Philippines

Critically Insufficient4°C+ World

NDCs with this rating fall well outside of a country’s “fair share” range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would exceed 4°C.

Highly insufficient< 4°C World

NDCs with this rating fall outside of a country’s “fair share” range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3°C and 4°C.

Insufficient< 3°C World

NDCs with this rating are in the least stringent part of a country’s “fair share” range and not consistent with holding warming below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach over 2°C and up to 3°C.

2°C Compatible< 2°C World

NDCs with this rating are consistent with the 2009 Copenhagen 2°C goal and therefore fall within a country’s “fair share” range, but are not fully consistent with the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming could be held below, but not well below, 2°C and still be too high to be consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C limit.

1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible< 1.5°C World

This rating indicates that a government’s NDCs in the most stringent part of its “fair share” range: it is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.

Role model<< 1.5°C World

This rating indicates that a government’s NDC is more ambitious than what is considered a “fair” contribution: it is more than consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.

Historical data

The historical dataset is based on CO2 from fuel combustion from the IEA (IEA, 2015), other CO2 and non-CO2 emissions are taken from EDGAR (JRC/PBL, 2012). LULUCF emissions are taken from UNFCCC database as officially reported by the country for years 1994 and 2000 (UNFCCC, 2017).

Pledges

Because the NDC does not specify the BAU pathway, we applied the reduction target to current policy projections as estimated by CAT (see the next section). Further, given that the target covers all emissions from all sectors and that the NDC does not quantify future LULUCF emissions, we assumed emissions excluding LULUCF were also to be reduced by 70% below a BAU.

Current policy projections

The current policy projections for total energy-related CO2 emissions are based on the BAU scenario from the 6th edition of the APEC Energy Demand and Supply Outlook (APERC, 2016). The BAU scenario of APERC (2016) ‘reflects current policies and trends with in the country’s energy sector; thus, its projections largely extend the past into the future.’ We therefore assume that all of the current policies for the energy sector are included with a cut-off date of end 2015. This contains a growth in electricity demand of 6% per year between 2010 and 2030 and a growth in renewable electricity generation of 1.8% over the same period. The APERC scenarios use historical energy and CO2 data derived or estimated from Energy Balances of non-OECD Countries and CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion.

To estimate non-energy CO2 emission projections we used the composition of CO2 emissions by sector from the 2013 APERC report (APERC, 2013). Non-CO2 emissions are based on EDGAR (JRC/PBL, 2012) and projected growth rates from US EPA (2012) are applied to estimate the growth in non-CO2 emissions.

Planned policies

The impact of the ‘The National Renewable Energy Program’ and ‘The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Roadmap’ were quantified and subtracted from the APEC reference scenario. This shows the minimum level of expected emissions if these planned policies are implemented (‘Planned policy projections’ including EE and RE roadmaps).