Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.2.2.7 Literature on Fairness and Ambition of NDCs ====

<div id="h3-7-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Most countries provided information on how they consider their NDCs to be fair and ambitious in the NDCs submitted to UNFCCC and many of these NDCs refer to specific national circumstances such as social, economic and geographical factors when outlining why they are fair and ambitious. Further, several Parties provided information on specific criteria for evaluating fairness and ambition, including criteria relating to: responsibility and capability; share of emissions; development and/or technological capacity; mitigation potential; cost of mitigation actions; the degree of progression or stretching beyond the current level of effort; and the link to objectives and global goals ( [[#UNFCCC--2016a|UNFCCC 2016a]] ).

According to its Article 2.2, the Paris Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances, the latter clause being new, added to the UNFCCC principle ( [[#Voigt--2016|Voigt and Ferreira 2016]] ; [[#Rajamani--2017|Rajamani 2017]] ). Possible different interpretations of equity principles lead to different assessment frameworks ( [[#Lahn--2017|Lahn and Sundqvist 2017]] ; [[#Lahn--2018|Lahn 2018]] ).

Various assessment frameworks have been proposed to analyse fair share ranges for NDCs. The literature on equity frameworks including quantification of national emissions allocation is assessed in section 4.5 (Sections 13.4.2, 14.3.2 and 14.5.3). Recent literature has assessed equity, analysing how fairness is expressed in NDCs in a bottom-up manner ( [[#Mbeva--2016|Mbeva and Pauw 2016]] ; [[#Cunliffe--2019|Cunliffe et al. 2019]] ; [[#Winkler--2018|Winkler et al. 2018]] ). Some studies compare NDC ambition level with different effort sharing regimes and which principles are applied to various countries and regions ( [[#Peters--2015|Peters et al. 2015]] ; [[#Pan--2017|Pan et al. 2017]] ; [[#Robiou%20Du%20Pont--2017|Robiou Du Pont et al. 2017]] ; [[#Holz--2018|Holz et al. 2018]] ; [[#Robiou%20du%20Pont--2018|Robiou du Pont and Meinshausen 2018]] ; [[#van%20den%20Berg--2019|van den Berg et al. 2019]] ). Others propose multi-dimensional evaluation schemes for NDCs that combine a range of indicators, including the NDC targets, cost-effectiveness compared to global models, recent trends and policy implementation into consideration (Aldy et al. 2017; [[#Höhne--2018|Höhne et al. 2018]] ). Yet other literature evaluates NDC ambition against factors such as technological progress of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies ( [[#Jiang--2017|Jiang et al. 2017]] ; [[#Kuramochi--2017|Kuramochi et al. 2017]] ; [[#Wakiyama--2017|Wakiyama and Kuramochi 2017]] ), synergies with adaptation plans ( [[#Fridahl--2017|Fridahl and Johansson 2017]] ), the obligations to deploy carbon dioxide removal technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the future implied by their near-term emission reductions where they are not reflected on in the first NDCs ( [[#Peters--2017|Peters and Geden 2017]] ; [[#Fyson--2020|Fyson et al. 2020]] ; [[#Pozo--2020|Pozo et al. 2020]] ; [[#Mace--2021|Mace et al. 2021]] ). Others identify possible risks of unfairness when applying GWP* as emissions metric at national scale ( [[#Rogelj--2019|Rogelj and Schleussner 2019]] ). A recent study on national fair shares draws on principles of international environmental law, excludes approaches based on cost and grandfathering, thus narrowing the range of national fair shares previously assessed, and apply this to the quantification of national fair share emissions targets ( [[#Rajamani--2021|Rajamani et al. 2021]] ).

<div id="4.2.2.8" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="uncertainty-in-estimates"></span>