A FRAMEWORK FOR DESCRIBING FAIRNESS … Framework for Describing Fairness and Ambition in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions

WORKING PAPER | August 2015 | 1

WORKING PAPER

A FRAMEWORK FOR DESCRIBING FAIRNESS AND AMBITION IN INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONSELIZA NORTHROP AND DAVID WASKOW

CONTENTSExecutive Summary.......................................................1Introduction...................................................................2Key Considerations Regarding Fairness and Ambition ..4Proposed Framework and Methodology ........................5Conclusion ....................................................................9Annexes ......................................................................10Endnotes .....................................................................16References ...................................................................17

Working Papers contain preliminary research, analysis, findings, and recommendations. They are circulated to stimulate timely discussion and critical feedback and to influence ongoing debate on emerging issues. Most working papers are eventually published in another form and their content may be revised.

Suggested Citation: Northrop, E., D. Waskow. 2015. “A Framework for Describing Fairness and Ambition in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at http://www.wri.org/publication/framework-fairness-indc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis paper provides a framework and guidance that Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) can use in addressing how their climate contributions will be “fair and ambitious” as agreed in the 2014 Lima Call for Climate Action. It proposes that Parties approach this task as a descrip-tive narrative that draws on quantitative and qualitative indicators to address a range of key factors.

Each Party’s climate contribution—called its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC)—will form the core elements of the new international climate agree-ment to be finalized at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in December 2015. In Lima, at COP20, the Parties agreed to include with their INDCs information on “how the Party considers that its intended nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2.” (UNFCCC 2014, paragraph 14).

2 |

A robust description of fairness and ambition in a coun-try’s INDC can help provide the international community and national stakeholders with information about the fairness and ambition of these plans, including:

▪ Key metrics and other factors to enhance the compa-rability of contributions among countries;

▪ How the country’s INDC contributes to the global level of ambition for emission reductions and adapta-tion, including how it will help achieve the goals of the Convention;

▪ The link between a country’s contribution and its sus-tainable development objectives;

▪ The synergies between the mitigation and adaptation components of the INDC; and

▪ Why a country might request or offer means of imple-mentation (funding) as part of its contribution.

A country’s description of fairness and ambition should address its level and type of actions against factors, such as its: emissions responsibility and profile;1 capabilities, including its development needs;2 vulnerability and capac-ity to adapt;3 and potential and opportunities to act.

The description should also highlight how climate action enhances broader sustainable development goals and how it catalyzes long-term transformation toward climate resilience and low-carbon outcomes across sectors.

The proposed framework has five main components:

▪ Initial framing statement

▪ Description of current pre-2020 undertakings

▪ How the contribution(s) are fair and ambitious, in light of national circumstances

▪ How the contributions will contribute toward achieving the objective of the Convention

▪ Additional considerations

This guidance provides a number of questions for each component that will enable countries to think through relevant considerations for fairness and ambition, and

communicate them in a robust and transparent manner. No single metric or formula4 is proposed, but rather a set of elements is suggested, including quantitative metrics and qualitative factors that can inform considerations of fairness and ambition.

If clearly communicated through INDCs, the criteria coun-tries use to describe fairness and ambition may inform efforts to develop benchmarks or guidelines on these issues under the new international climate agreement.

Examples of text for each component and extracts from INDCs of countries at different levels of development are given along with resources that can be used for compara-tive metrics.

INTRODUCTIONThe climate contributions communicated by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Convention) will form the core for the new international climate agreement to be finalized in Paris in December 2015. Countries communicate these contri-butions through their “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs), which are to be submitted before the Paris conference.

Both the level of global ambition and whether country contributions are perceived as equitable are central concerns for the new international climate agreement. To avoid catastrophic climate change, contributions must also be clearly aligned with achieving the objective of the Convention.

At the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Warsaw in 2013, countries agreed to “initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions” to be submitted well in advance of COP21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDC (UNFCCC 2013).

In Lima, at COP20 in 2014, the Parties agreed to the Lima Call for Climate Action, which expanded on the War-saw decision by specifying that the Parties may provide information with their INDCs “in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding” (UNFCCC 2014). This information includes “how the Party considers that its


A Framework for Describing Fairness and Ambition in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions

intended nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2.”5

This paper offers guidance to Parties on key indicators and metrics that can be used to develop and communicate how their contribution is fair and ambitious and how it helps achieve the objective of the Convention. Inclusion of key metrics and other factors by all Parties would make country contributions more comparable and transparent.

Because of the variety of national circumstances, INDCs vary in terms of scope, form, and coverage. Describing the fairness and ambition of each country’s contribution should enhance international understanding of countries’ actions and whether they are making adequate contribu-tions toward global goals. It can also generate construc-tive discussions both within and among countries, build trust among the Parties, and help motivate increased and equitable collective action in advance of COP21.

Other benefits include:

▪ Enabling each Party to compare its contribution with that of its peers (i.e. countries with similar national circumstances).

▪ Enabling each Party to address whether it is doing its fair share of the collective level of effort required to avoid catastrophic climate change and ensure adapta-tion to the impacts of climate change.

▪ Explaining the link between climate action and sus-tainable development objectives.

▪ Explaining how the contribution achieves synergies between mitigation and adaptation, for Parties that are including an adaptation component.

▪ The opportunity to explain why means of implementa-tion (funding) is needed or has been provided to other countries as part of the contribution.

▪ Recognition for existing domestic efforts and demon-stration of leadership.

▪ Enhanced credibility for the contribution, gained through a demonstrated willingness to be transparent about national circumstances.

Describing fairness and ambition should not be merely a justification for a contribution. Rather, it is an important means of increasing transparency and clarity that can help encourage countries to put forward fair and ambitious contributions that respond to the need for urgent, collec-tive action on climate change.

This paper elaborates the guidance provided in Designing and Preparing Intended Nationally Determined Con-tributions (INDCs) (Levin et al. 2015). It also draws on World Resources Institute’s (WRI’s) experience working with a number of countries to develop and communicate their INDCs.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING FAIRNESS AND AMBITIONThe concepts of fairness and ambition and how they relate to climate action have evolved over time. The current discourse and how they can be incorporated into INDCs are presented here.

