On the subject of climate change, there are three legally binding instruments, namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) declaration of 1992 (Rio de Janeiro), the Kyoto Protocol (KP) of 1997, and the 2015 Paris Agreement (PA). The first instrument of 1992 identified a certain set of developed countries (called Annex I countries) who were to stabilise their greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level. These were to be reviewed periodically. The problem was that the 1992 instrument did not say anything beyond 2000, which was taken care of by the KP. The KP, too, identified a set of developed countries (called Annex B countries) that was marginally different from the Annex I countries who were given specific targets for reduction in emissions. Collectively, the developed countries were to bring down their emissions by 5% (compared to the 1990 level) over the first commitment period (2008-12).
A major change was brought about by the PA in 2015 when each country was to spell out its own target for reduction in emissions, called the nationally determined contributions (NDCs). And these targets were to be revised every five years, starting from 2015. Work on this “bottom-up” approach (through NDCs), which was adopted in Paris, had actually begun in 2009 during the Conference of the Parties 15 at Cancun. It would be interesting to learn that a similar concept was mooted by Japan way back before the 1992 instrument was signed. It was called “pledge and review” but could not be adopted because of the reluctance of the developed world, especially the US. Most of the signatories to the PA have already submitted two NDCs by now, and the third one is due in 2025. All the three instruments are on the basis of equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR), which in a way means that the developed countries are more accountable for the climate issues since they are the ones who have been emitting profusely over the last many decades. However, in the PA, the matter has got considerably diluted as compared to the previous two instruments for two reasons. First, the PA does not specify which are the developed countries (like Annex I or Annex B); and second, all countries, not just the developed ones, have to meet their target emissions as specified in their individual NDCs. By not specifying the developed countries in the PA, one cannot determine which country is expected to act as a donor for financial aid for climate change and which country can hope to be a recipient.
Before delving into NDCs, it would be pertinent to mention that the developed countries, especially the US, have been against the principle of CBDR right from the very beginning. They had wanted that emissions targets should also be laid down for some developing countries such as China and India. The concept of CBDR found a way in the documents due to difference of opinion among the developed countries (the US and some others vis-à-vis the European Union led by Germany) and also because the developing world put up a united stand where India played a major role. In all these climate negotiations, the behaviour of the US needs a special mention. Not only did it pull out of the KP in 2001, but it also pulled out of the PA in 2017 only to come back because of the current administration. The US has consistently refused to accept any responsibility for past emissions though it is responsible for 25% of the cumulative global emissions. The US has always maintained that it has no responsibility to contribute to the $100-billion aid for the developing world or to the recently constituted “loss and damage fund”. In fact, the US contribution to the loss and damage fund is only $17.5 million out of a committed amount of about $800 million (2%). What is going to be the stand of the US after the elections this year is a moot point.
Coming back to the subject of NDCs, they are nothing but a documentation of each country’s plan for mitigation and adaptation measures to tackle climate change. The measures contemplated could be conditional or unconditional where the former would mean that they will be implemented only upon receipt of concessional aid and technology transfer. There are several estimates on how effective are the NDCs collectively when it comes to meeting the Paris targets. The answer ranges from 2.4 to 3 degrees centigrade provided all of what has been mentioned is implemented. Individually, all the NDCs have been evaluated by an independent project called the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) being implemented jointly by two non-profit think tanks, Climate Analytics and New Climate Institute. They have divided all the NDCs into five categories, namely 1.5 degrees compatible; almost sufficient; insufficient; highly insufficient; and critically insufficient. While there seems to be no NDC which is 1.5 degrees compatible, the NDCs of Nigeria, Ethiopia, Morocco, Norway, and Nepal are almost sufficient. The critically insufficient NDCs include that of the Russian Federation, Mexico, Argentina, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam. India, incidentally is highly insufficient along with China, Canada, and some others.
The evaluation of the individual NDCs is a complex exercise, and opaque, though the authors claim that the classification is done on the basis of scientific literature. The CAT evaluates the NDCs under two broad heads: “fair share” and policies/targets enunciated by the country in question. The calculation of the fair share, as the name suggests, is whether the country is doing enough given its capabilities. Countries can also add to their fair share by extending support to other countries for reducing emissions, be it financial or technical. There is no doubt, however, that there is an element of subjectivity involved while calculating the fair share, and it is not clear whether there is any geopolitics ingrained in this exercise. One may recall that India’s NDC was once termed as 1.5 degrees compliant and it became highly insufficient almost overnight!
Given the fact that climate change is a major issue, fraught with political overtones and bitterly contested, it would be advisable if NDCs are evaluated by the UNFCCC secretariat itself. The estimation of fair share should undoubtedly be transparent and also seem fair.
The author is a senior visiting fellow at ICRIER.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
