3.1. Categorization of Emission Reduction Targets
Due to differences in economic, social, political, and resource endowments, emission reduction targets, as stated in the NDCs of Belt and Road countries, also vary. Six categories of GHG mitigation targets were identified based on the NDC reports of the 64 Belt and Road countries: emission reductions relative to base year targets, emission reductions relative to baseline scenario targets, fixed level targets, emission intensity targets, trajectory targets, and policy action. Each of these is discussed in turn below.
(1)Emission reductions relative to base year targets
The results of the analysis indicated that 22 countries, including Russia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Serbia adopted emission reduction targets relative to base year emissions (
Table 1). On the whole, these 22 countries are relatively high or middle income.
Greece, Hungary, and other European Union countries have set emission reduction targets relative to 1990. Countries affiliated with the former Soviet Union, such as Belarus and Ukraine, which have also chosen emission reductions targets of 30% to 40% relative to 1990, which suggests a greater willingness to reduce emissions.
Most countries have set emission reduction levels at 30%, with those of the remaining countries ranging between 9.8% and 78%. Serbia, which only committed to a 9.8% reduction in its emissions compared with its 1990 levels, had the lowest emission reduction ratio. In contrast, Moldova had the highest emission reduction ratio, promising unconditionally to reduce its emissions by 64% to 67% in 2030 compared with its 1990 levels.
(2) Emission reductions relative to baseline scenario targets
As shown in
Table 2, 23 countries, including Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam, and Afghanistan have adopted emission reduction targets relative to a BAU scenario. The majority of these 22 countries are not high-income countries, and their GHG emissions are mainly composed of CO
2 and CH
4.
The emission reduction commitments of these countries showed significant variation. Most of them have made commitments to reduce their emission reductions by less than 20%, which is evidently lower than that of countries adopting emission reductions relative to the base year. However, the emission reduction targets of Brunei, the Philippines, and Cambodia, which ranged between 60% and 70% relative to their baseline scenario emissions, far exceeded those of other countries. These three countries are highly vulnerable to climate change and are therefore strongly motivated to reduce emissions. In addition, countries whose emission reduction targets are relative to their baseline scenario emissions are more likely to propose two emission reduction targets under conditional and unconditional scenarios, respectively. As shown in
Table 2, the NDC reports of 16 out of the 22 countries mentioned that if more aid and technical support were available, the proportions of their emission reductions would increase. This finding suggests that countries with relatively lower financial endowments tend to choose emission reduction targets relative to their baseline scenario, while emphasizing the importance of international aid and technical support.
(3) Fixed level targets, emission intensity targets, trajectory targets and policy action
A minority of Belt and Road countries have committed to emission reduction targets in the form of fixed level targets, emission intensity targets, trajectory targets, and policy actions.
As shown in
Table 3, the NDC reports of three Belt and Road countries, namely Armenia, Bhutan, and Oman, revealed fixed level targets. When the fixed level targets are transferred into emission targets relative to 1990 emissions, it can be discovered that Armenia would reduce 24.8% emissions based on 1990 level, while Oman’s emission will keep raising and the emission in 2030 will be 2.2 times of its 1990 level. Exceptionally, Bhutan is a net sink for emissions due to its huge areas of forest cover. Bhutan will remain carbon neutral in the future.
As shown in
Table 4, India, Israel, Malaysia, Turkmenistan, Singapore, and Uzbekistan adopted emission intensity targets. During the year 2015–2016, India planned to reduce its GDP carbon intensity by 33–35% relative to 2005 levels. Singapore has proposed to reduce its GDP carbon intensity from 0.176 kg CO
2/S
$ (the value in 2005) to 0.113 kg CO
2/S
$ by 2030.
Of the 64 Belt and Road countries, Singapore is the only one that has addressed the issue of when carbon emissions will peak in the future, affirming its commitment to attain this peak around 2030. Although Singapore’s emissions account for only 0.11% of global emissions, its commitments to emissions intensity and peak emissions stated in in its NDC report reflect a strong sense of responsibility in relation to its response to global climate change.
Ten countries, including Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Laos, Myanmar, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan have only provided policy actions, with no quantitative mitigation targets in their NDC reports. For instance, Qatar has proposed its mitigation and adaptation actions in various sectors including energy, transport, and waste. Oil-exporting countries along the Belt and Road typically prefer to adopt this type of emission reduction target. Although the total emissions of these countries are not high, their per capita carbon emissions rank highest among the Belt and Road countries. Carbon reduction is, therefore, more challenging for these countries.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of the different types of emission reduction targets in the Belt and Road countries, as well as countries’ income group in each type of emission reduction targets. These countries mainly focus on emission reduction relative to the base year and emission reductions relative to their baseline scenario targets, respectively accounting for 34.9% and 36.5% of all the Belt and Road countries. High income countries, especially those listed in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Protocol, tend to choose emission reduction targets relative to the base year, which is generally taken to be 1990. Half of the countries with emission reductions relative to base year targets are high income countries, and more than fifty percent of high income countries along the Belt and Road adopted emission reduction relative to base year targets. Countries that are not as financially well-endowed, to say upper middle income countries and lower middle income countries along the Belt and Road, tend to choose emission reduction targets relative to their baseline scenario emissions, while emphasizing additional incentive targets relating to international support for emissions reductions. It can be verified by the constitute of countries with emission reduction relative to baseline scenarios targets, in which countries classified as high income countries and low income countries are only 1 and 2, respectively. Countries that emit large amounts of GHGs tend to choose carbon emission intensity targets to reduce emissions, whereas oil-producing countries with high income and high per capita emissions tend to take policy actions or to set emission intensity targets.
