The Paris Agreement and NDCs: are the national mitigation targets sufficient to stay below the 1.5-2°C limit?

Short introduction on Azerbaijan’s emissions

Although CO₂ is the driving force behind the temperature changes, other gases such as methane (CH₄) also contribute their share to global warming, for example through the exploitation of gas fields, and emissions by livestock. While methane is emitted much less than CO₂ on a global scale, it is a much stronger greenhouse gas (GHG). Scientists estimated the relative strength of the important Kyoto greenhouse gases so that we can convert all emissions to an equivalent of CO₂ emissions. For example, the emission of one ton of methane has approximately the warming effect of 25 tons of CO₂. The factor of 25 reflects the climate forcing on a 100-year time horizon, following the Global Warming Potential presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

With greenhouse gas emissions of approximately the equivalent of 71.0 mega tonnes of CO₂ (Mt CO₂eq), Azerbaijan contributed 0.14% to the global greenhouse gas emissions of 2017 (rank 71 - incl. EU27 on rank 3). All emissions estimates exclude emissions and absorption from land, which result from activities such as cutting down or planting of forests (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry: LULUCF). Emissions from bunker fuels (international aviation and shipping) were also excluded, as they are not accounted for in national totals.

For 2030, Azerbaijan’s global contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is projected to decrease to approximately 0.11% (64.8 mega tonnes of CO₂ equivalent / rank 81 - incl. EU27 on rank 4). The emissions projections for Azerbaijan were derived by downscaling the Shared Socio-Economic Pathways’ (SSPs) “Middle-of-the-Road” baseline marker scenario SSP2. These pathways describe certain narratives of socio-economic developments and were, i.a., used to derive greenhouse gas emissions scenarios that correspond to these developments. SSP2 is a narrative with little shifts in socio-economic patterns compared to historical ones, and is connected to medium socio-economic challenges for both climate mitigation and adaptation. While different models were used for each storyline, per SSP (SSPs1-5) one model was chosen as representative “marker scenario”. As the emissions projections are not readily available on country-level, but national estimates are important, the pathways were downscaled in the aftermath. In 2017, Azerbaijan represented 0.13% of the global population. Its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2017 were 0.12% of the global GDP.

Looking at the highest contributing emissions sectors and gases separately, we find that in 2017 the highest contributing emissions sectors were Energy and Agriculture (80.2% and 10.3%). Amongst the greenhouse gases that are considered in the Kyoto Protocol, the strongest contributor with 58.0% was CO₂. This was followed by CH₄ emissions, with a share of 34.8%. When not considering the sectors and gases independently, but the sector-gas combinations instead, Energy CO₂ and Energy CH₄ (54.9% and 24.9%) represented the largest emissions in 2017.

Greenhouse gas mitigation and Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)

In 2015, the majority of countries agreed to the Paris Agreement (PA), with the goal of “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” (Article 2.1.a). Countries stated their pledges and targets towards achieving the PA’s goals in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). With Article 4.4 of the Paris Agreement, Parties decided that “Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.”

In its NDC, the country communicates that “By 2030 the Republic of Azerbaijan targets 35% reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990/base year” (NDC, p. 1). No information could be found on conditions the contribution depends on, why we assume Azerbaijan’s NDC to be unconditional on, e.g., international financial support or technology transfer.

The 1990 base year emissions are given as “Total emission 73.331 Gg CO₂ equivalent (excluding LULUCF); Net emission 69.641 Gg CO₂ equivalent (including LULUCF)” (NDC, p. ). Following PRIMAP-hist v2.1 HISTCR (exclLU, in AR4), total emissions in 1990 amounted to about 78 MtCO₂eq, which suggests an unit error in the NDC, as 78 MtCO₂eq would be 78 000 GgCO₂eq. The GWP used to aggregate emissions from different gases is not clearly stated, but as IPCC 1996 guidelines were used (NDC, p. 2), also GWPs from IPCC SAR might have been used. Azerbaijan translated the planned 35% reduction into absolute values as “35% reduction at total emissions level compared to the base year. Total emissions reduction for 2030 compared to the base year: 25.666 GgCO₂eq (excluding LULUCF), 24.374 GgCO₂eq (including LULUCF).” (NDC, p. 2). This means that for both, including and excluding LULUCF, the relative reduction is 35%. From this, absolute target emissions can be derived as 47.665 MtCO₂eq (exclLU) and 45.267 MtCO₂eq (inclLU). The availability of national estimates of emissions mitigation targets and pathways in line with countries’ NDCs is of great importance when, e.g., aggregating to global emissions to then derive, i.a., the resulting end-of-century warming levels.