FairnessThe term “fair” is used, as in the Lima Call for Climate Action, to broadly reflect issues of equity. Consider-ations of equity have frequently focused on comparisons among countries to assess the appropriate level of climate action they should undertake. Some of the many criteria suggested for comparing countries and assess-ing the equitability of their actions to reduce emissions are shown in Box 1.

In many instances, country actions have been assessed in terms of the emission reductions required to keep temper-ature increases below 2°C acknowledging the importance of historical responsibility and the inequality of cumula-tive contributions of GHG emissions.6 More recently, considerations of equity have increasingly included other dimensions, particularly factors related to vulnerability to impacts and adaptation (Winkler and Rajamani 2014).

Equity can also take into account a country’s economic, social, environmental, and technological capabilities, and can assess the way in which economic and social benefits are maximized alongside climate action (Klinsky et al. 2015).7

4 |

Considerations of fairness can also consider the equity implications of climate actions within domestic contexts, including equity among communities and subnational areas.8 An important component of climate equity is ensuring that climate policies are designed to enhance, rather than diminish, the capabilities of those most vul-nerable, least well off, and least able to represent them-selves (Klinsky et al. 2015). In light of growing concerns in many countries about broader economic equity issues, the domestic implications of mitigation and adaptation actions are highly relevant. Highlighting these consider-ations in an INDC recognizes the fact that equity concerns are prevalent within as well as among nations.

AmbitionAn ambitious INDC can be seen as one that reduces emis-sions substantially below the business-as-usual emission trajectory (where business as usual takes into account currently implemented and adopted mitigation policies) and realizes the country’s mitigation potential to the great-est extent possible (Levin et al. 2015). The approaches, detailed in Box 2, show different ways a country can evaluate, and subsequently communicate, the ambition of its contribution.

Fairness and ambition are concepts traditionally linked to determining the level and type of mitigation action appro-priate for a country based on its national circumstances. However, many countries (e. g., Mexico, Morocco, and

International discussions about fairness and equity have tradition-ally focused on interpretations of the principle of “common but dif-ferentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC) in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Convention).a Based on this core principle, many criteria and factors have been suggested for comparing countries and assessing the equitability of climate action.b

The responsibility to take action has been seen as a function of a country’s emissions: how much it has historically emitted, is it cur-rently emitting, and will it emit (Klinsky et al. 2015).

The importance of a country’s capacity to take action, draws on the “respective capabilities” language of CBDR-RC (Winkler and Raja-mani 2014). A country’s capacity or capability has been defined as its ability to pay for mitigation action, with some suggesting gross domestic product (GDP) per capita as a metric for capacity to pay, and others suggesting development measures, such as the Human Development Index.

Any evaluation of fairness must consider the collective need for significant emission reductions to prevent the worst impacts of climate change affecting those most vulnerable and thus creating further inequality. Each country’s action must not only fit into the global goal to reduce emissions, but also ensure that all countries are able to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Climate equity is not focused solely on divisions of effort and burden, but also on sharing opportunities.

Developing a fair contribution is not a zero sum endeavor; climate action can provide significant health, development, and economic benefits to countries that may outweigh the cost of taking action.c

Thus, key factors in evaluating the fairness of a country’s INDC include its:

▪ Historical, current, and projected emissions, and the level and type of action given its emission responsibility and profile,d

▪ capabilities, and development needs.e

▪ Vulnerability and capacity to adapt.f

▪ Potential and opportunities for action.

Notes:a. See Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC which states, “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. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof,” as well as Article 4 commitments on finance and support.

b See Höhne, den Elzen, and Escalante (2013) for a review of effort-sharing approaches.

c. See, for example, the New Climate Economy reports.d. Including historical, current or projected emissions per capita or total

emissions as a percentage of global emissions.e. Including economic, development, social and environmental considerations.f. To both the physical and social impacts of climate change.

Box 1 | Understanding Fairness and Equity



Ethiopia) are developing INDCs that include an adapta-tion component in addition to a mitigation component. INDCs provide an opportunity to adopt a holistic and inte-grated approach to fairness and ambition that addresses both mitigation and adaptation. This approach could consider the equity dimensions of adaptation related to a country’s vulnerability and capacity to adapt, as well as the ambition reflected in a country’s attention to adaptation.

Developing and Communicating a Fair and Ambitious ContributionFairness and ambition should drive the scope and content of any INDC and be integrated throughout the national technical and political processes. Thus, the indicators and metrics proposed for this framework (see Box 3) can be used throughout the process of developing a national contribution.

Countries that include both mitigation and adaptation in their INDCs can use their description of fairness and ambition to highlight synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions (for examples drawn from Ethiopia and Mexico’s INDCs see Box B1 in Annex B). Countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change and have low emissions may offer mainly adaptation actions in their INDCs. By prioritizing climate actions with significant synergies between adaptation and mitigation they can

maximize the impact of these actions. For example, retain-ing or establishing forest resources through integrated landscape management can provide both mitigation and adaptation benefits (Levin et al. 2015).

Drawing on the proposed indicators and metrics provides countries with an opportunity to compare their intended contributions with those of their peers. They can also determine whether their proposed level of action is fair and ambitious in light of the level of collective action required by all countries to reduce emissions to a level that avoids catastrophic climate change and ensures all countries adapt to any unavoidable impacts.

A country’s narrative in this framework is based on the type and form of its INDC contributions. Countries whose economic development or technical capability may constrain its climate actions might suggest how additional resources could increase the possibility of action.

PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGYThe proposed framework and its methodology are described in this section. The five components are:

1. Initial framing statement

2. Description of pre-2020 undertakings

3. How the contribution(s) are fair and ambitious, in light of national circumstances

4. How the contribution helps achieve the objective of the Convention

5. Additional considerations

Component 3 of the framework has additional questions provided in Table 1 to help Parties address this component.

The framework can be used to build an INDC narrative that is transparent, comparable, and assessable. It is designed to reflect the complexities of the issues of fair-ness and ambition. It aims to help countries present fair-ness and ambition on the basis of their circumstances and enable them to use qualitative and quantitative metrics in a holistic narrative.

Ambition can be evaluated by several approaches:

▪ Comparison to the country’s mitigation potential – identify the extent to which the proposed contribution realizes the opportunities available.

