enlace Latinoamericano en el Programa MAPS Internacional, para incrementar la colaboración regional en Latinoamérica y proporcionar apoyo estratégico y práctico para los países que están implementando el enfoque MAPS, a saber, Brasil, Chile, Colombia y Perú. Además, apoya a MAPS Chile en aspectos estratégicos. 69 Hugh Rudnick Ingeniero Civil Eléctrico de la Universidad de Chile, Máster en Ciencias y Doctor en Filosofía de la Universidad de Manchester en el Reino Unido. Es profesor emérito de la Facultad de Ingeniería de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Areas de investigación en el campo de la Ingeniería Eléctrica. 70 Ximena Ruz Espejo Geógrafo de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, con vasta trayectoria en cargos ejecutivos de instituciones publicas ligadas al desarrollo productivo y ambiental. Subdirectora de Acuerdos de Producción Limpia, con post títulos en Contaminación Ambiental de la Universidad de Chile y amplia experiencia en temas ambientales relacionados con el control de la contaminación ambiental, la gestión de proyectos, su preparación, presentación, implementación, operación y análisis. 71 Lake Sagaris Canadiense de origen y residente desde 1980 en Chile, ha viajado extensamente por su trabajo relacionado con la planificación, la participación y el transporte para la equidad. Ganadora del Premio de Liderazgo para el Ciclismo (2011), de la Embajada Pro-Ciclista Danesa. Escritora premiada y fundadora de Ciudad Viva, se involucró en temas urbanos como líder vecinal del Barrio Bellavista y dirigenta de la emblemática Coordinadora No a la Costanera Norte (1997-2000). Es Fellow de la red internacional de emprendedores sociales, Ashoka, y de la red global Synergos de Senior Civil Society Leaders. Es Fellow Post-Doctoral y profesora adjunta del Departamento de Ingeniería de Transporte y Logística, de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Actualmente dirige el Laboratorio de Cambio Social, una iniciativa de investigación en y con la comunidad, que investiga diseños y prácticas óptimas para lograr procesos de planificación colaborativa con municipalidades, organizaciones comunitarias, empresas, privados con interés en temas de sustentabilidad y resiliencia urbana. 72 Pablo A. Salgado Poehlmann Ingeniero Civil de industrias con Diploma Académico de especialidad en Ingeniería Ambiental, ambos de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Se desempeñó como Desarrollador y Capacitador en sistemas de aplicación educacional en NAPSIS (asociado a DICTUC). Con ocho años como Experto en temas de transporte sustentable en la Subsecretaría de Transportes del Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, ha sido asesor en normativa y análisis ambiental en Division Normas y Operaciones. Actualmente se desempeña como Coordinador Ambiental en dicha Subsecretaría. 73 Joseluis Samaniego Leyva Economista, Maestro en Economía y candidato a Doctor en Economía de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Actualmente es Director de la División de Desarrollo Sostenible y Asentamientos Humanos de la Comisión Económica de las Naciones Unidas para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). Fue Director del Centro de Transporte Sustentable de la Ciudad de México, un programa establecido conjuntamente por World Resources Institute, la Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal y el Centro Interdisciplinario de Biodiversidad y Ambiente. 74 José Eduardo Sanhueza Licenciado en Química de la Universidad de Chile y Doctor en Química Cuántica de la Universidad de Uppsala, Suecia. Fundador y Coordinador de la Red Latinoamericana de Acción Climática (1992-2000). Desde 1997 es asesor en negociaciones sobre Cambio Climático de la División de Medio Ambiente y Asuntos Marítimos del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Desde 2007 es consultor en temas de Cambio Climático de la Comisión Económica de América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). 75 Ignacio Santelices Economista. Máster en economía de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y Máster en políticas públicas de la Universidad de California Berkeley. En el sector público ha sido asesor del Ministro de Minería; de políticas económicas del Ministerio de Hacienda y del Ministro-Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía. Además, ha sido consultor de la California Public Utilities Commission; profesor de entorno de negocios en la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez; y Director de la Oficina en Chile del Center for Clean Air Policy. Actualmente, es el jefe de la división de eficiencia energética del ministerio de energía y presidente del directorio de la Agencia Chilena de Eficiencia. 76 Lupe Santos Licenciada en Comunicación Social y Periodista de la Universidad Diego Portales con experiencia en docencia, gestión de prensa y media training. Harvester del Proyecto MAPS Chile, su rol fue mantener la relación con los 63 medios de prensa, gestionar medios internos de comunicación, redes sociales y reportar a los donantes de MAPS y la oficinas en Sudáfrica. 77 Angelo Sartori Ingeniero Forestal de la Universidad Santo Tomás, Máster en Administración y Negocios (MBA) y Diplomado en Gestión Sostenible de la Universidad de Lüneburg, Alemania. Se ha desempeñado en diversas áreas ligadas al manejo forestal, en la Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF) del Ministerio de Agricultura, estando a cargo, desde el año 2010, de cambio climático y recursos vegetacionales en dicha entidad, además de ser docente de la Universidad Mayor en la cátedra de Bosques y Cambio Climático. 78 Heloisa Schneider Ingeniero agrónoma, magíster en Asentamientos Humanos y medio ambiente de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Con estudios de doctorado en Ingeniería Ambiental en la Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, fue directora del área de sustentabilidad de Price y de KPMG Chile. Actualmente, se desempeña como asistente de investigación en la División de Desarrollo Sostenible y Asentamientos Humanos de la CEPAL. 79 Juan Pedro Searle Bioquímico de la Universidad de Chile. Ha dedicado su carrera profesional a las negociaciones multilaterales sobre cambio climático en el marco de la Convención homónima, y a la implementación de acciones a nivel nacional, concentrando la atención en las áreas de adaptación, mitigación y mecanismos de mercado. Actualmente trabaja en la División de Desarrollo Sustentable del Ministerio de Energía, a cargo de la Unidad de Cambio Climático. 64 80 Carlos Silva Ingeniero Industrial y Magister en Ciencias, con especialidad en ingeniería eléctrica, ambos de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y Ph.D. de la Universidad de Minnesota, con especialización en Sistemas Eléctricos de Potencia. En la actualidad se desempeña como director del Área de Energía y Medio Ambiente de la Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, investigador del Solar Energy Research Center (SERC), experto en energía de ATS Energía S.A. y director suplente del CDEC-SING. 81 Sebastián Tolvett C Magister en Ciencias de la Ingeniería e Ingeniero Civil Mecánico de la Universidad de Chile, se desempeñó como Director del Área de Medioambiente del Centro Internacional en Sistemas Sustentables Chile (Sistemas Sustentables). Actualmente se desempeña como Jefe de Calidad de Aire y Cambio Climático para el Ministerio de Medioambiente. 82 Rubén Triviño Ingeniero Civil en Geografía de la Universidad de Santiago de Chile, con casi 20 años de experiencia en las áreas del transporte y de medio ambiente. Asesor experto en empresas consultoras y en organismos estatales como Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Universidad de Chile. Actualmente forma parte del Área Metodológica y Datos de la Secretaria de Planificación de Transporte (SECTRA), cumpliendo las funciones de coordinador técnico de estudios ambientales y energéticos de transporte, entre otros. 83 Alberto Ugalde Abaroa. Ingeniero civil industrial eléctrico de la Pontificia Universidad Católica y Magíster en Evaluación de Proyectos de la misma universidad. Ha desempe- ñado importantes cargos en empresas energéticas en Chile, y como director de estudios en la Comisión Chilena del Cobre y de Prospectiva Energética en el Ministerio de Energía. Actualmente trabaja como consultor independiente. 84 Francisco Unda Chiavegat Ingeniero Civil de la Universidad de Chile y Master of Science, University of Bradford, England. Consultor en Ingeniería de Transporte. Cuenta con más de 40 años de experiencia como especialista en gestión de flotas, desarrollo de sistemas de gestión y desarrollo de contratos, administración de operaciones y economía de transporte, incluyendo trabajo de consultoría en Inglaterra, el soporte técnico de flotas de vehículos en el Medio Oriente y el desarrollo de numerosos proyectos de transporte en Chile, Colombia, Panamá y República Dominicana. 85 Anahí Urquiza Antropóloga Social y Magister en Antropología y Desarrollo de la Universidad de Chile. Doctor en Sociología de la Universidad de Munich, Alemania. Profesora Asistente del Departamento de Antropología en la Universidad de Chile. Como miembro del equipo MAPS Chile su trabajo se concentra en la Coordinación de Co-beneficios y Visión 2050. Ha trabajado en la Universidad de Chile desde el año 2006, participando en investigación, docencia y administración académica. Sus áreas de interés incluyen diversos problemas globales del siglo XXI, tales como envejecimiento de la población, exclusión social y problemas ambientales. 