Azerbaijan indicates that the “Covered sectors [are] Energy, agriculture, waste, LULUCF” (NDC, p. 2), while the “Covered gases [are] CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, HFCs, CF₄” (NDC, p. 2). CF₄ belongs to the group of PFCs, which we assume to be covered as a whole. Even though Azerbaijan does not mention the sector IPPU as covered, we assume it to be included in the contribution. Firstly, F-gas emissions are connected to this sector, and HFCs and CF₄ are covered, and information in the NDC (NDC, p. 2) suggests that the 35% reduction applies to their national totals. The total 2017’ emissions in the IPPU sector represented 5.9% of Azerbaijan’s Kyoto GHG emissions, based on PRIMAP-hist v2.1 HISTCR (exclLU, in AR4).

As land component, the country plans to “Plant new forest areas, water and land protecting forest strips (windbreaks), urban and roadside greenery as well as further improve the management of pastures and agricultural lands.” (NDC, p. 3)

The NDC-assessment is based on Azerbaijan’s NDC submitted to the UNFCCC in January 2017.

The Figure below provides additional information, regarding both the baseline emissions used in our assessment and the quantified mitigated pathways for Azerbaijan.

---

Baseline emissions and mitigated emissions pathways based on the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution. In terms of national emissions, we look at the SSP2 baseline marker scenario, and the emissions of all IPCC sectors. Contributions from LULUCF are excluded (exclLU), and the emissions are based on GWPs from AR4. The left panel (a) shows the baseline emissions, indicating the contributions of the Kyoto Greenhouse Gases CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and the basket of F-gases to the national emissions. If we could extract baseline data exclLU from the NDC, you can see their values as black squares (converted from GWP SAR to AR4 if needed). In the right panel (b), the quantified mitigated emissions pathways are shown, based on information from the country’s NDC and also on non-NDC emissions baselines, per target conditionality and range (marked un-/conditional best/worst). Even though not all countries have targets with different conditionalities or ranges, we need assumptions for all four cases to build one global pathway per conditionality plus range combination and to derive corresponding temperature estimates. Therefore, we indicate these four pathways here. Per combination, we performed several quantifications with differing assumptions and show the median and the minimal and maximal pathways here. Additionally, if we could quantify the targets based on data extracted purely from the NDC - or if the targets were directly given in absolute emissions, these targets are shown as squares (in the GWP originally given in the NDC).

---

FIG 1

Data sources and further information

• Historical emissions: PRIMAP-hist v2.1 (Guetschow et al., 2016, 2019).
• Historical socio-economic data: PRIMAP-hist Socio-Eco v2.1 (Guetschow et al., 2019).
• Projected emissions and socio-economic data: downscaled SSPs (Guetschow et al., 2020, 2020).
• NDC quantifications: NDCmitiQ (Guenther et al., 2020, 2021).
• GDP is given in purchasing power parity (PPP).
• Main emissions sectors (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC): Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), Agriculture and LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry), also named AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use), and Waste.
• Kyoto GHG: basket of several GHGs, namely carbon dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆), and since the second Kyoto Protocol period (2013-20) additionally nitrogen fluoride (NF₃).
• Global Warming Potentials (GWPs): GHGs have very different warming potentials. To make them comparable and for aggregation purposes, GWPs are used (how much energy will 1 ton of a certain gas absorb over a defined period of time, relative to the same mass of CO₂?).