Economics, Finance, Politics
Volume 14Issue4,2019, p. 1173-1186DOI: 10.29228/TurkishStudies.32703 ISSN: 2667-5625
Skopje/MACEDONIA-Ankara/TURKEY Research Article / Araştırma Makalesi
A r t i c l e Info / M akale B ilgisi
!Received/Geliş: 28.08.2019 üAccepted/Kabul: 20.12.2019
$ Report Dates/Rapor Tarihleri: Referee 1 (07.12.2019)-Referee 2 (12.12.2019)
This article was checked by iThenticate.
CHALLENGES ON PROCESSES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARIS AGREEMENT: MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCERS
CASE
Levent AYDIN* - İzzet ARI**
ABSTRACT
A new climate change agreement was required to replace to the Kyoto Protocol, which quantitatively determines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction of developed and industrialized countries and sets down cost-effective mitigation mechanisms. The Kyoto Protocol has not defined the commitment to reduce GHG emission for a sufficient number of countries. The Kyoto Protocol has not also provided equity based responsibility sharing for combating climate change. In line with these needs, the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015 as a result of the
21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the end of the climate negotiations between the years 2011 and 2015. The Paris Agreement entered into
force on 4th November 2016 and covers the post-2020 implementation
period. Due to the monitoring of the process of negotiating and bottom-up negotiating method, bottom-updated Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) with progressive and additional GHG emission reduction requirements (INDCs 2.0) process by 2020 has gained critical importance. In this study, the case of major fossil fuel producers is investigated in terms of their institutional and climate policy perspectives for monitoring their submitted INDCs. In particular, the sustainability and effectiveness of the Paris Agreement are questioned in the post-2020 period due to the fact that the responsibilities of developed and developing countries are different and INDCs have not been submitted in a common format. In this study, starting from the construction process of the Paris Agreement, a critical evaluation of the
* Prof. Dr.,Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi, E-posta: leventaydin60@gmail.com ** Dr. Öğr.Üyesi, Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi, E-posta: izzet.ari@asbu.edu.tr
system to be established and the processes to be completed will be followed. At the end of the study, recommendations will be made especially for developing countries to carry out the emission reduction process in a more transparent manner.
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
Global climate change has become one of the biggest challenges facing human beings. To overcome this problem, a number of international actions have been made. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement are internationally climate agreements. Countries contributed to global climate policy efforts according to the principle of their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Recent global action has been taken in the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015 with an innovative burden sharing approach namely Intended Nationally Determined Contributions-INDCs. This approach is based on bottom-up commitments style. After the conference, the Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015 with consensus. The Agreement covers post-2020 climate regime for all countries. Nevertheless, there was no clear agreement on rules, protocols, processes for enforcing the Paris Agreement.
Ø Aim: The aim of this article is to analyze the timeline of the
Paris Agreement, challenges for the implementation of the Agreement and monitoring of the INDCs. This study will discuss new topics such as Global Stocktake (GST), transparency, INDC cycles and progress tracking and evaluation. A case study (major producers of fossil fuel) is conducted in this article to explore the value of the institutional and climate policy context to track and analyze the INDCs submitted.
Ø Conceptual framework: There is a dichotomy between
developed and developing countries in the context of burden sharing for global climate change. The UNFCCC ends with two annexes namely Annex I and Annex II, and also non-Annex countries that reiterates this dichotomy. This is the first time, the Paris Agreement breaks the dichotomy based on the Annexes system. Besides, the Paris Agreement and its post-2020 climate change regime provide a new commitments style namely the INDC. The INDCs were sent by all countries. GST will be conducted in accordance with the Paris Agreement to monitor and measure the progress of target countries. Because there is no common method to advance INDCs submitted and country assessment, whether it is fair or not. In addition, INDC's second version should be in 2020. Submissions should be graduated and updated according to first submissions this time. There is, however, no clear guidance from any intergovernmental body recommending the amount of further reductions. There are no legally binding elements for INDCs, but countries will remain within their INDCs contribution limits. There is, however, inadequate knowledge of GST planning and stakeholder feedback. While considering the types of INDCs and the roles of developed and developing countries, the question of "transparency" becomes more relevant. Good governance is important for collaborative strategies, including the Paris Agreement's sustainability and accountability and the use of internationally transmitted mitigation outcomes, especially for NDCs.
