Introduction
Country assessment
Developed country aggregate
Global aggregate
Individual countries’ pledges are subject to change and are not always clearly communicated. They usually consist of an emission reduction goal that can be achieved, either through domestic reductions or through offsets. There may also be a financial commitment to directly support developing countries in reducing their emissions. Developing countries sometimes propose "unilateral" actions based on their own initiatives and "conditional" actions that could be implemented if financing were available.
The aim of this project is to provide interested readers with an up-to-date assessment of the individual national pledges, with an overview of their aggregate effects. The intention is to make these pledges transparent and to encourage those countries that have not yet done so to make (or increase) their pledge.
We also collected details of what other studies consider adequate pledges for these countries (den Elzen et al. 2009, Project Catalyst 2009, Submission South Africa 2009, H. Winkler et. al 2009, N. Höhne et al. 2009a, N. Höhne et al. 2009b1). These studies applied a wide range of effort-sharing principles.
Some are based on equity principles such as equal per-capita emissions or capability to pay, while others are based on the staged or delayed participation of developing countries, or on historical responsibility. Yet others are based on efficiencies across all countries converging. As a result, the range from these studies for a specific country is usually large.
We placed all of the countries in one of the following four categories:
Role model: These countries pledge reductions that are more stringent than any value for them in the studies analysed. They are leading the way by showing that it is possible to pledge very ambitious reductions.
Sufficient: These countries’ pledges are in the more stringent two thirds of the range given by the studies. They propose stringent reductions in line with most of the studies’ results. They also provide sufficient information to assess their pledge.
Medium: countries’ pledges are in the least stringent third of the range given by the studies. These countries’ pledges might be considered Sufficient if other countries were to pledge more ambitious reductions. But, if all countries would be in this category, overall reductions would clearly not be sufficient.
Inadequate: These countries’ proposed emission targets are above the range given in the studies (and, in some cases, even above their reference scenario).
If a country is at the border between two categories, several elements are important in the rating:
For developed countries the graph shows the following
Historical emissions, excluding forestry: The historical emissions of a country are provided from 1990 onwards. It includes all emissions relevant under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex A) and excludes emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). These LULUCF emissions are shown separately by the brown line. The source is the UNFCCC National Inventory Submissions, Common Reporting Format Tables CRF2009.
Reference, excluding forestry: The reference emission path provides information on how emissions were likely to develop in the absence of national action to mitigate global warming. This information is often provided as a range (reflecting, for example, uncertainties related to future economic and technological developments). The range is based on composite baselines from the PRIMAP project at PIK. The future projections incorporate the SRES A1B scenario as an upper limit and combinations of POLES model projections and the MATCH assessment project for the lower limit.
Kyoto-type target: These pathways were constructed using the present Kyoto Protocol structure so that users can compare the Kyoto first commitment period targets expressed in percentages of 1990 emissions excluding LULUCF, with the commitments coming forward from Parties. Targets are defined with respect to emissions excluding LULUCF (i.e. only including sources and gases in Annnex A of the Kyoto Protocol) in 1990 or another base year for the first commitment period, and country commitments for the subsequent periods afterwards up to 2050 (ii). Data is taken from UNFCCC National Inventory Submissions; Common Reporting Format Tables CRF2009. This target pathway for emissions excluding LULUCF is calculated using unconditional commitments where applicable, and otherwise, Parties' least ambitious commitments.
Effective emission limits, high and low: These pathways are the Kyoto-type target pathway as described above adjusted for Kyoto Protocol Article 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7 (iii) Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) accounting rules (iv) calculated over the first commitment period and for the post 2012 period (2013-2020).
Detailed data description
(i) The allowed emissions (Assigned Amount Units) are calculated taking into account all provisions of the Protocol, excepting Article 3.7, as submitted by Kyoto Parties http://unfccc.int/national_reports/initial_reports_under_the_kyoto_protocol/items/3765.php for all countries except for Belarus, Croatia, Turkey, and the USA. For Belarus and Croatia we used the emissions reported in their updated Initial Reports under the Kyoto Protocol, still to be reviewed. For Turkey as they are not an Annex B Party, and the USA as they have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, no Initial Reports are available, therefore we used 1990 emissions (excluding LULUCF) from the national inventories.
