報告書番号

Y98004

タイトル（和文）

地球温暖化対策の国際・国内制度設計 -COP4後における課題の整理と考察-

タイトル（英文）

International and intranational design of institutional scheme for climate mitigation: Issues of post-COP4

概要 （図表や脚注は「報告書全文」に掲載しております）

COP4後の制度設計に関し論点を整理し考察を加えた。京都メカニズムには、補足性、責任の所在、遵守レジーム、シンク、JI/CDMの追加性、などの争点がある。これらは費用効果性とインテグリティ（節度）の対置構造に一貫して捉えられる。節度を保つためには、柔軟性利用に一定の制約がかかると見られるし、買手責任の要素を取り入れる必要がある。費用負担緩和のためには数値目標未達の場合でも遵守できるよう救済措置を設ける方法もある。国内制度設計に関しては、以下を検討した。日米欧の自主的取り組みの分類学的整理を行った。早期削減クレジット制度は、メリットも期待できるが、歪みを生む懸念もあり、実施は限定的にするべきである。JI/CDMは、規制対応よりも新規事業分野への進出と考え、収益性を基準に参入を判断するべきである。明示的な割当てが無い場合でも、補完的な排出権取引きは必要性が高く優先的に検討するべきである。

概要 （英文）

The Buenos Aires Action Plan was adopted at Conference Of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention of the Climate Change (UNFCCC/COP4) in Dec. 1998. The plan aims to strengthen the implementation of the UNFCCC and prepare for the future entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention, while keeping political momentum by setting major deadlines at COP6 which is to be held in 2000. The present paper elaborates critical issues and concepts to form an appropriate international and intra-national institutional design. Five critical issues relating Kyoto mechanisms ‐ supplementarity, liability, compliance regime, LUCF, additionality of JI/CDM ‐ were discussed. They all were put into a perspective, i.e., quest for cost-effectiveness vs. integrity of the Kyoto Protocol. The integrity will require a limited use of Kyoto mechanisms and LUCF, as well as buyer’s liability in principle. A relief procedure in compliance regime may be useful to ease economic burdens when they soar in order to keep the integrity, rather than engaging with dubious use of the mechanisms and LUCF. The following issues are covered relating domestic design: typology of voluntary approach, evaluation of early reduction credit proposals, criteria to embark on JI/CDM for a private company, and domestic emissions trading systems. A complementary domestic emission trading is a must, regardless of the choice of the overall systems. Explicit cap is not a prerequisite for such an emission trading system, though it remains a candidate for the institutional scheme of Commitment Periods. Japan’s industries should, putting a wider range of policy instruments in perspective, focus more on the use of emission trading for cost-effective mitigation.

報告者

キーワード