Ø Method: The study is based on the literature review, discussions and debates on international climate policy framework including legal documents, country’s position, views of non-party stakeholders and decisions at the Conference of the Parties. Besides, a special case study namely the positions and responsibilities of the major fossil fuel countries. Major fossil fuel producers in this case study provide examples from developed and developing countries to consider their respective commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.18 Major producers of fossil fuel will be investigated. Information about list in the UNFCCC (Annex-I, Annex-II and Non-Annex-ı), the ratification of the Paris Agreement, being a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the World Bank country classification based on income groups (high, upper-middle, lower-upper-middle, and low) are main criteria for these countries. Data are gathered from IEA, OPEC, WB and UNFCCC.
Ø Results: The case of major producers of fossil fuel indicates
that there is no simple categorization between these countries in terms of being a party to the Paris Agreement, forms of INDCs and acknowledging transparency in their INDCs. When monitoring the implementation of the Paris Agreement, each country has its own national circumstances, some countries, such as major fossil fuel producers, have huge impacts on GHG emissions mitigation. This case also provides evidence that the Paris Agreement implementation process does not seem to be normal and straightforward.
Conclusion: The Agreement's implementation will begin in 2020. There is a lack of understanding who are developed and developing countries. Paris Agreement's main building elements have been submitted to countries' INDCs, but there is no clear or standard framework or guide for countries to plan or track their INDCs. The case of the major producers of fossil fuel offers substantial evidence for this argument. The negotiations needs to intensify and develop its work by 2020 before these issues become recurrent and distinguishing elements arise between countries.
Keywords: Paris Agreement, NDCs, Transparency, Global
Stocktake.
PARİS ANLAŞMASININ UYGULANMA SÜREÇLERDEKİ ZORLUKLAR: BÜYÜK FOSİL YAKIT ÜRETİCİLERİ ÖRNEĞİ
ÖZ
Gelişmiş ve sanayileşmiş ülkelerin seragazı emisyon azaltımını niceliksel olarak belirleyen ve maliyet etkin azaltma mekanizmalarını tanımlayan Kyoto Protokolü’nün yerine yeni bir iklim değişikliği anlaşmasının hazırlanması gerekmiştir. Kyoto Protokolü, yeterli sayıda ülke için seragazı emisyonu azaltma taahhüdünü tanımlamamıştır. Kyoto Protokolü iklim değişikliğiyle mücadele için hakkaniyet temelli sorumluluk paylaşımını da sağlamamıştır. Bu ihtiyaçlar doğrultusunda, Paris Anlaşması, 2011-2015 yılları arasındaki iklim değişikliği müzakerelerinin sonunda Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi’nin (BMİDÇS) 21. Tarafların Konferansı sonucunda 2015
yılında kabul edilmiştir. Paris Anlaşması 4 Kasım 2016'da yürürlüğe girmiş ve 2020 yılı sonrası anlaşmanın uygulama dönemini kapsamaktadır. Müzakerelerin aşağıdan yukarıya taahhüt verme yöntemini izlenmesi ve tercih etmesi nedeniyle, 2020 yılına kadar aşamalı ve ek seragazı emisyon azaltma gereksinimleri (INDCs 2.0) güncellenmiş Niyet Edilen Ulusal Katkı Beyanları (INDC'ler) olarak verecek olmaları kritik önem kazanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, büyük fosil yakıt üreticilerinin durumu, sundukları INDC'lerin izlenmesine yönelik kurumsal ve iklim politikası perspektifleri açısından incelenmiştir. Özellikle, Paris Anlaşması'nın sürdürülebilirliği ve etkinliği, gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerin sorumluluklarının farklı olması ve INDC'lerin ortak bir formatta sunulmaması nedeniyle 2020 sonrası dönemde sorgulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Paris Anlaşması'nın yapım sürecinden başlayarak kurulacak sistemin ve tamamlanacak süreçlerin eleştirel bir değerlendirmesi yapılacaktır. Çalışmanın sonunda, özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerin seragazı emisyon azaltma sürecini daha şeffaf bir şekilde yürütmeleri için öneriler yapılacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Paris Anlaşması, NDC'ler, Şeffaflık, Küresel
Stokalımı
Introduction
Global climate change has become one of the biggest challenges facing human beings. To overcome this problem, a number of international actions have been made. As an analogy, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a constitution for international climate policy. The aim of the UNFCCC is to stabilize the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere (UNFCCC, 1992). The Kyoto Protocol was one of the implementing legal instruments to reduce GHG emissions of Annex-I countries. However, due to insufficient coverage of total amount of emissions from various countries and not being a party by major emitters brought the Kyoto Protocol as unsuccessful. The Protocol aims to reduce the only Annex I emissions, and the implementation period just covers 2008 and 2012, an additional progress was required to achieve the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC. In