(ii)These commitments consist of specific proposals, domestic policy processes or a clear intent expressed at high political levels from which the amount of ambition for Copenhagen in terms of emissions reductions in 2020 can be inferred.
(iii) Kyoto Protocol Article 3.7 allows countries that are a net source of emissions from their Land Use Change and Forestry sector in 1990 to add the Land Use Change (essentially deforestation) emissions in 1990 to their 1990 Annex A Kyoto emissions to calculate their allowed emissions (Assigned Amount) in the commitment period.
(iv) For the historical and projected LULUCF data we used the following sources: - Parties provided informal data submissions in September 2009, estimating the emissions and removals for the Kyoto Protocol's Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities: http://unfccc.int/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/kp/items/4907.php. This data will continue to be revised as Parties provide further submissions or revisions.
- For Parties that did not submit data, assumptions on calculating the Kyoto Protocol's LULUCF activities and land based approach were made using the CRF2009 tables: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.php
- A few countries also provided supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol, which has been included if data was incomplete: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.php
Methodology
Introduction
In the run-up to the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, many countries are putting proposals on the table about how much they intend to reduce their emissions in both the near and the long term. The G8 has now agreed to a broad target for limiting the increase in global average temperature to 2°C, while the Major Economies Forum (MEF; 17 major economies) has 'acknowledged' the scientific basis of such a global temperature target. A crucial question is, whether the individual national pledges are sufficient in aggregate to ensure that global emissions are on a pathway towards reaching the 2°C limit.Individual countries’ pledges are subject to change and are not always clearly communicated. They usually consist of an emission reduction goal that can be achieved, either through domestic reductions or through offsets. There may also be a financial commitment to directly support developing countries in reducing their emissions. Developing countries sometimes propose "unilateral" actions based on their own initiatives and "conditional" actions that could be implemented if financing were available.
The aim of this project is to provide interested readers with an up-to-date assessment of the individual national pledges, with an overview of their aggregate effects. The intention is to make these pledges transparent and to encourage those countries that have not yet done so to make (or increase) their pledge.
Country assessment
To assess the pledges made by the G20 countries, we evaluated the details in their proposals and projected actions. We assessed historical emissions, future baseline emissions and the target paths proposed by the developed countries or the emission levels (assuming implementation of the climate plan) for the developing countries. Where the pledge was unclear, we made assumptions, which are made explicit the relevant page.We also collected details of what other studies consider adequate pledges for these countries (den Elzen et al. 2009, Project Catalyst 2009, Submission South Africa 2009, H. Winkler et. al 2009, N. Höhne et al. 2009a, N. Höhne et al. 2009b1). These studies applied a wide range of effort-sharing principles.
Some are based on equity principles such as equal per-capita emissions or capability to pay, while others are based on the staged or delayed participation of developing countries, or on historical responsibility. Yet others are based on efficiencies across all countries converging. As a result, the range from these studies for a specific country is usually large.
We placed all of the countries in one of the following four categories:
Role model: These countries pledge reductions that are more stringent than any value for them in the studies analysed. They are leading the way by showing that it is possible to pledge very ambitious reductions.
Sufficient: These countries’ pledges are in the more stringent two thirds of the range given by the studies. They propose stringent reductions in line with most of the studies’ results. They also provide sufficient information to assess their pledge.
Medium: countries’ pledges are in the least stringent third of the range given by the studies. These countries’ pledges might be considered Sufficient if other countries were to pledge more ambitious reductions. But, if all countries would be in this category, overall reductions would clearly not be sufficient.
Inadequate: These countries’ proposed emission targets are above the range given in the studies (and, in some cases, even above their reference scenario).
If a country is at the border between two categories, several elements are important in the rating:
- Unconditional / conditional: Some countries have made a pledge that is conditional to an international agreement on climate change. Other countries have made pledges that are unconditional and some are unclear on this issue. We have always used the unconditional pledge as default and show the conditional one as range. If a country is at the border of two categories and if only a conditional pledge is available, it is rated in the lower category. In such cases more information and clarity on the conditionality of the pledge could improve the rating.