86 Ma. Soledad Valenzuela Molina Máster en Economía Agraria de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Ingeniero Agrónomo de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Fue socia de la empresa ECONAT CONSULTORES, consultora especializada en economía agraria y ambiental, también se desempeñó como profesora de las universidades Mayor y Católica en las áreas de economía ambiental, actualmente es Gerente General de la Asociación de Productores Avícolas de Chile A.G. y Gerente de Estudios y Marketing de la Asociación Gremial de Productores de Cerdos de Chile. 87 Jorge Valverde Carbonell Máster en Análisis Económico de la Universidad de Chile e Ingeniero Comercial con mención en economía de la misma casa de estudios. Ha sido Consultor para CEPAL en materias de productividad y desarrollo económico y Analista de Estudios en la Comisión Chilena del Cobre en temas de proyecciones y productividad en la minería. Actualmente se desempeña como Asesor del Subsecretario de Hacienda, habiendo participado del estudio y diseño de los impuestos verdes de la Reforma Tributaria y siendo el encargado del ministerio para estas materias. 88 María de la Luz Vásquez Químico, Magister en Ciencias Químicas Facultas de Ciencias de la Universidad de Chile. Actualmente se desempeña como Jefe de la Unidad Ambiental de Ministerio de Minería, donde ha trabajado desde el año 1995, ocupando también el cargo de Jefe de la División de Planificación y Desarrollo (2003-2006). Anteriormente trabajó en Fundación Chile, desarrollando nuevas metodologías de análisis químicos y de residuos en alimentos para certificación de exportaciones. 89 Julio Vergara Aimone PhD en Ingeniería Nuclear (MIT), Master of Science en Ingeniería Nuclear, Master of Science en Ingeniería de Materiales, Master of Science en Arquitectura Naval del MIT, y MBA de la UAI. Ingeniero Naval. Actualmente es 65 profesor asociado jornada completa de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Actual Presidente de la Section Latinoamericana de la American Nuclear Society. Ex Oficial de la Armada. Ex Vicepresidente del Consejo Directivo de la CCHEN y consultor del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica. 90 Julio Villalobos Ingeniero Comercial de la Universidad Diego Portales. Máster en Gestión Logística Integral de la Escuela de Organización Industrial EOI-España, Graduado del Programa de Desarrollo Directivo PDD, ESE Escuela de Negocios de la Universidad de los Andes. Director del Centro del Transporte de la Universidad Andrés Bello y del Centro Latinoamericano de Investigación Logística CLI-Chile (miembro de la Red SCALE del Center fo Transportation & Logistics - MIT). Socio-Director Julio Villalobos y Asociados y miembro de la Comisión de Transporte del Colegio de Ingenieros de Chile. Fue Presidente de ChileTransporte AG.y Sub 91 Juan Pablo Yumha Arquitecto con más de 5 años de experiencia en la gestión de proyectos, iniciativas y políticas públicas relacionadas a la construcción sustentable. Fue el encargado de liderar la coordinación interministerial en esta materia y posteriormente de institucionalizar el área de sustentabilidad en el Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, a través de la creación de la Secretaría Ejecutiva de Construcción Sustentable, en el año 2012, equipo que actualmente lidera. Algunos de los principales productos desarrollados han sido la primera Estrategia Nacional de Construcción Sustentable y el Código de Construcción Sustentable para Viviendas. 66 92 Virginia Zalaquett Ingeniero Civil Industrial Eléctrico de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Consultora en energía inteligente y eficiencia energética. Docente en el Máster en Derecho de la Energía de la Universidad Mayor. Fue Jefa de la División de Eficiencia Energética del Ministerio de Energía, miembro del Directorio de la Agencia Chilena de Eficiencia Energética y gerente general de una fundación de desarrollo tecnológico. • Profesionales de apoyo 1 Rosamarina Gutiérrez Asistente ejecutiva bilingüe, con amplia experiencia en la empresa privada. A partir del año 2008 se incorpora al ámbito público en el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, apoyando a los profesionales de la Oficina de Cambio Climático y a todo el equipo del Proyecto MAPS Chile en la gestión administrativa desde el inicio del proyecto en Chile, hasta septiembre del presente año. 2 Bernardita Garreaud Asistente secretarial del proyecto desde el año 2012. Con sólida trayectoria profesional, ha participado en forma independiente en la realización de proyectos educacionales, comerciales y privados, apoyando en áreas de gestión, administración, relaciones públicas, marketing y ventas. Translated by Catherine Scott, [email protected], +27 7177 38372 Editorial Design: www.morivati.com Printed in Couché Mate 150 gr/m2 March, 2015 www.mapschile.cl www.mapsprogramme.org 68