Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed

  • Harald Winkler
  • Niklas Höhne
  • Guy Cunliffe
  • Takeshi Kuramochi
  • Amanda April
  • Maria Jose de Villafranca Casas
Original Paper

Abstract

In the lead-up to the Paris Agreement, every country was invited to submit an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC), and indicate how it is fair. We analyse how countries have explained the equity of mitigation and adaptation in 163 INDCs, providing a bottom-up analysis of equity to complement a literature that has focused on top-down allocations. While no single indicator of equity was used by all INDCs, a menu of quantified indicators or tiered approaches could provide bounded flexibility across different national circumstances. The most common equity indicator used in mitigation INDCs is the country’s ‘small share’ of global emissions, followed by per capita emissions. The emissions of individual ‘small share’ INDCs add up to 24% of annual global emissions when using a consistent data set. Per capita emissions are used across a range of countries with low (0.5) to high (25 t CO2–eq per capita) values for that indicator. Adaptation is included in 89% of INDCs, of which more than half quantify impacts in some manner, and two-thirds use vulnerability as an equity argument. Broadly, we find that most claims to equity are either unsubstantiated or drawn from analysis by in-country experts. Only two INDCs refer to independent evidence, and none consider the consequences of their approach when applied to all countries. Given that the aggregate effect of INDCs will not be sufficient to keep global temperature increase well below 2 °C, and even less to keep temperature below a 1.5 °C rise, the INDCs have distributional implications. More rigorous information is needed to assess relative fair shares, which could be provided officially in future nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Absent improved information, it is likely that researchers and civil society will continue to assess informally what could be considered fair. A hybrid approach to equity—combining bottom-up assessment and top-down allocation—would be consistent with the hybrid architecture of the Paris Agreement, which comprises bottom-up elements such as NDCs and top-down elements such as global goals. Improved information on equity in NDCs will be an important input to the global stocktake ‘in the light of equity’.

Keywords

Equity INDCs Paris Agreement Bottom-up methodologies Global stocktake 

Abbreviations

APA

Ad hoc working group on the Paris Agreement

AR5

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

CAIT

Climate Analysis Indicator Tool

INDC

Intended nationally determined contribution

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDCs

Least developed countries

LULUCF

Land use, land use change and forestry

NDC

Nationally determined contribution

SI

Supplementary information

SIDS

Small Island Developing States

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Notes

Acknowledgements

The article substantially extends initial work done as part of Chapter 3 of the 2015 Emissions Gap Report (den Elzen et al. 2015), on which H.W. and N.H. were lead authors and G.C. a contributing author. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support by UNEP to the earlier work and thank the author team for collaboration. Research for the present article very significantly extended the earlier analysis (which was reflected in a single paragraph related to equity), with deeper quantitative analysis, as well as more detailed analysis of indicators for both mitigation and adaptation. The current article and any errors are the authors’ responsibility.

Supplementary material

10784_2017_9381_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (428 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 434 kb)