▪ Comparison to business-as-usual.

▪ Comparison to decarbonization indicators or benchmarks (particularly useful for energy targets or sectorial mitiga-tion actions).

▪ Comparison to a good practice for a particular policy or measure.

Source: Hohne, Ellerman, and Fekete 2014.

Box 2 | Understanding Ambition

6 |

Each of the five components helps develop the narrative. Each country determines the content of each component as it develops its INDC.

This methodology presents a step-wise approach to devel-oping and communicating a fair and ambitious INDC. It begins by assessing a fair and ambitious contribution and then identifies existing climate commitments or pledges made under the Convention. A country can then place its contribution in a national context, addressing a set of key questions regarding its circumstances. Finally, the narrative explains how the contribution aligns with the goal of the Convention (e.g., If a country’s past and future emissions are relatively low and a small percentage of its population has access to electricity, contributions could focus on policies to increase access to renewable energy). The last section allows for a country to raise additional considerations relevant to fairness and ambition.

Indicators and MetricsRather than relying on a single metric or formula for fairness or ambition, this paper brings together a number of ele-ments, including quantitative metrics and qualitative factors that can inform an evaluation of fairness and ambition.

Including a robust and transparent section on fairness and ambition and on achieving the objective of the Con-vention should not require substantial additional research. Developing the mitigation and adaptation contributions in the INDC form the basis of the narrative, supplemented where necessary by available data.

The narrative should be based on transparent quantitative and qualitative data with the data sources clearly indi-cated. Sources for this data could include national reports (e.g. national communications, biennial reports) and plan-ning documents (e.g. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs)) as well as data from public interna-tional sources (e.g., the World Bank). Annex A gives data sources appropriate for developing the narrative.

Box 3 identifies some of the key indicators relevant when assessing whether a contribution is fair, ambitious, and contributes toward achieving the objective of the Convention.

Five Components of the FrameworkThe following sections guide the possible content for each of the framework’s five components.

1. Initial framing statementThe narrative begins with a statement on the country’s view on fairness and ambition and its contribution toward the objective of the Convention.

This statement sets the country’s INDC within the objec-tive of the Convention, for example citing the 2014 UNEP Emissions Gap Report, which suggests that global emissions need to decline from 50 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2010 to 42 GtCO2e in 2030 to have a chance of limiting warming to 2°C and recogniz-ing that adaptation is a collective responsibility under Article 4 of the Convention.

Examples of framing statements used by Mexico, Switzer-land, and Gabon to explain the philosophy behind their contributions are shown in Box B2 in Annex B.

2. Description of current pre-2020 undertakingsThis section describes previous commitments or pledges the country has made under the Convention, Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen Accord, and Cancun Agreements to demonstrate that the intended contribution progresses beyond existing action in accordance with the Lima Call for Climate Action.9

Countries making their first voluntary international cli-mate commitment or contribution could state this here.


This is the central section of the framework in which coun-tries explain how the contributions included in their INDC are fair and ambitious, in light of their national context.

One approach is to ask the questions in Table 1 throughout the development of the INDC. These questions highlight key indicators for fairness and ambition, such as those high-lighted in Box 3. They help Parties develop a contribution that is appropriate for their national circumstances, and also aimed at achieving the collective goal of limiting warm-ing to 2° C and ensuring all countries are able to adapt.



The list of indicative questions in Table 1 can be used as a guide to think through relevant aspects of fairness and ambition. Countries don’t need to address all the ques-tions or undertake additional research that is impractical or impossible.

Examples of how Morocco and Ethiopia’s INDCs address some of these questions are shown in Boxes B3 and B4 in Annex B.


Although many of the questions and content covered in component 3 of the narrative are also relevant to how a contribution contributes toward the achievement of the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2,10 this last element of paragraph 14 of the Lima Call for Climate

Action can also be dealt with more directly by compari-son of the contribution to multiple indicators related to achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2. Depending on the nature of the contribution, the inclusion of any of the following would assist in transpar-ently describing how it contributes:

▪ What will the national emissions be in the target year or period if the contribution is achieved?

▪ What is the projected GHG impact of the contribution?

▪ How do projected emissions (with INDC implementa-tion) compare with or relate to needed global emission reductions?

▪ What is the intended peaking year and peaking emis-sion level (if known)?

Fair: Assessing whether a contribution is fair can be based on multiple indicators, such as emissions responsibility (for example, historical, current, or projected future emissions per capita or total emissions); economic capacity and development indicators (for example, GDP per capita, indicators related to health, energy access, etc.); vulnerability and capacity to adapt to physical and social impacts of climate change; relative costs of action and miti-gation potential; benefits of action (co-benefits); or other factors.

Ambitious: An ambitious INDC can be seen as one that reduces emissions substantially below the business-as-usual emissions trajectory (where business-as usual takes into account currently implemented and adopted mitigation policies) and realizes the country’s mitigation potential to the greatest extent possible. Com-parison of emissions reductions with mitigation potential indicates the extent to which the target captures mitigation opportunities that are considered technically and economically feasible (Höhne et al. 2014).a Ambition in this sense depends on a country’s economic development level, resource endowment, and other factors. An ambitious INDC should also drive long-term transformation in sectors. Ambition can also be assessed in other ways, such as an increase in a country’s annual rate of decarbonization; comparison to benchmarks for various decarbonization indicators (such as CO2 per kilometer travelled by vehicles, CO2 per megawatt hour of elec-tricity production, or GHG per ton of cement or steel produced); or comparison to a good practice policy package (Höhne et al. 2014).

Contributes to achieving the objective of the Convention: Parties can better align their target with the level of global reductions needed to meet the 2°C goal and achieve the objective of the Con-vention by considering the need to limit cumulative emissions over time, phase out global GHG emissions to zero or below by 2100, and ensure a feasible rate of decarbonization during the period between emissions peaking and the long-term phase out of emissions.b,c To have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2°C, emissions in all regions peak by 2020.d While not all countries will have to peak by this year, keeping the timing of global emissions peak in mind when designing the INDC can help ensure that global emissions peak in time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also notes that all major emitting regions must make “substantial reduc-tions” below their projected baseline emissions over the century to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2°C.

