Search

In order to stabilize long-term greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm CO2-eq or lower, developed countries as a group should reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, while developing countries' emissions need to be reduced by around 15-30%, relative to their baseline levels, according to the IPCC and our earlier work. This study examines 19 other studies on the emission reductions attributed to the developed and developing countries for meeting a 450 ppm target. These studies considered different allocation approaches, according to equity principles. The effect of the assumed global emissions cap in these studies is analysed. For developed countries, the original reduction range of 25-40% by 2020 is still within the average range of all studies, but does not cover it completely. Comparing the studies shows that assuming a global emissions cap of 5-15% above 1990 levels by 2020 generally leads to more stringent reduction targets than when a global emissions cap of 20-30% above 1990 levels is assumed. For developing countries, the reduction range of 15-30% below their baseline levels by 2020 corresponds to an increase on the 1990 level from 70% (about the 2006 level) to 120%. Reducing deforestation emissions by 50% below baseline levels by 2020 may relax the emission reductions for either group of countries; for developing countries by about 7% or for developed countries by about 15% (but not for both). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The climate negotiations up to Copenhagen will need to elaborate on measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) mitigation commitments and actions as part of the future of the climate regime. The conceptual, political, scientific, financial and institutional principles for MRV are explored for (1) mitigation commitments in developed countries, (2) mitigation actions in developing countries, supported by (3) means of implementation. For developed countries, the procedures in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 18 of the Kyoto Protocol will be critical in order to ensure comparability of commitments, both in effort and compliance. Outcomes should be reportable and verifiable through Annex I national communications and in-depth review. Existing procedures could be enhanced and need to apply across Protocol and Convention. MRV mitigation actions by developing countries should result in measurable deviations below baseline. Inventories will be important to measure, and enhanced national communications for reporting. The challenge will be to make mitigation actions verifiable, and options include verification by domestic institutions working to internationally agreed guidelines. A critical distinction is to be made between unilateral mitigation actions and those with international support. MRV applies to the provision of the means of implementation, including technology and finance. Investment in technology can be measured, so that institutional arrangements for technology and finance should be aligned. Verification of funds raised at international level would be simpler than raising funds nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]