- Details of the pledge: Some countries’ pledges are based only on an announcement by e.g. the president of the country, while some other pledges are accompanied with detailed reports. If a country is at the border of two categories and if the details of the pledge were not available or if the assessment required us to make many additional assumptions, we rated the country in the lower category. In such cases more information could improve the rating.
- Debits and credits from LULUCF accounting. Developed countries can receive credits and debits from accounting for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), see details below. If a country is at the border of two categories and if the credits/debits from LULUCF are not specified in detail by the country but are significant according to our assessment, we rated the country in the lower category. In such cases more information and clarity on the LULUCF accounting could improve the rating.
For developed countries the graph shows the following
Historical emissions, excluding forestry: The historical emissions of a country are provided from 1990 onwards. It includes all emissions relevant under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex A) and excludes emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). These LULUCF emissions are shown separately by the brown line. The source is the UNFCCC National Inventory Submissions, Common Reporting Format Tables CRF2009.
Reference, excluding forestry: The reference emission path provides information on how emissions were likely to develop in the absence of national action to mitigate global warming. This information is often provided as a range (reflecting, for example, uncertainties related to future economic and technological developments). The range is based on composite baselines from the PRIMAP project at PIK. The future projections incorporate the SRES A1B scenario as an upper limit and combinations of POLES model projections and the MATCH assessment project for the lower limit.
Kyoto-type target: These pathways were constructed using the present Kyoto Protocol structure so that users can compare the Kyoto first commitment period targets expressed in percentages of 1990 emissions excluding LULUCF, with the commitments coming forward from Parties. Targets are defined with respect to emissions excluding LULUCF (i.e. only including sources and gases in Annnex A of the Kyoto Protocol) in 1990 or another base year for the first commitment period, and country commitments for the subsequent periods afterwards up to 2050 (ii). Data is taken from UNFCCC National Inventory Submissions; Common Reporting Format Tables CRF2009. This target pathway for emissions excluding LULUCF is calculated using unconditional commitments where applicable, and otherwise, Parties' least ambitious commitments.
Effective emission limits, high and low: These pathways are the Kyoto-type target pathway as described above adjusted for Kyoto Protocol Article 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7 (iii) Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) accounting rules (iv) calculated over the first commitment period and for the post 2012 period (2013-2020).
Detailed data description
(i) The allowed emissions (Assigned Amount Units) are calculated taking into account all provisions of the Protocol, excepting Article 3.7, as submitted by Kyoto Parties http://unfccc.int/national_reports/initial_reports_under_the_kyoto_protocol/items/3765.php for all countries except for Belarus, Croatia, Turkey, and the USA. For Belarus and Croatia we used the emissions reported in their updated Initial Reports under the Kyoto Protocol, still to be reviewed. For Turkey as they are not an Annex B Party, and the USA as they have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, no Initial Reports are available, therefore we used 1990 emissions (excluding LULUCF) from the national inventories.
(ii)These commitments consist of specific proposals, domestic policy processes or a clear intent expressed at high political levels from which the amount of ambition for Copenhagen in terms of emissions reductions in 2020 can be inferred.
(iii) Kyoto Protocol Article 3.7 allows countries that are a net source of emissions from their Land Use Change and Forestry sector in 1990 to add the Land Use Change (essentially deforestation) emissions in 1990 to their 1990 Annex A Kyoto emissions to calculate their allowed emissions (Assigned Amount) in the commitment period.
(iv) For the historical and projected LULUCF data we used the following sources: - Parties provided informal data submissions in September 2009, estimating the emissions and removals for the Kyoto Protocol's Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities: http://unfccc.int/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/kp/items/4907.php. This data will continue to be revised as Parties provide further submissions or revisions.
- For Parties that did not submit data, assumptions on calculating the Kyoto Protocol's LULUCF activities and land based approach were made using the CRF2009 tables: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.php
- A few countries also provided supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol, which has been included if data was incomplete: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.php
For developing countries the graph shows the following:
Historical emissions: The historical emissions of a country are provided from 1990 onwards. The emissions from forestry are provided separately (see the brown line).