meantime, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report on required actions for climate change. The IPCC invited all countries to reduce their GHG emissions and adapt to impacts of climate change. The secretariat of the UNFCCC invited all countries another crucial summit on climate change in Durban, South Africa in 2011 (UNFCCC, 2012). The main aim of the Durban Climate Change Conference was to set a new negotiation platform applicable to all countries. The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) was established in 2011 as a matter of urgency for the construction of a post-2020 climate policy regime (Bodansky, 2012). The mandate of ADP was to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC applicable to all Parties (UNFCCC, 2012). In the mandate there was no reference to ‘Annex-I’, ‘non-Annex-I’, ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries. It is widely accepted that this mandate was an opportunity to involve developing countries in mitigation of emissions. Between 2011 and 2015, all countries participated in the climate change negotiations to develop a new agreement. Besides, highly inclusive process of ADP negotiations, a new method called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) was established to ensure a bottom-up approach for providing the amount of emission reductions (UNFCCC, 2014). Until the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015, countries submitted their INDCs in line with the principle of their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Based on INDCs and inclusive ADP negotiations, the Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015 (UNFCCC, 2015a). After the required number for the ratification of the Paris
Agreement, it entered into force in November 2016. The implementation period of the Agreement will start in 2020. However, rules, procedures, processes of the implementation of the Paris Agreement have not clearly defined. By 2019, the rulebook of the Paris Agreement is expected to be completed. The aim of this article is to analyze the timeline of the Paris Agreement, challenges for the implementation of the Agreement and monitoring of the INDCs. New issues such as Global Stocktake (GST), transparency, cycles for the INDCs and monitoring and evaluation of the progress will be discussed within this study. Within this article, a case study (major fossil fuel producers) is conducted to investigate importance of institutional and climate policy perspective to track and evaluate submitted INDCs.
The Critical Evaluation of Transparency and GST Process
The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit average global warming to well below 2°C while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C (UNFCCC, 2015a). The Paris Agreement and its negotiation platform namely the ADP followed so innovative discussions without diverging any country groups such as developed countries, developing countries, Annex I and non-Annex countries. The significant difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is based on the method of commitments. While the former is based on voluntarily and nationally determined contributions, the latter follows top-down approach with compulsory emissions reductions amount (Tørstad & Saelen, 2017).
It was observed that the mandate of the ADP provided a common objective for all countries for the adoption of a historical and evolutionary climate agreement. Thus, this innovative and evolutionary approach resulted in the necessity to submit INDCs by all countries, whether developed and developing countries. This end was accepted as a victory of Annex-I countries or developed countries over developing countries or non-Annex countries to involve their emission reduction efforts (Tørstad & Saelen, 2017). All countries submitted their INDCs. According to the Paris Agreement, GST will be conducted to monitor and measure progress of countries targets. After the adoption of the Paris Agreement which is a common language for all countries to reach its objective, the concerns regarding the equity and aligning with the principle of CBDR and RC are needed to be clarified (Pan, Den Elzen, Höhne, Teng, & Wang, 2017). Because there is no common format for submitted INDCs and evaluation of countries progresses, whether it is fair or not. Moreover, as highlighted in
Table 1, the second version of the INDCs should be in 2020. This time all submissions
should be progressive and upgraded according to first submissions. However, there is no clear guidance from any intergovernmental body to recommends the amount of additional reductions. Although the Facilitative Dialogue tried to close this kind of gap, it was not solved any questions. In 2018, the IPCC released a special report on reaching the main objective of the UNFCCC.
Table 1: Critical Milestones for the Climate Negotiations
Sources: Prepared by Authors
Paris Agreement and transition to low carbon economies in line with sustainable development (IPCC, 2018). The findings of this report suggest that further emissions reduction is essential to stop to limit the rate of change in temperature change (UNFCCC, 2019e).
Countries submitted in first INDCs within the year of 2015 (UNFCCC, 2015b). Adoption of the Paris Agreement was implicitly related to these submissions. There is no legally binding elements for the INDCs, but countries should stick their contribution targets within their INDCs period (Yeo, 2019). The issue related to the submitted INDCs during adoption and establishment period of the Paris Agreement did not focus on the amount of emissions reductions, but the priority was involving each country with their intention for new climate regime. The first INDCs or INDC 1.0 was implicitly evaluated by the Facilitative Dialogue, in other words, Talaona Dialogue between 2017 and 2018 (C2ES, 2018b). The Facilitative Dialogue or Talaona Dialogue was a trial of the GST that will start in 2023 (Rüdinger et al., 2018). Results of the Dialogue informed countries for their second INDCs process (C2ES, 2018b; Yeo, 2019). The INDCs 2.0 will be submitted in 2020 and these INDCs should be more ambitious, more progressive and more inclusive (UNFCCC, 2019e; Yeo, 2019). The GST will start in 2023 and will continue in every consecutive five years in order to inform about aggregated and collective emissions reductions amount by countries (C2ES, 2018a).During the GST phase, the inputs and information regarding countries INDCs and their evaluation will be collected from all stakeholders, including NGOs, academia, intergovernmental bodies, etc. (C2ES, 2018b). However, there is a problem about methods for collecting information including emissions data, sources, sinks, carbon budget, inputs by non-party stakeholders (IISD, 2018; Keith et al., 2019).On the other part, when the rules and procures are so strict, countries spend their efforts on reporting rather than reducing their emissions (Mehling et al.,, 2018). Therefore, the reconciliation between reporting and implementing rules seem to be essential. During the current implementation of the UNFCCC, the Secretariat facilitates on how gathering information and reporting all essential things listed in guidance on the preparation of national communications and biannual reports (UNFCCC, 2019d). However, there is insufficient understanding on the preparation of the GST and inputs from stakeholders (IISD, 2018).For better implementation of the Paris Agreement, a specific working group, namely the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) was established (UNFCCC, 2019a). The APA has been trying to set rules and procedures and to provide details about the articles of the Paris Agreement (Yeo, 2016).
Year Steps
1992 The UNFCCC was adopted in Rio Summit
1994 The UNFCCC entered into force
1997 The Kyoto Protocol was adopted to reduce GHG emissions of Annex I to the UNFCCC
2005 The Kyoto Protocol entered into force for the first commitment period (2008-2012)
2007-2009 Post-2012 climate change negotiations were carried out to achieve the ultimate objective of the
UNFCCC
2011-2015 Post-2015 climate change negotiations were made under the Durban Platform to develop a
new legal
2015 The Paris Agreement was adopted in COP 21
2016 The Paris Agreement entered into force
2018 The Facilitative Dialogue (Talaona Dialogue) finished its first cycle
2020 The implementation period of the Paris Agreement will start. Countries will submit the second
version of INDCs.
2023 GST studies will be initiated
2025 Countries will submit the third version of INDCs.
Another problem is related to types of emissions reduction commitments between developed and developing countries as highlighted in the Article 4 of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015a). This problem has been discussed under the differentiation issue in the APA meetings (IISD, 2018; Yeo, 2019). When the types of INDCs and positions of developed and developing countries are considered together, the “transparency” issue gains importance (Jacoby et al., 2017). Besides, a new global climate governance, including the strengthened role of non-parties, is needed to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement (Oberthür et al., 2017). It is suggested that the level of transparency can be increased by involving the non-parties as an external independent evaluator in the GST process (Jacoby et al., 2017; Rüdinger et al., 2018).
In accordance with Article 13 of the Agreement, the parties shall provide, together with the mitigation and adaptation reports, the information necessary to monitor the progress of the Communication and the implementation and acquisition of NDCs and in the national inventory report on GHG emissions prepared regularly using the good practice methodologies adopted by the IPCC1. They should also provide information on the effects and adaptation of climate change2. On the other hand, Article 13, which places special emphasis on sustainable development, requires more transparency. Information on the financial, technological and capacity-building support needed by developing country parties should be presented3.
Information on national inventory, reports on GHG emissions and monitoring of progress, as well as the level of support, will be the target of technical review of experts as well as multilateral evaluation of progress4. During the review process, the sustainability and effective functioning of the process needs to be done to ensure that the conditions and capabilities of the developing country parties are constantly monitored and their capacity to participate in the process should be continuously increased5.
Developing non-intrusive, non-criminal, easy, and respectful common methods, rules and procedures that are able to keep the developed and developing country parties under an umbrella of equality that can be implemented equally and fairly is vital to the sustainability of the process6.
Above all, good governance is essential for collaborative approaches, including the sustainability and transparency of the Paris Agreement, and the use of internationally transmitted mitigation results, especially for NDCs. Indeed, transparency and sound accounting are necessary to measure these results7. In establishing the Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency, the Parties aim to develop the institutional and technical capacity related to the transparency requirements set out in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement and undertake to ensure the transparency of actions, including other measures as well as climate financing.
According to Article 6, Parties may transfer the results of international mitigation for NDCs through voluntary cooperation to allow for higher ambitions in mitigation and adaptation activities8. When using internationally transferred reduction outputs, the Parties will promote sustainable development and will ensure environmental integrity and transparency by applying sound accounting and governance to avoid double-counting, consistent with the guidelines to be adopted by the CMA (Segger, 2016)9,10,11.
1 See article 13.7(a) 2 See article 13.7(b)
3 According to article 9 and article 10 on technology transfer and article 11 on climate finance. 4See Article 13.11, Article 13.12, and Article 13.13
5See article 13.15 6See article 13.13 7See article 6. 8See Article 6.1
9Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. CMA is the short form for the
The key elements of the Paris Agreement respond to international legal obligations and are likely to require internal legislation for effective implementation (Segger, 2016). One of these internal legislation requirements is about transparency, communication, peer review and GST. The necessary elements of transparency, including the collection of national communications and relevant data and making it available to the public, are key to the successful implementation of the Paris Agreement and may require new laws, institutions and rules or standards for national and international adoption (Segger, 2016). However, with regard to potential climate impacts, laws on social and environmental impact assessment requirements may be required in actions related to new projects and policies related to agriculture, infrastructure, transport, industry, energy and natural resources. Such rules can be strengthened to apply to climate change mitigation and adaptation projects, eg CDM12 or REDD +13, to minimize negative human rights, social and environmental impacts (Segger, 2016).
The main components of the GST are inputs (information collection and preparation), technical assessment and outputs. The GST will be based on best available science with party-driven process (UNFCCC, 2019c). Although the GST will be an issue in the Paris Agreement, the execution and management processes will be conducted in the subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC such as Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)(UNFCCC, 2019b). Besides, technical dialogue including experts will be established to assess the implementation and progress of the Paris Agreement. The novelty in the GST process is to involve both parties and non-party stakeholders. Non-party stakeholders will be also eligible to access all related information for the implementation of the Paris Agreement. This accessing process is in line with expected strong transparency. The transparency in the Paris Agreement will be recognized through Article 13. To build a bridge between NDCs and GST, some elements are essential. Under the UNFCCC, national communications, biennial reports and biennial update reports, international assessment and review and international consultation and analysis provide the information about all countries (UNFCCC, 2019f).
10See article 6.2
11See more detail in (Bernstein, Betsill, Hoffmann, & Paterson, 2010; Khoday, 2007; Voigt, 2008)
12The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a project-based transaction system through which industrialized
countries can accrue carbon credits
13represents efforts by countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to promote
Table 2: Reporting and Transparency in the UNFCCC
Developed countries
(Annex I Parties)
Developing countries (Non-Annex I Parties)
Reporting Annual GHG inventory submissions GHG inventory as part of the national
communication and biennial update report
National Communication National Communication
Biennial Report Biennial Update Report
Technical Review/analysis
Technical Review Technical Analysis of Biennial Update
Reports Review process of GHG inventories
Review reports of NCs and BRs Multilateral
process
Multilateral Assessment Facilitative sharing of views
Source: UNFCCC, 2019f
lists all the reports and reviews from developed and developing countries. Both developed and developing countries have different reporting responsibilities. Reports from Annex I parties such as GHG emissions inventory, national communications and biannual reports include very transparent and concrete actions. On the other hand, emissions from non-Annex I countries are in their biannual reports and national communications. In the UNFCCC, reporting guidelines for Annex I and non-Annex I countries further differentiate according their responsibilities for emissions mitigation, providing finance, technology transfer and capacity building.
Table 2: Reporting and Transparency in the UNFCCC
Developed countries
(Annex I Parties)
Developing countries (Non-Annex I Parties)
Reporting Annual GHG inventory submissions GHG inventory as part of the national
communication and biennial update report
National Communication National Communication
Biennial Report Biennial Update Report
Technical Review/analysis
Technical Review Technical Analysis of Biennial Update
Reports Review process of GHG inventories
Review reports of NCs and BRs Multilateral
process
Multilateral Assessment Facilitative sharing of views
Source: UNFCCC, 2019f
During preparation and adaptation period of the Paris Agreement, countries submitted their INDCs without any specified reporting guidelines or country classification(UNFCCC, 2015b). The most critical guide for the INDCs is to recognizing the principle of the CBDR and RC. Besides, there is no reference to Annex-I, non-Annex I, developed and developing countries in the ADP namely constructive platform for the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2012). However, the UNFCCC reporting and review process is used to categorize country for their transparency actions in their reports. Another problem, each country submitted their INDCs in the light of their national circumstances, none of them followed a common format for GHG emissions reduction. Besides, both GST and transparency processes are required to be varying responsibilities of developed and developing countries. However, the Paris Rulebook and particularly Katowice Climate Package did not explicitly differentiate reporting processes of developed and developing countries.
After the Katowice Climate Summit country parties continued to engage in reporting tables and other issues related to the transparency framework before the Paris Rulebook job completed in COP-25. The transparency debated focused on the article 6 of the Agreement in Bonn 2019 Climate Conference (Gabbatiss, 2019). The discussions still continue how each country whether developed or developing side report and calculate its GHG emissions (Allan et al., 2019). All the reporting issue will provide inputs first biennial transparency reports for better implementation of the Agreement. Therefore, common reporting formats or system is a crucial issue before the completion of Paris Rulebook.
Major Fossil Fuel Producers Case
GHG emissions are the main drivers of global climate change. Emissions are releasing from anthropogenic activities including fossil fuel combustion, cement production and land use change. Fossil fuel combustion has the primary ratio among these activities. Oil, natural gas, coal are major fossil fuels that human beings have been using since industrial revolution. Table 3 lists the major oil, natural gas and coal producers. For each three primary energy sources, top 10 producers have main responsible countries for extracting or producing fossil fuels. When the drivers of climate change are considered with the role of fossil fuels on our global climate system, any action and position of those countries in the international policies and agreements such as mitigation of climate change, ratification of the Paris Agreement, etc. can affect all societies. Therefore, in this study, position and actions of major fossil fuel producers are needed to be analyzed.
Table 3: Major Fossil Fuel Producers
Crude Oil Producers NG Producers Coal Producers
Amount (Mt) % Amount (bcm) % Amount (Mt) %
Saudi Arabia 583 13.5 US 749 20.7 China 3242 44.6
Russia 546 12.6 Russia 644 17.8 India 708 9.7
US 537 12.4 Iran 190 5.3 US 672 9.2
Canada 220 5.1 Canada 174 4.8 Australia 503 6.9
Iran 200 4.6 Qatar 165 4.6 Indonesia 460 6.3
China 200 4.6 China 137 3.8 Russia 365 5
Iraq 191 4.4 Norway 121 3.3 South Africa 257 3.5
UAE 183 4.2 Algeria 92 2.5 Germany 176 2.4
Kuwait 159 3.7 Saudi Arabia 90 2.5 Poland 131 1.8
Brazil 135 3.1 Australia 88 2.4 Kazakhstan 98 1.3
Rest of World 1368 31.8 1163 32.3 657 9.3
World 4321 100 3613 100 7269 100
Sources: IEA, 2017
Information about list in the UNFCCC (Annex-I, Annex-II and Non-Annex-ı), the ratification of the Paris Agreement, being a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the World Bank country classification based on income groups (high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low) are presented in Table 4. Among 18 countries, 14 countries have already ratified the Paris Agreement, one country (the US) has intention on withdraw from the Agreement and three countries (Russia, Iran and Iraq) have not ratified the Paris Agreement. 13 countries out of 18 are not listed in either Annex-I or Annex-II of the UNFCCC, so these countries have no responsibility for quantified emissions reduction in the UNFCCC. Six countries are members of the OPEC and all of them are Non-Annex-I countries. Any country in this list with a membership of the OPEC has no mitigation burden for GHG emissions. Only Iran and Iraq have not ratified the Paris Agreement yet, though these two countries are in both Non-Annex-I and the OPEC country. Therefore, in terms of institutional perspective, there is no rationality for being an outside of the Paris Agreement for Iran and Iraq. However, the Paris Agreement with Article 4.19 requires from party countries to prepare long term low emissions development strategies. Both Iran and Iraq with upper-middle income country might not be willingness to prepare any low emissions development or energy transformation strategies to hinder their economic growth.
