Evaluating Mitigation Effort: Tools and Institutions for Assessing Nationally Determined Contributions

Aldy, Joseph E.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2691634

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, only integrated, multi-country assessments can account for cross-border impacts of INDCs occurring via international trade. Fourth, economic analyses of INDCs can focus attention on policy learning [14][15][16] , by illustrating opportunities for more cost-effective domestic policies and highlighting the benefits of bilateral linking of domestic programmes 17 . Finally, assessments at this stage can identify the data and modelling needs for ex post review of INDCs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Agreement culminates a six-year transition towards an international climate policy architecture based on parties submitting national pledges every five years 1 . An important policy task will be to assess and compare these contributions 2,3 . We use four integrated assessment models to produce metrics of Paris Agreement pledges, and show di erentiated e ort across countries: wealthier countries pledge to undertake greater emission reductions with higher costs. The pledges fall in the lower end of the distributions of the social cost of carbon and the cost-minimizing path to limiting warming to 2 • C, suggesting insu cient global ambition in light of leaders' climate goals. Countries' marginal abatement costs vary by two orders of magnitude, illustrating that large e ciency gains are available through joint mitigation e orts and/or carbon price coordination. Marginal costs rise almost proportionally with income, but full policy costs reveal more complex regional patterns due to terms of trade e ects.The pledge and review approach formalized in the Paris Agreement requires a well-functioning transparency regime. Given the discretion left with national governments on the form of their mitigation pledges, or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), assessments are necessary to estimate and compare their impacts. Such comparisons will be of interest to environmental stakeholders who want to pressure those countries with relatively modest mitigation contributions. Business stakeholders may focus on assessments of INDCs' economic impacts, specifically energy price and cost impacts among trade partners.Beyond stakeholder interest, transparency and comparability can promote the stability and facilitate greater ambition of an international climate agreement. Transparent reviews serve to enhance the credibility and likelihood that a party will deliver on its announced pledge, especially with repeating rounds of pledge and review [4][5][6] . Assessments of pledges reveal countries' preferences and interests 1 , enabling more-informed negotiations. International institutions to facilitate transparency-through the collection, analysis and dissemination of information on countries' pledges-can lower the costs of international agreements and enhance their legitimacy 7 . Voluntary pledge and review can result in broad participation 8,9 , as evident in the Paris Agreement. In various contexts, including international trade and common pool resource management, the demonstration of reciprocal actions has resulted in fewer deviations from agreements and positive reactions by members of the agreement 10 .The long-term success of the Paris Agreement is likely to depend on assessments of whether comparable countries undertake comparable mitigation efforts. Such assessments are complicated by the variation in the form of pledges: targets specified in terms of a base year, a forecast, or emissions intensity; peaking year; renewable energy goals; and so on. Evaluating the comparability of mitigation effort highlight...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this resulted in significant inconsistencies across country submissions in terms of reference points, methodological approaches for estimating emissions, and implementation, creating significant challenges for subsequent comparison, monitoring, and evaluation processes. 14 Though INDCs are not formally annexed to the Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21 requires Parties to prepare, communicate, and pursue the domestic mitigation measures stated in their INDCs. Unless decided otherwise by the Parties themselves, submitted INDCs will become the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for all Parties that join the Agreement.…”

Section: What Are Indcs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Peoples & Local Community Tenure in the INDCs: Status and Recommendations

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This brief presents a review of 161 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted on behalf of 188 countries for COP 21 to determine the extent to which Parties made clear commitments to strengthen or expand the tenure and natural resource management rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as part of their climate change mitigation plans or associated adaptation actions. Of the 161 INDCs submitted, 131 are from countries with tropical and subtropical forests.

show abstract

Alternative Approaches for Rating INDCs: A Comparative Analysis

Davide

Vesco

2016

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate dynamic conditional correlations between 10 commodities futures returns in energy, metals and agriculture markets over the period 1998-2014 with a DCC-GARCH model. We look at the factors influencing those correlations, adopting a pooled mean group (PMG) estimator.Macroeconomic variables are significantly correlated with agriculture-energy and metals-energy dynamic conditional correlations; while financial variables are relevant in the agriculture-energy correlations and poorly significant in the metals-energy ones. Speculative activity is generally not statistically significant. Correlations started increasing in the years before the financial crisis and decreased at the end of our period of analysis. JEL classification: Q42; Q11; C32

show abstract

Evaluating Mitigation Effort: Tools and Institutions for Assessing Nationally Determined Contributions

Cited by 5 publications

References 55 publications

Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement

Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement

Indigenous Peoples & Local Community Tenure in the INDCs: Status and Recommendations

Alternative Approaches for Rating INDCs: A Comparative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About