Tracking (I)NDCs

Assessment of mitigation contributions to the Paris Agreement

Last updated: 8 November 2016

In preparation for the adoption of the Paris Agreement in December 2015 Governments “in a position to do so” submitted an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC).

When ratifying the Paris Agreement, governments are submitting their first “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC). If they choose not to submit and NDC, their INDC becomes their first NDC. Governments can revise their NDC, as long as the revision represents a progression beyond the previous NDC.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) provides an up-to-date assessment and rating of the INDCs and NDCs submitted by 32 countries (covering 80% of global emissions) with a focus on:

Periodically, the CAT will assess the global consequences of the (I)NDCs for global warming and the size of the emissions gap between (I)NDCs, policies and the emissions levels needed to limit warming below 2°C. The (I)NDCs can be adjusted and strengthened if they are—in aggregate—insufficient to meet the globally agreed long-term goal of limiting warming below 2°C.

(I)NDCs assessed by the Climate Action Tracker:

 Flag Argentina

Argentina: We rate Argentina “inadequate.” Current policies are on track to meet the unconditional INDC target to reduce GHG emissions including LULUCF by 15% below BAU in 2030. Argentina has also put forward a conditional target to reduce its emissions by 30% below BAU by 2030 including LULUCF. A revised version of Argentina’s NDC is expected under the President Macri’s new government, and it will need to be significantly more ambitious to fairly reflect Argentina’s capabilities.

 Flag Australia

Australia: We rate Australia “inadequate.” Under present policy, Australia’s emissions are set to increase to more than 21% above 2005 levels by 2030 (52% above 1990)—in stark contrast to its proposed Paris Agreement target of an emissions reduction of 26–28% (below 2005 levels by 2030) which, in itself, is falling far short of what could be considered a fair contribution by Australia. Of particular concern is the reversal of a declining trend in CO2 emissions from coal-fired power stations following the removal of the carbon pricing system in the middle of 2014. 

 Flag Bhutan

Bhutan: We rate Bhutan “sufficient”. Bhutan aims to maintain its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below its total carbon sink from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). We assessed and rated the INDC based on rising energy and industry emissions, which will not be compensated by the large natural carbon sink resulting from Bhutan’s forests.

 Flag Brazil

BrazilWe rate Brazil “medium”.  Brazil’s NDC emissions reduction targets to limit GHG emissions including LULUCF to 1.3 GtCO2e by 2025 and 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030, are at the least ambitious end of a fair contribution to global mitigation, and are not consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort. Brazil’s current policy is on track to meet its NDC targets but recent developments in energy infrastructure planning and increasing deforestation levels, are evidence of a worsening of Brazil’s national climate policy implementation, going in the opposite direction from what is needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal. 

 Flag Canada

Canada: We rate Canada “inadequate.” Under its current policies, Canada will miss its 2030 NDC target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% below 2005 levels in 2030 by a wide margin. In October 2016, the new Canadian Government announced a national mandatory carbon-pricing plan that, if enacted, would represent a major step towards policies that could change this adverse outlook.

 Flag Chile

Chile: We rate Chile “inadequate.” Chile’s INDC contains conditional and unconditional intensity-based emissions reduction targets. A fair and equitable emissions pathway would require Chile’s emissions to stabilise and decrease over time. However, under both INDC targets, Chile’s emissions will continue to increase by 38–75% by 2030, compared to 2010 levels.

 Flag China

China: We rate China “medium with inadequate intensity targets.” China is on track to peak its carbon dioxide emissions between 2025 and 2030, but total greenhouse gas emissions could continue to increase until at least 2030. Although China’s policies and actions appear set to achieve its NDC, the NDC itself is not yet ambitious enough to limit warming to below 2°C let alone the 1.5°C.

 Flag Costa Rica

Costa Rica: We rate Costa Rica “sufficient.” Costa Rica put forward an unconditional target to keep net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 9.4 MtCO2e emissions by 2030 including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). The INDC translates into emissions (excl. LULUCF) returning to 2010 levels by 2030.