Table 4: Institutional Information for Major Fossil Fuel Producers
UNFCCC Paris Agreement
Ratification
OPEC Members
WB income classification
Saudi Arabia NA-I Yes Yes High
Russia A-I No No Upper-Middle
US A-II Yes No High
Canada A-II Yes No High
Iran NA-I No Yes Upper-Middle
China NA-I Yes No Upper-Middle
Iraq NA-I No Yes Upper-Middle
UAE NA-I Yes Yes High
Kuwait NA-I Yes Yes High
Brazil NA-I Yes No Upper-Middle
Qatar NA-I Yes No High
Norway A-II Yes No High
Algeria NA-I Yes Yes Upper-Middle
Australia A-II Yes No High
India NA-I Yes No Low-Middle
Indonesia NA-I Yes No Low-Middle
South Africa NA-I Yes No Upper-Middle
Kazakhstan NA-I Yes No Upper-Middle
Sources: WB, 2019
According to Paris Agreement (Article 13), countries shall provide a clear understanding of their INDCs including description, progression, tracking, monitoring, reporting and verification steps in order to inform GST process (UNFCCC, 2015a). INDCs with their target (BaU, Intensity, Base Year), target period (for example 2021-2030), reference point (1990, 2000, 2010, etc.), coverage/scope (economy-wide, individual measures, sectoral) and intention on monitoring, reporting and verification policies provide critical information about the transparency issue for the (INDCs Table 5).In terms of GHG emissions mitigation targets, these countries are categorized into three main groups: BAU (emissions reduction according to deviation from the Business as Usual scenario), Base Year (providing absolute emissions reduction relative to historical base year) and Intensity (emissions per GDP or emissions per primary energy). Nine countries have Base Year types of INDCs, China and India prefer to intensity based targets and remaining countries intend to BAU method. Among these 18 countries, half of them have priority to transparency issue in their INDCs. These 9 countries have already the Paris Agreement. In terms of target year, reference point and coverage of the emissions mitigation major fossil fuel producers have not followed common format. Therefore, concerns on common reporting, methodology and understanding gain importance during the implementation of the Paris Agreement, GST, monitoring and reporting of the INDCs of countries.
Table 5: Position and Preferences of Major Fossil Fuel Producers in the Paris Agreement
Process
Targets Type Target
Year/Period Reference Point /Baseline Coverage (sector, scope) MRV
Saudi Arabia BAU 2021-2030 2000 Individual Measures Yes
Russia Base Year 2020-2030 1990 Economy-wide No
US Base Year 2020-2025 2005 Economy-wide No
Canada Base Year 2020-2030 2005 Economy-wide No
Iran Base Year 2021-2030 2010 Economy-wide Yes
China Intensity 2030 2005&2010 Economy-wide No
Iraq BAU 2035 2020 Economy-wide No
UAE BAU 2021-2030 2021 Economy-wide Yes
Kuwait BAU 2035 NA Individual Measures No
Brazil Base Year 2025 2005 Economy-wide No
Qatar BAU 2021-2030 NA NA Yes
Norway Base Year 2021-2030 1990 Economy-wide Yes
Algeria BAU 2021-2030 2015 Economy-wide Yes
Australia Base Year 2021-2030 2005 Economy-wide Yes
India Intensity 2021-2030 2005 NA No
Indonesia BAU 2021-2030 2010 Economy-wide Yes
South Africa Base Year 2025-2030 2020 Economy-wide Yes
Kazakhstan Base Year 2030 1990 Economy-wide No
Sources: UNFCCC, 2015b
The case of major fossil fuel producers shows that there is no clear categorization among these countries in terms of being a party to the Paris Agreement, types of INDCs and recognizing the transparency in their INDCs. Each country has its own national circumstances while monitoring for implementation of the Paris Agreement, but some countries such as major fossil fuel producers have huge impacts on mitigation of GHG emissions. Therefore, this case provides evidence that the implementation phase of the Paris Agreement will not seem to be standard and simple.
Conclusion
After long climate negotiations and lessons learned from the Kyoto Protocol, a new climate legal document, namely the Paris Agreement, was adopted in 2015 and entered into force in 2016. The implementation of the Agreement will start in 2020. The main construction elements of the Paris Agreement was submitted INDCs of the countries. However, there is no specific or common format or guide for countries to prepare or monitor their INDCs. The case of the major fossil fuel producers provides a significant evidence for this challenge. Besides, in the Agreement, there is no listed targets groups who have a leading role with their respected quantified emissions reductions. Responsibilities are allocated among developed and developing countries with changing level amount. There is a lack of understanding on who are developed and developing countries. Besides, the aggregated emissions reductions amount based on Facilitative Dialogue is far to the recommendation of the IPCC. Before these problems become chronic and the elements of differentiation occur between the countries, the APA needs to accelerate and improve its work until 2020.Therefore, developed and developing countries in the Paris Agreements need to be defined.
Additionally, the GST will be guided by a comprehensive and inclusive guide to reach the overall objective of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.