Reference: The reference emission path provides information on how emissions were likely to develop without any national actions to mitigate global warming. This information is provided as a range (reflecting, for example, uncertainties related to future economic and technological developments).
Pledge (unilateral):The emission pathway under the country’s own proposed target –achieved through domestic reductions.
Pledge (conditional): The pathway that is achievable given reductions that are planned or considered possible, depending on international financing.
Due to substantial uncertainties in future emissions beyond the time period which the reduction pledges cover, emissions are only shown up to 2020.
Historical emissions: The historical emissions of a country are provided from 1990 onwards. The emissions from forestry are provided separately (see the brown line).
Reference: The reference emission path provides information on how emissions were likely to develop without any national actions to mitigate global warming. This information is provided as a range (reflecting, for example, uncertainties related to future economic and technological developments).
Pledge (unilateral):The emission pathway under the country’s own proposed target –achieved through domestic reductions.
Pledge (conditional): The pathway that is achievable given reductions that are planned or considered possible, depending on international financing.
Due to substantial uncertainties in future emissions beyond the time period which the reduction pledges cover, emissions are only shown up to 2020.
Developed countries aggregate
The pledges of the G20 countries were assessed to see whether these are compatible with the proposed range for this group of developed countries of -25% to -40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The graph compares the aggregated reductions resulting from the pledges, with the required range.
1 M. den Elzen, Höhne N., van Vliet J. and Ellermann C. (2009): Exploring Comparable Post-2012 Reduction Efforts for Annex I Countries. MNP Report no. 500102019
http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2009/02/exploring-comparable-post-2012.html
Project Catalyst (2009) Setting a Benchmark: How Developed Countries Might Equitably Contribute Towards a 450 ppm Pathway, http://www.project-catalyst.info/
Submission South Africa (2009), included in: A compilation of proposals by Parties for aggregate and individual figures for Annex I Parties, 28 August 2009, FCCC/KP/AWG/2009/10/Add.4/Rev.1 http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/items/3595.php#beg
H. Winkler, Marquard A. et al (2009), Analysis of possible quantified emission reduction commitments by individual Annex I Parties
http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/09Winkler-etal-possible-reduction-commitments.pdf
N. Höhne, C. Michelsen, S. Moltmann, H. E. Ott, W. Sterk, S. Thomas, R. Watanabe, S. Lechtenböhmer, K. O. Schallaböck. (2008): Proposals for contributions of emerging economies to the climate regime under the UNFCCC post 2012, Ecofys and Wuppertal Institute. For the Federal German Environmental Agency, Germany
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3658.pdf
N. Höhne, Phylipsen D., Moltmann S. et al. (2007): "Factors underpinning future action". For the department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=14848#RelatedDocuments
S. Moltmann et al. (2009): "Quantifying emission reduction contributions of emerging economies". For the department for the German Environmental Agency. In press
http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2009/02/exploring-comparable-post-2012.html
Project Catalyst (2009) Setting a Benchmark: How Developed Countries Might Equitably Contribute Towards a 450 ppm Pathway, http://www.project-catalyst.info/
Submission South Africa (2009), included in: A compilation of proposals by Parties for aggregate and individual figures for Annex I Parties, 28 August 2009, FCCC/KP/AWG/2009/10/Add.4/Rev.1 http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/items/3595.php#beg
H. Winkler, Marquard A. et al (2009), Analysis of possible quantified emission reduction commitments by individual Annex I Parties
http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/09Winkler-etal-possible-reduction-commitments.pdf
N. Höhne, C. Michelsen, S. Moltmann, H. E. Ott, W. Sterk, S. Thomas, R. Watanabe, S. Lechtenböhmer, K. O. Schallaböck. (2008): Proposals for contributions of emerging economies to the climate regime under the UNFCCC post 2012, Ecofys and Wuppertal Institute. For the Federal German Environmental Agency, Germany
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3658.pdf
N. Höhne, Phylipsen D., Moltmann S. et al. (2007): "Factors underpinning future action". For the department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=14848#RelatedDocuments
S. Moltmann et al. (2009): "Quantifying emission reduction contributions of emerging economies". For the department for the German Environmental Agency. In press