Notes:a Ambition in this sense depends on a country’s economic development level,

resource endowment, and other factors.b See Table 6.4 in IPCC 2014a.c This is for a likely chance of limiting warming to 2°C under a least-cost

scenario. Following these broad principles does not guarantee that necessary global emission reductions will be achieved. A global assessment should be conducted regularly to ensure that national emissions trajectories are consistent with the necessary global emission reductions.

d See Table 6.4 in IPCC 2014a.Source: Box 3.3 in Levin et al. 2015

Box 3 | Key Indicators Relevant to Fairness, Ambition, and Achieving the Objective of the Convention

8 |

Table 1 | Questions Relevant to Developing and Communicating a Fair and Ambitious Contribution

CONSIDERATION QUESTIONS TO ASK IN DEVELOPING COMPONENT 3 OF THE FRAMEWORKa

Emissions and mitigation actions

▪ What is the country’s level of past and current emissions as a percentage of total global emissions?

▪ What are the per capita emissions and how do they compare to the global average?

▪ What are projected emissions based on current trajectories?

▪ What are the country’s past, current, and/or future emission intensities (relative to GDP) and how do they compare with global averages?

▪ What is the country’s current emission profile?

▪ What current mitigation efforts have been undertaken?

▪ How will the contribution deviate from business-as-usual emissions?

▪ How do the emission reductions from INDC implementation compare with the total mitigation potential based on mitigation opportunities determined to be technically and economically feasible?

▪ What is the rate of emission reductions and how does it compare to established benchmarks?

▪ Why have certain mitigation targets or policies (e.g., renewable energy, land-use management) been chosen based on national circumstances?

Capabilities including the development contextb

▪ What are the country’s current capabilities, including economic capacity and development considerations?

▪ GDP (gross domestic product)

▪ GDP per capita

▪ Gini Index

▪ Indicators related to health, energy prices, education, housing, etc.

▪ Human Development Index

▪ Percentage of population below the poverty line

▪ Expected population growth

▪ Percentage of population with access to electricity

▪ Natural resource constraints and use

▪ Employment statistics

▪ Indicators related to governance, human capital and resources, and so on.

▪ What is the country’s capacity to adapt to climate change impacts?

▪ What sectors, communities, and/or ecosystems are most vulnerablec?

▪ How do future projections of climate change impacts relate to the country’s capacity to adapt?

▪ How do current capabilities affect the ability of the country to take climate actions (both mitigation and adaptation) or how do they inform the prioritization of climate actions?

▪ Do current capabilities present areas in which mitigation and/or adaptation action can provide benefits (e.g., energy access, land use)?

▪ Do current capabilities provide an opportunity for increased investment and support (e.g., finance, technology, or capacity building) to other countries to ensure increased collective ambition?

Cobenefits of action and opportunities

▪ What nonclimate opportunities are associated with mitigation and adaptation action (e.g., air pollution reduction, energy access, natural resource/land restoration, employment and livelihoods, gender equality, and others depending on national context)?

▪ How does the INDC contribute to long-term development strategies and achievement of sustainable development goals?



▪ What is the annual rate of emission reduction and/or expected emission trajectory over time?

▪ Are there long-term goals or plans to limit emissions and/or any long-term adaptation goals or plans?

5. Additional considerationsThis section allows countries to comment broadly on the domestic equitability of the INDC (e.g., Were equitable policies included? How were vulnerable individuals and communities protected? Was the process participatory and inclusive?).

CONCLUSIONThe submission of INDCs ahead of COP21 in Paris at the end of 2015 is critical for laying the foundation of a fair and ambitious international climate agreement that will ensure the world is on a transformative, low-carbon, and climate-resilient pathway.

Current projections anticipate warming of 3°C to 5°C. While it is likely the initial round of national contribu-tions will not close the gap between this and the 2°C goal, detailed descriptions of fairness and ambition consider-ations in these initial contributions will enable policy-makers to identify gaps and needs and perhaps provide a roadmap for future cycles of ambition.

The opportunity for all countries to explain how their con-tributions are fair and ambitious and how they contribute to the objective of the Convention is pivotal to ensuring accountability and transparency with regard to national circumstances that will enable this collective goal to be reached in an equitable manner.

It is also an opportunity for countries to align climate action with their development pathways, seizing the opportunities and benefits that well-designed climate actions can provide.

Table 1 | Questions Relevant to Developing and Communicating a Fair and Ambitious Contribution (continued)

CONSIDERATION QUESTIONS TO ASK IN DEVELOPING COMPONENT 3 OF THE FRAMEWORKa

Potential and opportunities for actiond

▪ What is the mitigation and adaptation potential for the country and for particular sectors?

▪ What costs are associated with additional mitigation and adaptation action?

▪ What investment and support is needed for different levels or types of additional mitigation and adaptation action?

▪ What additional investment and support would be fair and enable increased ambition in other countries?

a. These questions align with the indicators suggested in Levin et al. 2015.

b. Baer, Athanasiou, Kartha, and Kemp-Benedict (2008) propose the need to incorporate development levels by considering intranational income distribution. Winkler and Rajamani (2014) and Muller and Mahadeva (2014) agree that GDP is essential but suggest considering other factors, such as market exchange rates, technology and institutional capability. Temperature goals, emission scenarios, change in frequency of climate related events, and cost function of events are suggested for measuring vulnerabilities by Ngwadla (2013), who states that these costs could be used as proxies for understanding adaptation costs and in turn supporting a calculation of adaptive capacity. For a calculation of adaptive capacity for several countries based on a scale of 1-5 see DARA (2012).

c. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines vulnerability as “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt,” (IPCC 2014, p. 5).

d. Posner and Weisbach (2010) suggest that climate action be based on actions that provide the greatest domestic economic benefits, thus countries with high capabilities but limited domestic short-term emission reduction potential, might find it more economical to increase their international support to assist others in reaching their mitigation potential, rather than trying to reduce the last—and most expensive—few percentage points of their own emissions.

10 |

ANNEX A: HOW TO BUILD A NARRATIVE ON FAIRNESS AND AMBITIONThis annex gives examples of how countries at three stages of develop-ment might write their intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) narratives on fairness and ambition. The countries have different levels of greenhouse gas emissions, capabilities, and mitigation potential. Country X has high emissions and high capacity; Country Y has increasing emissions and growing capacity; and Country Z has low emissions and low capacity.

The relevant component of the framework’s five components is indicated by a number (e.g., [1], [2], [3]) in each description. These are:

1. Initial framing statement

2. Description of current pre-2020 undertakings



5. Additional considerations

These examples are illustrative and in no way suggest what a fair or ambitious contribution should be for specific countries. They do not show complete INDCs.

For guidance on how to prepare and communicate a complete INDC, including both mitigation and adaptation components, refer to “Designing and Preparing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)” (Levin et al. 2015)

Country X: High Emissions and High CapacityCountry X’s narrative shows the contribution of an economy-wide base year emissions reduction target (see Levin et al. 2015; Hohne, Ellerman et al. 2014, and Hohne, Fekete, Ellermann, and Freitas 2014). It clarifies the country’s per capita emissions and its emissions reductions in relation to the total reduction needed globally.

[1] Country X acknowledges the 2014 UNEP Emissions Gap Report, which suggests that global emissions need to decline from 50 GtCO2e in 2010 to 42 GtCO2e in 2030 to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2°C and recognizes that adaptation is a collective responsibility under Article 4 of the Convention. It further recognizes that a fair and ambitious INDC realizes a country’s mitigation potential to the greatest extent possible, considering its past, current, and future emissions and its capabilities. Country X’s GDP per capita is [$XX].

[2] Country X is an Annex 1 Party to the Convention, has existing mitigation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and under the Cancun Agreements pledged to reduce emissions by [X percent] below [X] levels. Recognizing the importance of taking increasingly ambitious climate action, the contributions made in this INDC represent a progression beyond previous commitments and undertakings.

[3] Country X’s GHG emissions represent about [XX percent] of total global emissions and its emissions per capita are [XX], compared with the global average of [XX]. Country X plans to reduce its per capita emissions to [XX] by [XX target year]. Projected business-as-usual emissions are X, and thus this INDC constitutes a reduction of [X percent] from baseline scenario emissions. Country X has also adopted a multiyear target, further limiting cumulative emissions.

[4] The mitigation potential of the country is [X] based on mitigation opportu-nities determined to be technically and economically feasible (see additional

information for background on how this mitigation potential was calculated). In addition to the measures and actions that country X will undertake to en-sure it meets its target, country X will increase international support by [$XX], to ensure that its contribution is fair recognizing its emissions responsibility and high capability compared with many other countries, particularly the least developed countries.

In addition, acknowledging its relatively high capacity to adapt compared with other countries, Country X has framed the adaptation component of its INDC in terms of support for adaptation efforts in countries that are more vulnerable and less able to adapt within their own domestic capabilities.

[5] Country X’s economy-wide reduction target will reduce its emissions by [XX tons] in [XX target year], constituting [XX percent] of the total needed global reductions and an emissions level of [X tons] in the country. Emissions peaked in [XX year]. The country has a long-term goal of reducing emissions [X percent] by 2050. Thus, the INDC implies a [X percent] annual emission reduction rate. Country X’s current emissions intensity is [XX tCO2e/million $ GDP]. Its rate of annual emissions reductions is [XX percent], given its [XX target year] target.

[6] When considered as a whole, Country X’s contribution is fair and ambi-tious because it is designed to reduce emissions substantially, thereby ensuring that there is less of a global need to adapt to climate change as well as supporting those countries most vulnerable to climate impacts that may be unavoidable.

Country Y: Increasing Emissions and Growing CapabilitiesCountry Y’s narrative is an example of a country with increasing projected emissions and growing capabilities that has decided to pursue a target for re-newable energy. The narrative highlights the reasons why pursuing this target is both fair and ambitious based on the significant mitigation potential that exists, the contribution that such a target will make toward alleviating poverty, reducing deaths attributed to air pollution, increasing energy access, increas-ing economic opportunities, and improving gender equality. This contribution is a type that can maximize coverage of emissions and give certainty about future emission levels.

[1] Country Y recognizes that a fair and ambitious contribution should reflect emissions responsibility and capacity to act (including development, economic, technological, human resources, and environmental capacities), and potential to act. It should also reflect the principles of the Convention, be nationally determined, and address domestic challenges and opportunities.

[2] Reflecting its status as a non-Annex 1 developing country under the Convention, Country Y’s international climate commitments to date consist of south-south cooperation and support. Country Y also pledged [$XX] under the Copenhagen Accord.

[3] Country Y’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent about [XX percent] of total global emissions and its emissions per capita are [XX], com-pared with the global average of [XX]. Country Y’s projected emissions on a business-as-usual (BAU) pathway is expected to grow to [XX MtCO2e] or [XX tons per capita] by [XX target year]. The energy sector is the largest emitting sector in Country Y and constitutes the majority of the country’s emissions, totaling [X percent] in [XX year]. Accordingly, Country Y has chosen to priori-tize reducing emissions in this sector.

Country Y’s current share of renewable energy generation in the electricity mix is [XX percent]. Given Country Y’s rapidly growing economy and population, current BAU projections show the renewable energy share increasing to [XX percent] by [XX year] due to market factors in the absence of further efforts to



promote renewable energy. The annual increase in renewable energy genera-tion needed to achieve the target would be unprecedented compared with past rates which have averaged [XX percent] per year. Therefore, achieving the target will require a considerable reorganization of governance and legislative frameworks, but would mean that Country Y would place itself on a long-term pathway toward net-zero emissions in the energy sector by [XX year].

Committing to a renewable energy target will also substantially increase energy access for the [XX percent] of Country Y’s population that still lacks access to energy. By reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Country Y is expected to decrease its mortality rate due to illnesses caused by air pollution [XX percent] by [XX target year].

Country Y has developed its INDC seeking to integrate and leverage existing actions in national plans that capitalize on synergies between adaptation and its cobenefits. For example, the priority sectors for consideration include coastal zone management and water scarcity, each of which can have mitiga-tion benefits such as [XX] and [XX].

Recognizing Country Y’s high vulnerability along its coastal areas, its goal to develop effective early-warning systems and risk management actions at the three levels of government is a commitment designed to be ambitious and to protect [XX percent] of Country Y’s population from coastal hazards and extreme weather events.

[4] Country Y is contributing toward the achievement of the objective of the Convention, through reducing its emissions by [XX percent] by [XX year] and placing itself on a long-term pathway toward net-zero emissions.

[5] By choosing to pursue a renewable energy target with significant coben-efits for its vulnerable populations, Country Y is further pursuing an equitable approach to climate action.

Country Z: Low Emissions and Low CapabilityCountry Z has low historical emissions and low emissions per capita as well as competing development needs and priorities. It highlights sectors and policies that can achieve synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions as having the greatest economic and livelihood benefits. Its contribution rests strongly on a commitment to pursue a sustainable development pathway by undertaking actions necessary to put Country Z on this trajectory. Given the competing development challenges that a least developed country like this faces, an INDC framed in these terms can be considered both fair and ambi-tious.

[1] Country Z recognizes that a fair and ambitious contribution should reflect the potential to act to the greatest extent possible given its emissions profile, capabilities, and capacity to adapt, while maximizing the opportuni-ties presented by climate action in line with Country Z’s broader sustainable development goals.

[2] Country Z is a least developed country, with one of the lowest GDP per capita in the world, at [$XX], and a [XX] Human Development Index value. Despite these challenges, Country Z is committed to placing itself on a sus-tainable development pathway.

[3] Country Z’s greenhouse gas emissions represent about [XX percent] of total global emissions and its emissions per capita are [XX tons]. Its current emissions intensity is [XX tCO2e/million $ GDP]. Country Z’s projected emis-sions on a business-as-usual pathway are expected to grow to [XX MtCO2e] or [XX tons per capita] by [XX target year]. Country Z’s contribution of [XX] represents a reduction of [XX] against business as usual.

If fully implemented, the INDC would reduce per capita emissions to [X tons] by [X target year]. For a least developed country, with only [XX MtCO2e] of cumulative global emissions, this reduction exceeds expectations for both fairness and ambition.

Country Z has already undertaken [XX]. Given that [XX percent] of Country Z’s population lack access to electricity, prioritizing [XX] can increase energy access in a way that is considered technically and economically feasible. Country Z’s greatest emission reduction potential is in the [agriculture and forestry/industrial/transport] sector(s).

An important component of Country Z’s contribution includes actions to build resilience and enhance adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Given the [XX percent] of the population that depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, and the [XX percent] with other aspects of vulnerability to climate impacts, increasing the resilience of agriculture is a priority for Country Z. This includes addressing the high level of vulnerability of [XX sectors, regions or communities].

Country Z also seeks to maximize the synergies between adaptation and mitigation, especially involving [XX]. By committing to reach a [XX percent] deforestation rate by [XX target year], Country Z is ensuring that biodiversity and ecosystem services serve as key mechanisms for coping with the adverse effects of climate change as well as contributing [XX MtCO2e] per year in emissions reductions by [XX target year]. Many of these measures can provide substantial economic and livelihood benefits. By targeting many of its actions in these sectors, Country Z is seizing the opportunities that ambitious climate action brings, helping to reduce both its future emissions and its vulnerability to climate impacts.

Despite Country Z’s commitment to undertake [XX] actions from its domestic budget, there are enormous untapped opportunities for increased action on climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. For more than [XX] of the abatement potential, abatement costs are less than [$XX per tCO2e]. If Country Z receives additional financial support in the amount of [$X], combined with adequate technology and capacity building, it can reduce its emissions up to [X tCO2e] increasing its contribution even further. Country Z would also be able to undertake additional adaptation measures, such as [X], to strengthen its resilience in [X sectors/regions/activities].

[4] By prioritizing initiatives in the sectors identified, Country Z is maximizing its mitigation potential and contribution toward the objective of the Conven-tion while simultaneously supporting its sustainable development goals. Country Z’s emissions levels in [XX year] will be [XX MtCO2e ] if the actions in this INDC are fully implemented, implying a decarbonization rate of [X percent] for the period [XX year] to [XX year], reducing Country Z’s carbon intensity by [X] and demonstrating its contribution toward achieving the objective of the Convention.

[5] In developing this INDC, Country Z undertook a comprehensive planning and consultation process across all sectors. It further undertook consultations with [XX] to increase the transparency of the process and ensure participation by all regions and communities.

12 |

ANNEX B: EXCERPTS ON FAIRNESS AND AMBITION FROM SUBMITTED INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONSThe boxes in this appendix give extracts from country intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that illustrate some of the points made in the text regarding incorporating fairness and ambition.

Mexico was the first developing country to submit its INDC and the first country to highlight the importance of prioritizing climate actions that establish synergies between adaptation and mitigation as a means of unlocking additional ambition. Mexico states “Further ambition is reflected in the efforts of the Government of Mexico to establish synergies between adaptation and mitigation, using national resources. These actions not only help tackle global warming and reduce social and ecosystem vulnerability, but also promote inclusive green growth in the country.”

Ethiopia also states that it “seeks to maximize the synergies between adaptation and mitigation, especially involving agriculture and forests,” going on to provide that “[B]y targeting actions in these sectors, Ethiopia is seizing the opportunities that ambitious climate action brings, helping to reduce both its future emissions and its vulnerability to climate impacts.”

Source: Ethiopia and Mexico’s INDC submissions, available at http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx.

Box B1 | Ethiopia and Mexico’s Synergistic Approach

A number of countries have used framing statements to explain their understanding of fairness and ambition and describe the core elements or metrics used in their INDC.

Mexico states that it “is a responsible party committed to tackling global climate change by transforming its development route to a low-emissions pathway.”

Switzerland states that “fairness considerations include vari-ous aspects and that no single indicator on its own can accurately reflect fairness or a globally equitable distribution of countries…

the evolving nature of a country’s circumstances is to be reflected in fairness considerations.” In developing its contribution, Switzerland said it considered its emissions responsibility, its capacity to act, as well as the cost-efficiency of its mitigation potential as the three core considerations to balance for fairness.

Gabon said it “does not want to limit its climate policy to the mere preservation of forests, with international financing mechanisms.” Gabon then explained that it “[C]annot commit to an absolute reduc-tion value of its greenhouse gas emissions, but on a mastery of these as part of its development.”