References

  1. Agarwal, A., & Narain, S. (1991). Global warming in an unequal world: A case of environmental colonialism. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.Google Scholar
  2. Ayers, J. M., & Huq, S. (2009). Supporting adaptation to climate change: What role for official development assistance? Development Policy Review, 27(6), 675–692.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00465.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., & Kartha, S. (2008). The greenhouse development rights framework: The right to development in a climate constrained world. Berkeley, CA. http://www.ecoequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/thegdrsframework.pdf.
  4. Brazil. (1997). Proposed elements of a protocol to the UNFCCC, presented by Brazil in response to the Berlin mandate, FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3. Bonn.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, N. (2016). Climate contributions and the Paris Agreement: Fairness and equity in a bottom-up architecture. Ethics & International Affairs, 30(3), 291–301.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679416000228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Civil society review. (2015). Fair shares: A civil society equity review of INDCs: Summary. http://civilsocietyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CSO_summary.pdf.
  7. Civil society review. (2016). Setting the path towards 1.5 °C: A civil society equity review of pre-2020 ambition. http://civilsocietyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Setting-the-Path-Toward-1.5C-FINAL-draft.pdf.
  8. Clarke, L., Jiang, K., Akimoto, K., Babiker, M., Blanford, G., Fisher-Vanden, K., Hourcade, J. C., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Löschel, A., McCollum, D., Paltsev, S., Rose, S., Shukla, P. R., Tavoni, M., Zwaan, B. V. D., & Vuuren, D. P. V. (2014). Assessing transformation pathways. Ch 6. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
  9. Climate Action Tracker. (2016). Tracking INDCs. http://climateactiontracker.org/. Accessed 1 November.
  10. CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). (2015). Intended nationally determined contribution: Adaptation component. Final report prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa. CSIR document reference number: GWDMS Pta Gen. Pretoria. https://www.csir.co.za/sites/default/files/Documents/INDC 2015 adaptation Technical_Report CSIR.pdf.
  11. den Elzen, M. G. J., Fransen, T., Höhne, N., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Garg, A., Cunliffe, G., Fekete, H., Ge, M., Grassi, G., Roelfsema, M., Rogelj, J., Sterl, S., & Vasquez, E. (2015). The emissions gap in 2025 and 2030. Chapter 3. In UNEP (Ed.), The emissions gap report 2015: A UNEP synthesis report (pp. 12–27). Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
  12. den Elzen, M., & Höhne, N. (2010). Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2 °C. Climate Policy, 10(3), 247–260.  https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2009.0678.Google Scholar
  13. Denton, F. (2010). Financing adaptation in least developed countries in West Africa: Is finance the ‘real deal’? Climate Policy, 10(6), 655–671.  https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2010.0149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dooley, K., & Gupta, A. (2016). Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement. International environ agreements: Politics, law and economics, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9331-z.
  15. EcoEquity, & SEI (EcoEquity and Stockholm Environment Institute). (2016). Climate equity reference calculator. Berkeley. http://calculator.climateequityreference.org/.
  16. Fleurbaey, M., Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y. L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., Lecocq, F., Lutz, W., Muylaert, M. S., Norgaard, R. B., Okereke, C., & Sagar, A. (2014). Sustainable development and equity, chap 4. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. IPCC Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
  17. Grubb, M. (1995). Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on climate change. International Affairs, 71, 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta, J., & Arts, K. (2017). Achieving the 1.5 °C objective: Just implementation through a right to (sustainable) development approach. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9376.
  19. Höhne, N., den Elzen, M. G. J., & Escalante, D. (2014). Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies. Climate Policy, 14(1), 122–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.849452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Höhne, N., den Elzen, M., & Weiss, M. (2006). Common but differentiated commitments (CDC): A new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy. [Research article]. Climate Policy, 6(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holz, C., Kartha, S., & Athanasiou, T. (2017). Fairly sharing 1.5: National fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9371-z.
  22. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva.Google Scholar
  23. Kanitkar, T., Jayaraman, T., D’Souza, M., Sanwal, M., Purkayastha, P., & Talwar, R. (2010). Meeting equity in a finite carbon world: Global carbon budgets and burden sharing in mitigation actions. In Paper presented at the Global Carbon Budgets and Equity in Climate Change, June 28–29, 2010, Mumbai, 1 June.Google Scholar
  24. Klinsky, S., Roberts, T., Huq, S., Okereke, C., Newell, P., Dauvergne, P., et al. (2016). Editorial: Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Global Environmental Change.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002.Google Scholar