3.2. An Analysis of Conditions of Emission Reduction
The NCD goal is considered to reflect the autonomous behavior of a contracting party. However, because of differences in levels of economic development and in capabilities for responding to climate change among the Belt and Road countries, some countries have clearly stated their requirements for implementing emission reduction targets in their NDC reports. In this section, we analyze countries’ conditions relating to their emissions reduction to determine how NDC will be implemented in the Belt and Road countries.
(1) A comparison of conditional and unconditional emission reduction targets
An analysis of the 64 Belt and Road NDC reports revealed that 15 countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Bhutan, Oman, and India will only implement their own emission reduction activities if they receive international financial and technological support. In particular, India states “the successful implementation of NDC is contingent upon an ambitious global agreement including additional means of implementation to be provided by developed country parties, technology transfer, and capacity building” (
http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/India/1/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf). Although India is a major emitter of GHGs and a large developing country, emission reduction conditions are still emphasized.
As shown in
Figure 6, 18 Belt and Road countries have simultaneously proposed conditional and unconditional emission reduction targets. The provision of international support will result in a significant increase in emission reductions in all of these countries, which may even exceed 100%. For instance, Yemen’s unconditional reduction of its emissions is only 1%, whereas its conditional reduction of emissions is 14%. Therefore, international assistance will greatly strengthen the motivation and capabilities of developing countries for reducing their emissions.
(2) Technical demands for emission reduction
As shown in
Table 5, a further consideration in this study was the technological requirements for emission reduction proposed by Belt and Road countries in their NDC reports. The results of our analysis indicate that the technological requirements that featured most frequently in the reports were “GHG inventory accounting” and “data management, modeling and tools” followed by “technology transfer and development” and “vulnerability and adaptation assessments”, “MRV ME systems”, and “clean energy technology”. Generally, Belt and Road countries are relatively less advanced in terms of their economies and available technologies. Therefore, their current requirements for basic capacity building to cope with climate change are extensive. The demand for assistance with GHG inventory preparation, accounting, and data management indicates that these countries would like to participate in international action on climate change but lack the capabilities to do so. Therefore, it is imperative for China to implement the Belt and Road green development initiative to strengthen the accounting and data management capabilities of participating countries to deal with climate change. Specific components of support include technical training relating to GHG inventory accounting, academic exchange, data management based on the Internet, and scientific research cooperation in the field of climate change.
(3) Funding requirements for emission reduction
With the exception of Annex I countries listed in Kyoto Protocol, all of the Belt and Road countries specified the need for abatement costs or financial assistance in their NDC reports. Twelve countries (Iran, Jordan, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia, and Macedonia) have provided clear estimates of economic losses and costs of reducing emissions and have requested international assistance up to a total value of US
$2.88 trillion (
Table 6). A further point to note is that the Belt and Road countries have devoted equal attention to climate change adaptation and mitigation in their NDC reports.
3.3. Coverage of Emission Sectors
The key emission sectors vary by country because of economic and technological disparities. Carbon emissions can be effectively controlled only when emission reduction is carried out by these key sectors. Therefore, we analyzed the coverage of various sectors in relation to emission reduction in the NDC reports of the Belt and Road countries.
Energy, industrial processes and production use, agriculture, forestry and land-use changes, and waste are key sectors in these countries in accordance with the Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2016. Of these sectors, the energy industry ranked highest in terms of conservation and emission reduction. The NDC reports of 61 countries mention plans to reduce emissions in this sector. The only countries that have not mentioned energy reduction are Tajikistan, Belarus, and Bangladesh. The second most important sector mentioned in the reports was waste and its reduction. Relatively few countries have prioritized emission reductions in the agriculture and forestry sectors and in relation to land-use changes. A few countries have proposed to reduce emissions in their transportation and construction sectors.
To determine whether national emission reduction plans cover domestic sectors responsible for large quantities of emissions, we compared the GHG emissions of five sectors across 64 countries in 2014 in terms of stated emission reductions in the NDC reports (
Table A1). The five sectors were energy, industrial processes and production use, agriculture, waste, and forestry and land-use changes. Countries with the highest emissions in the five major accounting sectors, have formulated comprehensive emission reduction plans that cover their entire economies in their NDC reports. These countries are India, Russia, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. However, some countries, notably Bangladesh, have not covered their main GHG-emitting sectors in their NDC emission reduction plans.
Table 7 shows the composition of GHG emissions for Bangladesh and this country’s relative ranking among the Belt and Road countries in 2014. Evidently, whereas Bangladesh is among the top emitters among the Belt and Road countries in terms of its emissions in the sectors of agriculture, waste, and forestry and land-use changes, its NDC lacks any emission reduction plans for key GHG-emitting sectors, only covering those emanating from industrial and manufacturing processes, which are not particularly advanced.