Box B2 | Examples of Initial Framing Statements

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission

submissions.aspx



Morocco, in informing the focus of its national climate action and prioritization of international contributions, highlights economic activities and regions that are particularly vulnerable:

▪ Economic activities include agriculture, fisheries, aquacul-ture, forestry, and tourism as being particularly vulnerable.

▪ Regions include oases, the coast, and mountains.

Source: Based on Morocco’s INDC submission, available at http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Morocco/1/Morocco%20INDC%20submitted%20to%20UNFCCC%20-%205%20june%202015.pdf

Box B3 | Morocco’s Vulnerability

Ethiopia’s statement on the fairness and ambition of its INDC indicated its willingness to increase ambition if provided with additional support:

“Ethiopia recognizes the negative impact of climate change on health, economic growth and natural resource conservation and that is why it has committed to undertake such ambitious action using its domestic resources. However, there are enormous untapped opportunities for increased action on climate change, including both mitigation and adaptation, in Ethiopia. For more than 80% of the abatement potential, abatement costs as less than USD 15 per ton CO2eq. With additional support to mobilize finance, infrastructure, technology and capacity to undertaken and oversee implementation, Ethiopia can realize its full potential to act and increase its contributions even further.”

Source: Ethiopia’s INDC submission, available at http://www4.unfccc.int/submis-sions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Ethiopia/1/INDC-Ethiopia-100615.pdf

Box B4 | Ethiopia’s Potential for Action

In its INDC, Mexico identified human rights and gender as two key crosscutting issues for implementation of the measures identified in the INDC. It states that “These policies and actions include a cross-cutting human rights and gender per-spective in order for the measures to be implemented to take into account women as important decision makers regarding energy consumption.”

Mexico also emphasized the importance of implementing climate measures in a way that will not exacerbate the impacts of climate change that already have disproportionate adverse effects based solely on gender.

Source: Mexico’s INDC submission, available at http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Mexico/1/MEXICO%20INDC%2003.30.2015.pdf

Box B5 | Mexico’s Human Rights and Gender Perspective

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published


202015.pdf



INDC-Ethiopia-100615.pdf



2003.30.2015.pdf

14 |

ANNEX C: KEY INFORMATION SOURCES FOR INDICATORS AND METRICS IN DEVELOPING A FAIRNESS AND AMBITION DESCRIPTIONThis annex suggests types of information that can serve as indicators and metrics in an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) as well as its purpose and sample sources (Table C1).

Table C1 | Examples of Information Types and Sources for a Fairness and Ambition Statement

TYPE OF INFORMATION PURPOSE OF INFORMATION EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION SOURCES

National objectives and priorities Ground the contribution in the broader national context and ensure the contribution is “nationally determined.”

▪ National development plans

▪ National climate change policies

National capabilities Identify opportunities and constraints presented by current economic, development, social, and environmental capabilities.

▪ World Bank’s World Development Indicatorsa including GDP per capita; percentage of population with access to electricity, and percentage of population above the poverty line

▪ Human Development Index (HDI)b including health, education, and income

▪ CAIT Equity Explorer

Current greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profile of the country

Identify which sectors and gases contribute most to national emissions.

▪ Intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) mitigation contribution

▪ National GHG inventories

▪ CAIT and CAIT Equity Explorerc

Current mitigation and adaptation activities

Identify current efforts that can form part of the INDC and can be built on to develop an INDC that goes beyond existing mitigation and adaptation efforts.

▪ National adaptation programme of action (NAPA)

▪ National adaptation plans (NAPs)

▪ Clean development mechanism (CDM) projects

▪ Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMA)

▪ Technology needs assessments (TNAs)

▪ Relevant national strategies and plans, including development strategies

▪ National communications

▪ Biennial reports and update reports

▪ REDD+ readiness processd

Projected future emissions under a business-as-usual scenario (or other scenarios)

Understand expected future growth in emissions by sector, taking into account current mitigation activities.


▪ Biennial reports and update reports

▪ National energy or environmental reports

Projected future climate conditions Understand expected climate conditions to identify future vulnerabilities to climate change.


▪ Reports of the economic assessment of impacts of climate change

▪ Technical background documents produced as part of national planning processes



TYPE OF INFORMATION PURPOSE OF INFORMATION EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION SOURCES

Assessment of mitigation and adaptation potential

Identify additional mitigation and adaptation technologies, opportunities, policies, and actions that are technically and economically feasible as a basis for determining the scale of GHG and vulnerability reductions that could feasibly be achieved.

▪ National mitigation assessment studies

▪ International Energy Agency reportse

▪ National adaptation studies

Means of Implementation Understand the likely investment required to achieve the mitigation potential and adaptation needs, taking into account resource requirements (including budgetary, technological, and human resources), and strategies to mobilize public and private national and international investments to support implementation of the actions.

▪ Domestic budgetary expenditures for business-as-usual projects and programs in key sectors

▪ Current and planned investments by the private sector in key sectors

▪ Data on bilateral and multilateral financial support provided to the country

▪ Types of capacity needs, including human, technical, institutional, and financial

Relationship to global 2°C goal Understand the scale of GHG and vulnerability reductions needed to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts.

▪ United Nations Environment Programme Emissions Gap Reportf

▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Reportg

▪ IPCC Fourth Assessment Reporth

a. World Bank, World Development Indicators http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

b. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

c. World Resources Institute, CAIT Climate Data Explorer http://cait.wri.org/equity/

d. UN-REDD+ offers incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invests in low-carbon paths to sustainable development through conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, http://www.un-redd.org/

e. International Energy Agency reports, http://www.iea.org/publications/

f. United Nations Environment Programme, The Emissions Gap Report 2010, http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/

g. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is part of a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

h. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/

Source: Adapted from Levin et al. 2015.

Table C1 | Examples of Information Types and Sources for a Fairness and Ambition Statement (continued)

http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

http://cait.wri.org/equity/

http://www.un-redd.org/

http://www.iea.org/publications/

http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/

16 |

ENDNOTES1. Including historical, current or projected future emissions per capita or

total emissions.2. Including economic, development, social, and environmental considerations.3. To both the physical and social impacts of climate change.4. Formula-based assessment approaches to understanding fairness or

equity, get us only so far in resolving many politically sensitive questions about equity given its highly subjective nature and multiple dimensions. However, the use of quantitative data remains central to providing the necessary information to help inform the development and communica-tion of INDCs and shape future cycles of ambition and equity for the 2015 agreement.