  25. Klinsky, S., Waskow, D., Northrop, E., & Bevins, W. (2017). Operationalizing equity and supporting ambition: Identifying a more robust approach to ‘respective capabilities’. Climate and Development, 9(4), 287–297.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1146121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mace, M. (2003). Adaptation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: The legal framework. In Paper presented at an international seminar ‘Justice in Adaptation to Climate Change’. 7–9 September, 2003. Part of the FIELD/Tyndall Centre/CSERGE/IIED project ‘A Strategic Assessment of the Equity and Justice Implications of Adaptation’. London.Google Scholar
  27. Mbeva, K. L., & Pauw, P. (2016). Self-differentiation of countries’ responsibilities addressing climate change through intended nationally determined contributions. Discussion paper. Bonn. https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_4.2016.pdf.
  28. Meinshausen, M., Jeery, L., Guetschow, J., du Pont, Y. R., Rogelj, J., Schaeer, M., et al. (2016). National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1098–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer, A. (2000). Contraction & convergence: The global solution to climate change. Bristol: Green Books & Schumacher Society.Google Scholar
  30. Ott, H. E., Winkler, H., Brouns, B., Kartha, S., Mace, M. J., Huq, S., Kameyama, Y., Sari, A. P., Pan, J., Sokona, Y., Bhandari, P. M., Kassenberg, A., La Rovere, E. L., & Rahman, A. A. (2004). South–North dialogue on equity in the greenhouse: A proposal for an adequate and equitable global climate agreement. Eschborn. http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/119/Papers-2004/04Ott-etal-SouthNorthDiaLogue.pdf.
  31. Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2006). Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics, 56(4), 594–609.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pan, J. (2003). Emissions rights and their transferability: Equity concerns over climate change mitigation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pan, X., Teng, F., Tian, Y., & Wang, G. (2015). Countries’ emission allowances towards the low-carbon world: A consistent study. Applied Energy, 155, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shue, H. (2015). Share benefits and burdens equitably. Essay 6 February. Dublin. http://www.mrfcj.org/pdf/faces-of-climate-justice/Sharing-the-Benefits-and-Burdens.pdf.
  35. Smith, J. B., Schneider, S. H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe, G. W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M. D., et al. (2009). Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(11), 4133–4137.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812355106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stern, N. (2015). Economic development, climate and values: Making policy. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1812), 20150820.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tol, R. S. J., & Verheyen, R. (2004). State responsibility and compensation for climate change damages—a legal and economic assessment. Energy Policy, 32, 1109–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UNFCCC. (2016b). INDCs as communicated by parties. http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/SubmissionPages/submissions.aspx. Accessed 1 November.
  39. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2014). Decision 1/CP.20: Lima call for action. Document FCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.1. Lima, Peru, United Nations. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a01.pdf.
  40. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2015a). Decision 1/CP.21, document FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1. Paris, France, United Nations. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf.
  41. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2015b). Paris Agreement. Annex to decision 1/CP.21, document FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, 29 January 2016. Paris, France, United Nations. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf—p. 2.
  42. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2015c). Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions. Note by the Secretariat, document FCCC/CP/2015/7. Bonn, UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/01.pdf.
  43. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2016a). Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update. Synthesis report by the secretariat. Document FCCC/CP/2016/2. Bonn, UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/cop22/eng/02.pdf.
  44. Van Asselt, H. (2016). The role of non-state actors in reviewing ambition, implementation, and compliance under the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6(1), 91–108.Google Scholar
  45. Voigt, C., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Differentiation in the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6, 58–74.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00601004.Google Scholar
  46. Winkler, H., & Beaumont, J. (2010). Fair and effective multilateralism in the post-Copenhagen climate negotiations. [Synthesis article]. Climate Policy, 10, 638–654.  https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2010.0130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winkler, H., Letete, T., & Marquard, A. (2013). Equitable access to sustainable development: Operationalizing key criteria. Climate Policy, 13(4), 411–431.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.777610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Bank. (2016). World development indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 1 June 2017.
  49. WRI (World Resources Institute). (2015). Climate analysis indicators tool (CAIT): WRI’s Climate Data Explorer Washington, DC http://cait2.wri.org/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy Research Centre, University of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.NewClimate InstituteCologneGermany
  3. 3.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations