Comparability of effort

We collected details of what other studies consider adequate pledges for these countries (den Elzen et al. 2009, Project Catalyst 2009, Submission South Africa 2009, H. Winkler et. al 2009, N. Höhne et al. 2009, Moltmann et al. 2010). These studies applied a wide range of effort-sharing principles.

Some are based on equity principles such as equal per-capita emissions or capability to pay, while others are based on the staged or delayed participation of developing countries, or on historical responsibility. Yet others are based on efficiencies across all countries converging. As a result, the range from these studies for a specific country is usually large.

We placed all of the countries in one of the following four categories:

Role model: These countries pledge reductions that are more stringent than any value for them in the studies analysed. They are leading the way by showing that it is possible to pledge very ambitious reductions.

Sufficient: These countries’ pledges are in the more stringent two thirds of the range given by the studies. They propose stringent reductions in line with most of the studies’ results. They also provide sufficient information to assess their pledge.

Medium: countries’ pledges are in the least stringent third of the range given by the studies. These countries' pledges might be considered Sufficient if other countries were to pledge more ambitious reductions. But, if all countries would be in this category, overall reductions would clearly not be sufficient.

Inadequate: These countries’ proposed emission targets are above the range given in the studies (and, in some cases, even above their reference scenario).

If a country is at the border between two categories, several elements are important in the rating:

• Unconditional / conditional: Some countries have made a pledge that is conditional to an international agreement on climate change or to the provision of international financing. Other countries have made pledges that are unconditional and some are unclear on this issue. We have always used the unconditional pledge as default, which is rated. We also show the conditional pledge in the figures. If a country provided only a pledge conditional to financing, it is rated one category lower than an unconditional pledge of the same stringency would be. If a country provided only a pledge conditional to an international agreement and if a country is at the border of two categories, it is rated in the lower category. In such cases more information and clarity on the conditionality of the pledge or an additional unconditional pledge could improve the rating.

• Details of the pledge: Some countries’ pledges are based only on an announcement by e.g. the president of the country, while some other pledges are accompanied with detailed reports. If a country is at the border of two categories and if the details of the pledge were not available or if the assessment required us to make many additional assumptions, we rated the country in the lower category. In such cases more information could improve the rating.

• Debits and credits from LULUCF accounting. 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.