Mitigation Commitments and Fair Effort Sharing in a New Comprehensive Climate Agreement Starting 2020
Project analysing advantages and disadvantages of different forms of commitments and assessing which level of ambition can be expected from selected 15 industrialised, emerging and developing countries.
1 August 2013–31 May 2016
German Environmental Agency / Umweltbundesamt (UBA)
Ecofys, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Oeko-Institut, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
Objectives and Overview
In detail, the project includes the following elements:
- A survey of the scientific literature on possible forms of commitments and regime architectures and their respective advantages and disadvantages;
- A quantitative modelling of the mitigation potential available in the selected countries;
- A calculation of “fair shares” based on different effort sharing proposals;
- An assessment of the domestic climate political framework conditions in the selected countries to determine the political viability of ambitious commitments.
In 2011, the international community agreed in Durban to start negotiations on a new climate agreement and to conclude them until 2015, with entry into force of the new agreement in 2020. This agreement is to include among other items binding mitigation commitments for industrialised countries and for the first time also for emerging and developing countries. Structure and content, in particular the level of ambition of these mitigation commitments, are still open. Against this background, this project is to support the German government in analysing advantages and disadvantages of different forms of commitments, as well as in assessing which level of ambition can be expected from selected 15 industrialised, emerging and developing countries.
The project also provides ongoing support to the climate negotiations.
Squaring the Circle of Mitigation Adequacy and Equity – Options and Perspectives, May 2014
This report evaluates available options for a variety of aspects around the differentiation of mitigation commitments. It finds that there is no silver bullet for the level of participation, the selection of commitment types, and choice of effort-sharing approaches. A portfolio approach that incorporates multiple options may be most suited to ensure environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and political feasibility.