 Flag Ethiopia

Ethiopia: We rate Ethiopia “sufficient.” Ethiopia’s INDC target of 64% below the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario by 2030 including LULUCF, translates into 40% below BAU excluding LULUCF. Full implementation of the INDC is conditional on finance, technology transfer and capacity building support under the framework of Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE) strategy, which is integrated into its national development plan GTP II (Second Growth and Transformation Plan).

 Flag EU

EU: We rate the EU “medium.” Current policies are projected to reduce emissions by 34–40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This puts the EU on a trajectory close to meeting its 2030 NDC target of a 40% reduction by 2030 from 1990 levels. However, this target is not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit and represents a slight slowdown in the rate of climate action compared to the preceding quarter-century—at exactly the time when there needs to be a threefold acceleration.

 Flag Gambia

Gambia: We rate The Gambia “Sufficient.” The Gambia is offering to reduce emissions excl. LULUCF by 0.079 MtCO2e in 2025 unilaterally, with an additional 1.34 MtCO2e, conditional on the availability of international financial and technical support.

 Flag India

India: We rate India “medium.” India has set itself a target to reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 33% to 35% by 2030 below 2005 levels, which is not ambitious enough to limit warming to below 2°C, let alone the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make comparably greater effort. With the currently targeted 175 GW of renewable power capacity to be reached by 2022, India is likely to easily meet its NDC. The likely continued expansion of renewables after 2022, for which no targets have yet been set, would result in India also overshooting its 2030 40% non-fossil capacity target.

 Flag Indonesia

Indonesia: We rate Indonesia “medium.” Indonesia’s INDC, including an unconditional 2030 GHG emissions reduction target (including LULUCF) of 29% below BAU and a conditional 41% reduction below BAU by 2030 (with sufficient international support), allows emissions to increase further until 2030. In contrast, to be consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goal, emissions should be stabilising, if not beginning to decline, by that time.

 Flag Japan

Japan: We rate Japan “inadequate.” This is in stark contrast to Japan’s claim that its INDC target of 26% below 2013 emission by 2030 is in line with a 2°C pathway. Our assessment also concludes that Japan is unlikely to reach its inadequate INDC target with the policies it currently has in place.

 Flag Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan: We rate Kazakhstan “medium.” While Kazakhstan recognises the need to transition into a greener future, currently implemented policies are not yet sufficient to meet its INDC target to reduce GHG emissions by 15% below 1990 levels by 2030.

 Flag Mexico

Mexico: We rate Mexico “medium.” Mexico has pledged to reduce its GHG emissions by 22% below baseline in 2030, equivalent to an increase of emissions by 56% above 1990 levels. The NDC also includes targets on black carbon and targets that are conditional on elements of international cooperation and support. Mexico’s targets are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. However, there are a number of recent policy developments that are first steps in the right direction to start bringing emissions in line with these targets.

 Flag Morocco

Morocco: We rate Morocco “sufficient.” While Morocco’s unconditional NDC begins to slow the growth of emissions, Morocco conditionally proposes to go much further, namely to stop its emissions growth and implement an ambitious target of 42% renewable electricity generation by 2020, and of 52% by 2030.

 Flag Nepal

Nepal: We do not rate Nepal. Nepal’s NDC contains a list of 14 targets, including plans to increase renewable energy production. We could not quantify the overall impact of Nepal’s targets on GHG emissions. However, the NDC contains ambitious targets, expected to result in emissions reductions compared to the current policy projections, which lie in the “sufficient” range.

 Flag New Zealand

New Zealand: We rate New Zealand “inadequate.” Current policies are expected to be far from the NDC target to reduce emissions by 30% compared to 2005 levels by 2030. In the absence of sufficient climate policies, the government intends to make use of its “creative accounting” rules for the forestry sector, which, if applicable, would result in it artificially achieving its 2020 reduction targets without any improvement in mitigation policies or real reductions in emissions.

 Flag Norway

Norway: We rate Norway “medium.” Norway targets a GHG emissions reduction of “at least 40%” below 1990 levels in 2030. In June 2016 the Norwegian Government approved the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2030 through “the EU emissions trading market, international cooperation on emissions reductions, emissions trading and project-based cooperation.”

