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