National Fair Shares

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

* Report: NATIONAL FAIR SHARES. THE MITIGATION GAP - DOMESTIC ACTION AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT. A Climate Equity Reference Project report. By Tom Athanasiou, Sivan Kartha, and Paul Baer. EcoEquity and Stockholm Environment Institute, November 12, 2014

URL = http://climateequityreference.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/National-fair-shares11.pdf

Description

"The National Fair Shares report is a systematic attempt to present the implications of the equity reference framework represented by the Climate Equity Reference Calculator for twelve representative countries and a selected set of illustrative “cases.” As explained in its abstract:

“We provide illustrative results for various alternative levels of ambition, for various equity settings, and for various estimates of national emissions reductions. We also show that the differences between the cases are much less significant than the similarities, and that a great deal of the detail can therefore be set aside in favor of an “equity band” that is bound by “High Equity Settings” on one side and “Low Equity Settings” on the other. We have defined this equity band to span a wide range of perspectives on fairness, but of course more work remains to be done on this front. In particular, as we explain below, it is easier to argue that the “Low Equity Settings” are “too low” than it is that the “High Equity Settings” are “too high.”

In the course of this analysis, a notable pattern emerges.

  • Countries with relatively high capacity and responsibility are generally found to have fair shares that greatly exceed their own domestic mitigation potential; therefore, if they are to fulfill their entire fair share, they are required to contribute financial and technological support to other countries. For these countries – “Support Contributors” – national fair shares are presented as a combination of domestic and internationally-supported mitigation.
  • Conversely, countries with relatively low capacity and responsibility are able to act entirely within their own borders. It is assumed that they use international support to undertake mitigation in excess of their own fair shares of the global mitigation effort, and by so doing exploit their full national mitigation potentials. For these countries – “Support Recipients” – the national fair share is reported along with the additional mitigation that could be undertaken, assuming sufficient international support.”


This paper aims to demonstrate that the fair-shares discussion can be more than a sterile and frustrating battle of opinions. It charts out a charitably broad range of fair-share perspectives, and derives a plausible range of fair shares for countries. While these “equity bands” are in some ways quite broad, they are narrow enough to yield clear conclusions about countries’ pledged efforts. In particular, they are narrow enough to tell us if a given nation’s contribution is even remotely consistent with the demands of science and equity, and whether it marks that nation as a leader or a laggard." (https://climateequityreference.org/national-fair-shares-the-mitigation-gap-domestic-actions-international-support/)


Summary

"This report is motivated by a striking truth – an equitable international agreement is necessary if we are to preserve a stable climate system. This is because equity is the key to cooperation, and cooperation is indispensable in solving any commons problem. And the climate crisis is notably the most pressing commons problem of all time. As is stressed in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers, “Outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective cooperation.” Or, as it is often and more straightforwardly said, “Equity is the pathway to ambition.”

In this report, we systematically apply a generalized and transparent equity reference framework, with the goal of quantitatively examining the problem of national fair shares in a global effort to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This framework is based upon an effort-sharing approach, uses flexibly-defined national “responsibility and capacity indicators,” and is explicitly designed to reflect the UNFCCC’s core equity principles. It can be applied using a range of possible assumptions, and whatever values are chosen, they are applied to all countries, in a dynamic fashion that reflects the changing global economy.

In this report, we present results for twelve representative countries and a selected set of illustrative “cases.” Each case begins with the selection of a reference mitigation pathway; this choice corresponds to a certain level of ambition and level of risk of exceeding 2°C. The mitigation pathway also implies an annual global mitigation effort, which drives society to diverge rapidly from business-as-usual emissions growth. Each country’s share of global responsibility and capacity determines its fair share of the global mitigation effort. The quantitative analysis in this report is based upon the Climate Equity Reference Calculator, an online tool and database that allows the user to select “equity settings” relating to key equity-related parameters, including responsibility, capacity, and development need. These settings are then used, together with standard demographic and macroeconomic indicators (e.g., national population, GDP and carbon-intensity) to calculate implied national fair shares of the global mitigation effort. Importantly, this fair share is expressed as a sum of domestically- and internationally-supported mitigation.

We provide illustrative results for various alternative levels of ambition, for various equity settings, and for various estimates of national emissions reductions. We also show that the differences between the cases are much less significant than the similarities, and that a great deal of the detail can therefore be set aside in favor of an “equity band” that is bound by “High Equity Settings” on one side and “Low Equity Settings” on the other. We have defined this equity band to span a wide range of perspectives on fairness, but of course more work remains to be done on this front. In particular, as we explain below, it is easier to argue that the “Low Equity Settings” are “too low” than it is that the “High Equity Settings” are “too high.”

In the course of this analysis, a notable pattern emerges. In general, a nation’s fair share of the global mitigation effort can be quite different from its domestic mitigation potential.

• Countries with relatively high capacity and responsibility are generally found to have fair shares that greatly exceed their own domestic mitigation potential; therefore, if they are to fulfill their entire fair share, they are required to contribute financial and technological support to other countries. For these countries – “Support Contributors” – national fair shares are presented as a combination of domestic and internationally-supported mitigation.

• Conversely, countries with relatively low capacity and responsibility are able to act entirely within their own borders. It is assumed that they use international support to undertake mitigation in excess of their own fair shares of the global mitigation effort, and by so doing exploit their full national mitigation potentials. For these countries – “Support Recipients” – the national fair share is reported along with the additional mitigation that could be undertaken, assuming sufficient international support.

Note that nations are not taken to be “Support Contributors” or “Support Recipients” in any static or absolute sense. The category within which a given nation falls is determined by the user’s selected equity settings.

In all of this, this report aims to provide input to the review of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) that are now being tabled under the UNFCCC. It derives a defensible range for each country’s fair share of a given global climate effort. This “equity band” provides a way to assess a given country’s position relative to the requirements of equity and science – that is, whether that country is a leader or a laggard. One can also assess any country’s INDC by asking “what overall global ambition level can it plausibly claim to be pledging its fair share of”. One can derive this “ambition band” by assuming that all other countries make “comparable efforts” by doing their fair share according to the same equity assumptions. This approach is demonstrated by way of the EU’s 40% target for 2030. We show that the EU’s “ambition band,” unless it is supplemented by considerable amount of international mitigation support, is inconsistent with any plausible 2°C level of ambition." (http://climateequityreference.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/National-fair-shares11.pdf)

Discussion

THE EFFORT-SHARING APPROACH USED IN THIS REPORT

"This report approaches fair shares in a manner that draws directly from the core equity principles of the UNFCCC. These principles have been nicely summarized16 as follows:

1. A precautionary approach to adequacy, referring to the collective obligations of countries to undertake and support urgent and adequate global action to prevent dangerous impacts of climate change and provide effective adaptation to unavoidable impacts, without which there can be no justice. (Article 3.3: “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent and minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.”)

2. Common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability (CBDR+RC), in which obligations to take action and provide support, and rights to receive such support, are accepted as functions of both historical and current emissions, and of capability to act. (Article 3.1: “The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”)

3. The right to sustainable development, which we understand as the right of all countries to not just lift their people out of poverty, but also to provide their citizens with sustainable and universalizable living standards. By sustainable we mean “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." By universalizable, we mean living standards that could be made available to the citizens of all countries. (Article 3.4: “The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development.”) "

(http://climateequityreference.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/National-fair-shares11.pdf)


More information

database that allows the user to select a global mitigation pathway of a specified level of ambition, thereby determining the amount of required global mitigation effort – a mitigation gap – to be fairly shared among countries according to the UNFCCC principles of equity."