REFERENCES
Allan, J., Antonich, B., Soubry, B., & Ram Bhandary, R. (2019). Earth Negotiations Bulletin A
Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations SB50 FINAL (Vol. 12).
Retrieved from http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb50/
Bernstein, S., Betsill, M., Hoffmann, M., & Paterson, M. (2010). A Tale of Two Copenhagens: Carbon Markets and Climate Governance. Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
39(1), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829810372480
C2ES. (2018a). Essential Elements of the Paris Rulebook. Retrieved from
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/essential-elements-paris-rulebook.pdf C2ES. (2018b). Outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice.
Gabbatiss, J. (2019). Bonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2019 UN climate conference | Carbon Brief. Retrieved July 9, 2019, from https://www.carbonbrief.org/bonn-climate-talks-key-outcomes-from-june-2019-un-climate-conference
IEA. (2017). Key World Statistic 2017, 97. Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf
IISD. (2018). Earth Negotiations Bulletin: Summary of the Katowice Climate Change Conference (Vol. 12).
IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report
on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to.
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed.), IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacoby, H. D., Chen, Y. H., & Flannery, B. P. (2017). Transparency in the Paris Agreement (Vol. 308). Retrieved from http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Keith, H., Vardon, M., Stein, J. A., & Lindenmayer, D. (2019). Contribution of native forests to climate change mitigation – A common approach to carbon accounting that aligns results from environmental-economic accounting with rules for emissions reduction. Environmental
Science & Policy, 93, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.001
Khoday, K. (2007). Mobilizing market forces to combat global environmental change: Lessons from UN-private sector partnerships in China. Review of European Community and
International Environmental Law, 16(2), 173–184.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00559.x
Mehling, M. A., Metcalf, G. E., & Stavins, R. N. (2018). Linking climate policies to advance global mitigation. Science, 359(6379), 997–998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar5988 Oberthür, S., Hermwille, L., Khandekar, G., & Obergassel, W. (2017). Strengthening International
Climate Governance: The Case for a Sectoral Approach by. Retrieved from
https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/PDF/Publications/Hors catalogue
Iddri/IES_Policy_Brief_2017-4_StrenghteningInternationalClimateGovernance.pdf
Pan, X., Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Teng, F., & Wang, L. (2017). Exploring fair and ambitious
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.020
Rüdinger, A., Voss-Stemping, J., Sartor, O., Duwe, M., & Averchenkova, A. (2018). Towards
Paris-compatible climate governance frameworks. Retrieved from www.iddri.org
Segger, M.-C. C. (2016). Advancing the Paris Agreement on Climate Change for Sustainable Development. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 5(2016). https://doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.05.02.202
Tørstad, V., & Saelen, H. (2017). Climate Policy Fairness in the climate negotiations: what
explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions?
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1341372
UNFCCC. (2012). Decisions adopted by the COP-17. UNFCCC. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cmp7/eng/10a01.pdf
UNFCCC. (2015a). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
UNFCCC. (2015b). INDC Portal. Retrieved May 18, 2015, from http://unfccc.int/2860.php
UNFCCC. (2019a). Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) | UNFCCC. Retrieved May 17, 2019, from https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/subsidiary-bodies/apa UNFCCC. (2019b). Global Stocktake (referred to in Article 14 of the Paris Agreement) |
UNFCCC. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from
https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/global-stocktake-referred-to-in-article-14-of-the-paris-agreement
UNFCCC. (2019c). Katowice climate package | UNFCCC. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/paris-agreement-work-programme/katowice-climate-package
UNFCCC. (2019d). Preparation of NCs and BRs | UNFCCC. Retrieved May 17, 2019, from
https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/reporting-and-review-under-the-convention/support-for-developing-countries/modalities--procedures-and-guidelines
UNFCCC. (2019e). The Katowice climate package: Making The Paris Agreement Work For All | UNFCCC. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/katowice-climate-package
UNFCCC. (2019f). What is transparency and reporting? | UNFCCC. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/the-big-picture/what-is-transparency-and-reporting
Voigt, C. (2008). State responsibility for climate change damages. Nordic Journal of International
Law, 77(1–2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1163/090273508X290672
WB. (2019). New country classifications by income level: 2018-2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-classifications-income-level-2018-2019
Yeo, S. (2016). Paris agreement on climate change: What happens next? | Carbon Brief. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-agreement-on-climate-change-what-happens-next
Yeo, S. (2019). Timeline: the Paris agreement’s “ratchet mechanism” | Carbon Brief. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https://www.carbonbrief.org/timeline-the-paris-agreements-ratchet-mechanism