5. Article 2 of the UNFCCC provides, “The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provi-sions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

6. See for example, figure 1.8 in Victor et al. 2014.7. Focusing on strengthening the capabilities of communities and coun-

tries, offers guidelines for achieving equity while meeting the demands of sufficient mitigation and adaptation.

8. See, for example, the case studies in Klinsky et al. 2015.9. The Conference of the Parties, in the Lima Call for Climate Action,

paragraph 10, “Agrees that each Party’s intended nationally determined contribution towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 will represent a progression beyond the current undertak-ing of that Party.”

10. Article 2 of the UNFCCC provides, “The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provi-sions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”



REFERENCESBaer, Paul, Tom Athanasiou, Sivan Kartha, Eric Kemp-Benedict. 2008. The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework: The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World, 2nd ed. Berlin: Heinrich-Boll-Stiftung.

BASIC Experts. 2011. “Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Contribution to the Body of Scientific Knowledge.” BASIC expert group, Beijing, Brazil, Cape Town, and Mumbai.

CAN International (Climate Action Network). 2013. “Submission to ADP Chairs on Workstream 1: Post-2020.” Climate Action Network International, Beirut. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/smsn/ngo/307.pdf.

DARA (Development Assistance Research Associates). 2012.Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet (2nd ed.). DARA, www.cait.org/equity.

Höhne, N., M. den Elzen, and D. Escalante. 2013. “Regional GHG Reduction Targets Based on Effort Sharing: A Comparison of Studies.” Climate Policy 14(1): 122–47. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.849452.

Hohne, Niklas, Christian Ellerman, and Hanna Fekete. 2014. “Process Guidance for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).” International Partnership on Mitigation and MRV, Poland.

Hohne, Niklas, Hanna Fekete, Christian Ellermann, and Sandra Freitas. 2014.“Differentiated Mitigation Commitments in a New Climate Agreement.” LDC Paper Series, The European Capacity Building Initiative Publications and Policy Analysis Unit.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White . Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-32.

Klinsky, Sonja, David Waskow, Wendi Bevins, Eliza Northrop, Robert Kutter, Laura Weatherer, and Paul Joffe. 2015. “Building Climate Equity: Creating a New Approach from the Ground Up.” WRI Report, World Resources Institute, Washington DC.

Levin, Kelly, David Rich, Heather McGray, Ian Noble, Kathleen Mogelgaard, David Waskow, and Dennis Tirpak. 2015. “Designing and Preparing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).” World Resources Institute, Washington DC and United Nations Development Programme, New York.

Muller, Benito and Lavan Mahadeva. 2014. Operationalizing the UNFCCC Principle of ‘Respective Capabilities.’ European Capacity Building Initiative. The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Oxford. Available at http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/EV-58.pdf

Ngwadla, Xolisa. 2013. “An Operational Framework for Equity in the 2015 Agreement.” Climate Policy 14 (2014): 8-16.

Posner, Eric and David Weisbach. 2010, Climate Change Justice. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

UNFCCC. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1992. “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

UNFCCC. 2013. COP19 Decision 1/CP19.

UNFCCC. 2014. COP20 Decision 1/CP20.

Victor D.G., D. Zhou, E.H.M. Ahmed, P.K. Dadhich, J.G.J. Olivier, H-H. Rogner, K. Sheikho, and M. Yamaguchi. 2014. “Introductory Chapter.” In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.

Winkler, Harald and Lavanya Rajamani. 2014. “CBDR&RC in a Regime Applicable to All.” Climate Policy 14(1): 102–21. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.791184.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/smsn/ngo/307.pdf

2012.Climate

www.cait.org/equity

L.L.White

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/EV-58.pdf

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/EV-58.pdf

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

ABOUT THE WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTEWorld Resources Institute is a global research organization that turns big ideas into action at the nexus of environment, economic opportunity and human well-being.

Our ChallengeNatural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. But today, we are depleting Earth’s resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies and people’s lives. People depend on clean water, fertile land, healthy forests, and a stable climate. Livable cities and clean energy are essential for a sustainable planet. We must address these urgent, global challenges this decade.

Our VisionWe envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise management of natural resources. We aspire to create a world where the actions of government, business, and communities combine to eliminate poverty and sustain the natural environment for all people.

Our ApproachCOUNT ITWe start with data. We conduct independent research and draw on the latest technology to develop new insights and recommendations. Our rigorous analysis identifies risks, unveils opportunities, and informs smart strategies. We focus our efforts on influential and emerging economies where the future of sustainability will be determined.

CHANGE ITWe use our research to influence government policies, business strategies, and civil society action. We test projects with communities, companies, and government agencies to build a strong evidence base. Then, we work with partners to deliver change on the ground that alleviates poverty and strengthens society. We hold ourselves accountable to ensure our outcomes will be bold and enduring.

SCALE ITWe don’t think small. Once tested, we work with partners to adopt and expand our efforts regionally and globally. We engage with decision-makers to carry out our ideas and elevate our impact. We measure success through government and business actions that improve people’s lives and sustain a healthy environment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe would like to thank the many people who contributed to the ideas and discussions that have shaped this working paper. We greatly appreciate the guidance and early review provided by Pankaj Bhatia, Taryn Fransen, Kelly Levin, David Rich, Paul Joffe and Heather McGray. Further thanks go to Hyacinth Billings, Emily Matthews, Mary Paden, Carni Klirs and Alston Taggart of StudioRed Design for their invaluable editorial and design support.

We are also grateful to the following external experts for sharing their expertise and feedback, though responsibility for the final product rests fully with the authors and WRI: Frauke Roser, Sonja Klinsky, Alba Milena Ruiz Arias, Siddharth Pathak, Tom Athanasiou and Kathleen Mogelgaard.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSEliza Northrop is a Research Analyst in the International Climate Action Initiative in WRI’s Climate Program.

Contact: [email protected]

David Waskow is the Director of the International Climate Initiative in WRI’s Climate Program.

Contact: [email protected]

Copyright 2015 World Resources Institute. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

10 G Street, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | www.WRI.org