 Flag Peru

Peru: We rate Peru “medium.” Peru’s unconditional NDC target is to reduce emissions by 20% of BAU levels by 2030. This target is equivalent to a 114–132% increase in GHG emissions from 1990 levels excl. LULUCF by 2030.

 Flag Philippines

Philippines: We rate the Philippines “medium.” There is high uncertainty in the Philippines’ envisioned emissions pathway. The business as usual (BAU) scenario, against which the 70% reduction target is measured, has not yet been published and the government has shared no details explaining how the NDC target relates to the LULUCF sector, nor how this will be quantified. There are also concerns around the Philippines’ coal plans.

 Flag Russia

Russia: We rate Russia “inadequate.” Russia’s INDC greenhouse gas emission reduction target lies significantly above emissions that would result from current policies. This target is one of the weakest put forward by any government. Since our last assessment in 2016, there has been little progress in climate action implementation in Russia - and the new national strategy may delay the ratification of the Paris Agreement until at least 2019.

 Flag Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia: We rate Saudi Arabia “inadequate.” Saudi Arabia’s envisioned emissions pathway towards 2030 is highly unclear, since it has not yet revealed the baseline corresponding to its INDC target to reduce emissions by 130 MtCO2e.

 Flag Singapore

Singapore: We rate Singapore “inadequate.” Singapore’s NDC emissions target to reduce emissions intensity by 36% below 2005 levels by 2030 is very weak compared to currently implemented policies.

 Flag South Africa

South Africa: We rate South Africa "inadequate." South Africa proposes to reduce its GHG emissions levels to between 398–614 MtCO2e over 2025–2030. After accounting for LULUCF, this target is equivalent to emissions of 20–82% above 1990 levels excl. LULUCF.

 Flag South Korea

South Korea: We rate South Korea “inadequate.” In 2016, South Korea’s revised Green Grown Act replaced its previous 2020 Copenhagen pledge with its 2030 NDC target to reduce 37% below business-as-usual (BAU). Given that its 2020 pledge was more ambitious—aiming for a similar emissions level ten years earlier—the INDC actually represents a weakening of South Korea’s climate plans.

 Flag Switzerland

Switzerland: We rate Switzerland “medium.” Switzerland is conducting a consultation phase until the end of November 2016 around its ratification of the Paris Agreement, the revision of the CO2 law, and its proposal to connect the emissions trading system with that of the European Union. The proposal reflects the INDC target and suggests that, in 2030, national emissions should be at least 30% below 1990 levels; a maximum of 20% of the abatement task could be reached through the use of flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.

 Flag Turkey

Turkey: We rate Turkey “inadequate.” Turkey put forward an economy-wide target to reduce emissions by 21% below business-as-usual in 2030. To achieve its target, Turkey plans to use carbon credits from international market mechanisms in a cost effective manner and in accordance with the relevant rules and standards.

 Flag UAE

UAE: We rate the United Arab Emirates “inadequate.” The UAE describes qualitatively a number of measures targeting all sectors of the economy, emphasising that it seeks to increase the share of clean energy to 24% of the total energy mix by 2021. Our current policy projection shows that the emissions would still be in the inadequate range in 2030.

 Flag Ukraine

Ukraine: We rate Ukraine “inadequate.” Ukraine’s NDC targets an emission reduction of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This NDC would see Ukraine's emissions growing significantly from present levels, whereas under all approaches consistent with limiting warming below 2°C, its emissions should be steadily decreasing. Ukraine is planning to revise its NDC after “restoration of its territorial integrity and state sovereignty.” Under current policy, Ukraine’s projected emissions in 2030 will be between 14% higher to 20% lower than the NDC target.

 Flag USA

USA: We rate the USA “medium.” The United States needs to fully implement the Clean Power Plan and the Climate Action Plan if it is to meet the upper end of its 2025 NDC emissions reduction commitment of 26–28% below 2005 levels including LULUCF. The recent upward revision of net forest sink projections negatively affects the stringency of the NDC on energy and industry-related emissions, reducing the climate action required to meet the target.