Climate Change

Parties differ on features of nationally determined contributions under Paris deal

While some Parties are emphasisng the need to focus on existing features of NDCs, others are calling for new features

 
By DTE Staff
Last Updated: Thursday 17 May 2018
Two different factions have emerged on the issue of defining NDCs. Credit: Shreeshan Venkatesh
Two different factions have emerged on the issue of defining NDCs. Credit: Shreeshan Venkatesh Two different factions have emerged on the issue of defining NDCs. Credit: Shreeshan Venkatesh

Parties at the ongoing UNFCCC climate talks in Bonn, Germany, continue to differ on the ‘features’ of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. On May 5, an informal consultation took place on further guidance that needs to be developed related to NDCs.

Two different factions have emerged on the issue of defining NDCs. The Like-minded developing countries (LMDC), the African Group and the Arab Group are of the opinion that Article 3 of the Paris Agreement has defined NDCs, which include mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology-transfer and capacity-building. However, developed countries are of the view that NDCs are for mitigation only.

China, on behalf of the LMDC, said that identifying existing features of NDCs should be sufficient for developing guidance. It added that the features should include the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC).

While Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group, and Saudi Arabia for the Arab Group also supported LMDC and wanted the guidance to only focus on existing features, Marshall Islands for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) called for additional features in relation to the guidance to be developed for NDCS. It also emphasised that features should include quantifiability of efforts in terms of emissions reductions.

Brazil, speaking for itself as well as Argentina and Uruguay, also said that it could not agree to the exploration of new features and supported the LMDC’s. While South Korea was open to new features, Switzerland remained a fence-sitter, stating that it is open to both the approaches of having existing features as well as new features.

India’s stand

According to media reports, India supported the views expressed by the LMDC, Arab Group and African Group and said that specific emphasis on quantifiability of NDCs undermines national determination. It also said that differentiation between developed and developing countries is an integral feature, with developed countries taking the lead and developing countries needing the means of implementation.

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :
Related Stories

India Environment Portal Resources :

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.