potential for a green economy in uzbekistan
DESCRIPTION
Snapshot of the major sectors of economy with substantial greening potentialTRANSCRIPT
Potential for a Green Economy in Uzbekistan
Snapshot of the major sectors of economy with substantial greening potential
“Green” economy in Uzbekistan: key problem
The current “brown” pattern of development will constrain sustainable growth and development in the long-term and
present tremendous risks and challenges for future generations
Transition to “Green” Economy is important to ensure sustainable long-term development
Major sectors with greening potential
Energy
Water
Land
Waste
Energy
Energy self-sufficiency is provided.Self-sufficiency index is 1.23 VS EU -0,49, OECD – 0,7Energy importer energy exporter Energy intensity has been decreasing in the recent years
1990
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
energy production (th. kt of oil equivalent)enegry imports, net (% of energy use) (right axis)
Energy production VS energy imports (1990-2008)
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.80.6000000000000010.7000000000000010.8000000000000010.900000000000001
11.11.21.31.4
Energy use per 1000$ of GDP against GDP per capita (1993-2008)
energy t.o.e per GDP
GDP per cap (th. USD)
Energy
- Despite a sharp decrease in energy intensity it is still large
- Losses in electric grids are increasing - Energy saving potential is 18-20 mln t.o.e.
(35-40% of total EC) Energy saving policy is essential for Uzbekistan
1990
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2China
Kazakhstan
OECD members
Russian Federation
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
World
Energy intensity (t.o.e. per 1000 USD of GDP)
China
Kazakhs
tan
Kyrgyz
Repub
lic
OECD mem
bers
Russian
Federa
tion
Tajikista
n
Turkmen
istan
Uzbekis
tanWorl
d0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Energy intensity in 2008 (t.o.e. per 1000 USD of GDP)
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.20
4
8
12
16
20
Losses in electric grids against GDP per capita (1995-2008)
Losses (%)
GDP per cap (th. USD)
Energy
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 340
45
50
55
60
65
70
Natural gas production against GDP per capita (1993-2009)
Natural gas (bln. cub. m.)
GDP per capita th. USD
o Economic growth may be constrained by increasing scarcity of traditional energy resources
o The potential of renewables = current consumption of hydrocarbons * 3
Sound justification for energy efficiency on supply and demand side and renewable energy development
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 30
2
4
6
8
Petroleum and condensate production against GDP per capita (1993-2009)
Petroleum and condensate ( th. t.o.e.)
GDP per capita (th. USD)
Energy
Per capita energy use & energy intensity:
o Uzbekistan is in between OECD and LDC o Increase in per capita energy supply could contribute and improve
human developmento High energy intensity increase in energy use should be provided
without “wasteful use of resources”
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.80
1
2
3
4
5
6
Energy intensity against energy use per capita (1995)
OECD RUS
UZB
LDC KGZCHN
AZB
TRKKZN
Energy use per capita
Energy intensity
TJK0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Energy intensity against energy use per capita (2008)
Energy intensity
UZB
TRK
KZNRUS
CHN
TJKKGZ
AZB
OECD
LDC
Energy use per capita
Energy: expected benefits from “greening”
Total annual benefits from export of saved amount of natural gas - $4, 664 bln
Total annual benefits via carbon market schemes and mechanisms – $ 625,8 mln
“Green” jobso renewables 175 th. jobs by 2020
270 th. jobs by 2050 o green buildings 15 th. jobs by 2020
120 th. jobs by 2050 o transportation 95 th. jobs by 2020
175 th. jobs by 2050
Land
o Self-sufficiency in main cropso Steep shrinkage of arable land areao Deterioration of land quality and decrease in
productivity of agriculture Significant potential for “greening” in the sector of
land
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.84200
4250
4300
4350
4400
4450
4500
4550
Arable land against per capita GDP (1993-2008)
GDP per cap (th. USD)
Arable land (th. ha)
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 353
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Index of land quality against GDP per capita (1993-2008)
Index of land quality
GDP per cap (th. USD)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8
Share of food import in total imports, % 18,2
Production of main crops, tons per capita (right axis) 0
Food production VS food imports (1993-2008)
Water
o Positive trend - significant rise in water supply coverageo Negative trend - Reduction of water stock in water reservoirs; Water
supply satisfying 60% of demand in 20 years
Large potential for “greening” of water sector.
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.13000
6000
9000
12000
15000
Stock of water in water reservoirs against GDP per capita (2000-2009)
GDP per cap (th. USD). USD)
Water stock (mln. cub. m.)
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.368
72
76
80
84
88
92
Water supply coverage against GDP per capita
GDP per cap (th. USD)
Water supply coverage, %
Waste
o Positive trend - decrease in total volume of industrial waste. o Negative trend – decrease in share of municipal solid waste collection
and recycling in the total amount of municipal solid waste generation
rationale to improve efficiency of waste management.
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 30
20
40
60
80
100
Share of municipal solid waste collection to be recycled or stored on polygon (1996-2009)
GDP per cap (th USD)
Share of collection,%
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.60
2
4
6
8
10
12
Total volume of solid industrial waste against GDP per capita (1996-2009)
Waste, mln tons
GDP per cap (th USD)
Land, water and waste: expected benefits from “greening”
Land and waterTotal annual benefits - $1 blnGreen jobs - every 3 years - 86 th. jobs; by 2050 -
516 th. jobs
Waste Total annual benefits - $611,6 mln “Green” jobs - 17,5 th. jobs at the waste recycling
plants and 100 th. jobs in waste-collection cooperatives
Carbon emissions
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.63
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
CO2 emissions against GDP per capita
GDP per cap (th USD)
CO2 (metric tons per capita)
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.61.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
CO2 emissions per PPP$ of GDP against GDP per capita (1996-2008)
GDP per cap (th USD)
CO2 (kg per PPP$ of GDP)
o Increase in carbon emissions at initial stages of developmento Stagnation and decrease of CO2 emissions since 2000.
The line on the first graph shows the classic representation of Environmental Kuznets curve.
Green Economy: CER’s Research activities
Transition to Green Economy in Uzbekistan: conceptual framework
Alternative energy sources: opportunities and perspectives
Green buildings in Uzbekistan: technologies, legal framework and incentives
Draft Law “On renewable energy sources”
Towards Rio +20: agenda for Uzbekistan
Transition to Green Economy in Energy Sector: Baseline assessment for Uzbekistan
Solid Waste Management: Policies and Challenges in Uzbekistan
“Green” transportation in Uzbekistan
Transition to Green Economy in Energy Sector: Baseline Assessment for Uzbekistan
1. Analysis and assessment of the current situation applying 4 A principle
o Accesso Availabilityo Affordabilityo Acceptance
2. Qualitative analysis of greening potential (policies, institutions and capacities) Identification of key problems for sustainable “green” development at the following levels:
o Technologies o Managemento Normative base o Incentives
3. Quantitative analysis of “greening” potential: how much resources can be saved and at which costs. Construction of conservation supply curve for energy sector: the costs of saving per unit, resulting saving per technology
4. Development of effective strategy framework and practical recommendations for further progress towards green energy (new policies and programs; financial mechanisms of implementation etc.)
Thank you!