Türkiye

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. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming of greater than 4°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

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. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming between 3°C and 4°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

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. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming over 2°C and up to 3°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

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. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with holding warming below, but not well below, 2°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.

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. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target 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. No “role model” rating has been developed for the sectors.

1.5°C Compatible< 1.5°C World

Historical emissions

Historical emissions in Turkey are obtained for 1990-2018 from the most recent National Inventory Report 2020, using 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWPs) of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

NDC and other targets

We calculate the INDC target by calculating the 21% emissions reduction from the Business as Usual (BAU) level in 2030. Since the CAT’s rating does not include LULUCF, we excluded LULUCF emissions projected in 2030 from the “with measures scenario” from the 7th national communication, strictly equivalent to the official INDC. The INDC target in 2030 becomes 999 MtCO₂e, excluding LULUCF emissions.

Current policy projections

Turkey’s Fourth Biennial Report (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, 2019) and its seventh National Communication (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, 2018a) provides two scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario and a mitigation scenario (so-called “With Measures” scenario). In the mitigation scenario, emissions for 2012–2030 were developed based on mitigation measures from various policy papers and strategic documents, thus including both, current as well as planned policies. The projections are identical to those provided in the Sixth and Seventh National Communications (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, 2016, 2018a), as well as to the Third Biennial Report (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, 2018b). The BAU scenario and the mitigation are based on GDP assumptions significantly higher than latest GDP estimates (IMF, 2018; PWC, 2017). We did a comparative analysis on GDP elasticities observed in historical trends vs. the ones assumed in the “with” and “without” measures scenario revealing significant differences and leading to the conclusion that the “without measures” scenario is unrealistic. That is why we based the upper range of the Current Policies on the “with measures” scenario GDP elasticity, although higher than historical trends, but probable, with an adjusted GDP with more recent estimates. The lower end of Current Policies is then based on the GDP elasticity observed on historical trends from 1990 and 2018, which we consider to be more realistic.

The upper end of the current policy range is based on the GDP elasticity of energy and industry GHG emissions assumed in the “with measures” scenario provided in the Fourth Biennial Report, which we adjusted for to reflect more recent GDP growth estimates from the IMF and PWC until 2030 (IMF, 2018; PWC, 2017). We then added the impact of the construction of the 4.8 GW nuclear power plant from Akkuyu (four 1200 MW reactors) with the assumptions that the first reactor will be operational in 2023, followed by the four units fully operational in 2025 (World Nuclear News, 2019a). After 2025, we assume the share of nuclear and renewables in the electricity mix remains constant. Projected emissions were harmonized to the latest historical GHG emissions data (2018).

The lower bound of the current policy projections are based on historical trends of GDP elasticity of energy and industry GHG emissions between 1990 and 2017, using the latest historical GHG emissions data series (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2019), and by applying more recent GDP growth estimates from IMF and PWC until 2030 (IMF, 2018; PWC, 2017). The impact of the GDP estimate is about 159 MtCO₂e compared to “with measures scenario”.

COVID-19 impact

We applied a novel method to estimate the COVID-19 related dip in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 and the deployment through to 2030. The uncertainty surrounding the severity and length of the pandemic creates a new level of uncertainty for current and future greenhouse gas emissions. We first update the current policy projections using most recent projections, prepared before the pandemic. We then distil the emission intensity (GHG emissions/GDP) from this pre-pandemic scenario and apply to it the most recent GDP projections that take into account the effect of the pandemic.

We used GDP projections from the IMF and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The IMF projects a reduction of 5% in 2020 and an increase of 5% in 2021, while the EBRD estimates that GDP will decrease by 3.5% in 2020 and increase by 6% in 2021 (EBRD, 2020; International Monetary Fund, 2020).

GDP estimates for the years 2022 to 2030 were derived from the growth rates in the original pre-pandemic current policy scenario.

Global Warming Potential values

Previous assessments of the Climate Action Tracker used the global warming potentials (GWPs) from the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). Since the assessment at COP24 in the year 2018 all figures and time series are based on 100-year GWPs from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).