Climate and Energy


Making Nationally-determined Contributions Operational and More Ambitious

Many Parties support the idea of “nationally-determined contributions” to mitigate climate change with some form of international consultation. This event discussed specific steps and time frames that aim to add ex-ante clarity to nationally-determined mitigation contributions and enhance their levels of ambition.

Date 16 November 2013
Venue Japan Pavillion (Warsaw Poland)
Organiser Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Kelly Levin, WRI, discussed a paper on the comparability and measurability of nationally-determined commitments, including the extent to which these can be measured, reported and verified ("MRVed"). She concluded with recommendations, inter alia, to: use economy-wide goals to maximise measurable emissions reductions; target the highest-emitting sector if sectoral goals are set; frame goals from a base-year or a fixed level since these are more measurable; and use intensity goals when countries are deciding between baseline and intensity goals, and consider setting a peak and decline pathway.

Yamide Dagnet, WRI, outlined a matrix of options on international guidance for submissions of offers by parties, including: basic reporting guidance; additional reporting on factors such as equity, emissions projections and costs; detailed reporting on assumptions methodologies and criteria; and reporting obligations plus prescriptions on how parties carry out various aspects of target design.

Kentaro Tamura, IGES, proposed the establishment of a consortium of research institutes to assess and review the targets of UNFCCC parties that are members of the G20 on the basis of a common template. He outlined advantages including that it: builds on existing initiatives; can be integrated into existing institutional arrangements through additional COP decisions; and contributes to mainstreaming existing mitigation science into target setting processes.

Bert Metz, European Climate Foundation, emphasised the importance of keeping the architecture of such a system simple. Niklas Höhne, Ecofys, highlighted the ClimateActionTracker. Reflecting on that experience, he stated that a common template could be useful, and added that once offers are on the table they hardly change. Neha Pahuja, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), commented that the suggestion of a common framework is very good, but she fears that the post-Copenhagen dynamics in the negotiations will continue, stressing the importance of agreement on an equity framework to prevent this.

A Pathway to a Climate Change Agreement in 2015: Options for Setting and Reviewing GHG Emission Reduction Offers
Yamide Dagnet, Senior Associate
  Mainstreaming Scientific Knowledge into the Process for Nationally-determining Contributions
Kentaro Tamura, Area Leader, Climate and Energy Area, IGES
  Designing National Commitments to Drive Measurable Emissions Reductions after 2020
Kelly Levin, Senior Associate, WRI
Comments on the presentations
Jurgen Lefevre, European Climate Foundation
  Bert Metz, European Climate Foundation
  Niklas Höhne, Ecofys
  Neha Pahuja, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

Go to top of page