The reference pathways provide information on how emissions are likely to develop in the absence of climate policy. This information is often provided as a range, reflecting uncertainties related to future economic and technological developments.
The range for Annex I countries is based on composite baselines from the PRIMAP project at PIK. The future projections incorporate the SRES A1B scenario as an upper limit and combinations of POLES model projections and the MATCH assessment project for the lower limit. These reference pathways do not include projections in the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector.
For the developing countries we analyze, we determine the best data sources for projections on a case by case basis. Detailed data source information is in each case provided on the country pages.
Pathways representing the expected development under the pledges were constructed using the present emissions reduction commitments and available clarifications coming forward from Parties.
For non-Annex I parties, we applied their stated pledges to the best available data in each case.
The methodology for Annex I parties is based on the present Kyoto Protocol structure. The target pathway for emissions excluding LULUCF is calculated using unconditional commitments where applicable, and otherwise, Parties' least ambitious commitments.
For developed countries, these targets are calculated starting from reductions relative to 1990 (or another base year used for the pledge) for the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Starting from this level we derive the pathway for the subsequent period up to 2020.
For developing countries, the pathway consists of a direct reduction from current emissions to the stated goals in 2020.
Developed countries can receive credits and debits from accounting for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).
If a country is at the border of two categories and if the credits/debits from LULUCF are not specified in detail by the country but are significant according to our assessment, we rated the country in the lower category.
In such cases more information and clarity on the LULUCF accounting could improve the rating.