COMPARABILITY OF EFFORT BY ANNEX 1 PARTIES

The report argues that while precise surgical assessment of comparability is currently impossible, a common set of core indicators is necessary to define fairness and support domestic and international negotiations. It proposes an 'apples with apples' anchoring point based on economy-wide emissions excluding LULUCF and introduces 'trajectory indicators' to align 2020 targets with 2050 goals. The analysis categorizes Annex I Parties into 'New World' economies, 'Old OECD economies', and 'Transition economies' based on emissions, population, and GDP trends. Finally, it emphasizes the need for harmonized economic modelling to provide a rational basis for cost-comparability, especially following the global financial crisis.

• Assessing the comparability of effort among Annex I Parties is currently not possible in a precise manner because there is no universal set of agreed indicators, creating a need for a common set of core indicators to define fairness in final deals and support domestic debates.
• To ensure an 'apples with apples' comparison of national targets, the document suggests using an anchoring point based on economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions that excludes the domestic land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector.
• Annex I Parties are generally divided into three groups based on emissions, population, and GDP: 'New World' Economies (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) with higher growth in population and GDP; 'Old OECD economies' (e.g., EU27 and Japan) with more stable populations and lower GDP growth; and 'Transition economies' (e.g., Russian Federation and Ukraine) with stable or declining populations and high GDP growth following declines after 1990.
• The report introduces 'trajectory indicators' to visually assess the consistency of proposed 2020 targets with 2050 goals, which can help negotiators evaluate comparability across countries and help governments manage cross-generational implications within their own borders.
• Economic models used to assess the cost of commitments vary significantly due to different assumptions; the IIASA study specifically highlights that model results are most sensitive to the time window for implementation, the definition of the baseline, the model approach, and future economic development.
• The global financial crisis has had a stark impact on the costs of mitigation, as demonstrated by IIASA analysis showing how changes in reference emissions from the 2008 to 2009 World Energy Outlook significantly affect marginal and total costs for Annex I parties.

APA

Ward, M., Grubb, M., & Baker, A. (2010). COMPARABILITY OF EFFORT BY ANNEX 1 PARTIES. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-comparability-of-effort-by-annex-i-parties-execsum.pdf

Chicago

Ward, Murray, Michael Grubb, and Antonia Baker. COMPARABILITY OF EFFORT BY ANNEX 1 PARTIES. Climate Strategies, 2010. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-comparability-of-effort-by-annex-i-parties-execsum.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ward |first1=Murray |last2=Grubb |first2=Michael |last3=Baker |first3=Antonia |title=COMPARABILITY OF EFFORT BY ANNEX 1 PARTIES |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=January 2010 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-comparability-of-effort-by-annex-i-parties-execsum.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ward2010comparability, author = {Ward, Murray and Grubb, Michael and Baker, Antonia}, title = {{COMPARABILITY OF EFFORT BY ANNEX 1 PARTIES}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2010}, month = jan, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-comparability-of-effort-by-annex-i-parties-execsum.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }