概要

本文建立了一个案例，是为了阐明非阿内克斯i在全国范围内适当的缓解行动（NAMAS）的假设，方法和其他关键细节。它还解释了Annex I目标的共同会计规则如何解决围绕发达国家的目标缺乏清晰度。它的结论是可以在COP17 Durban中做出的决定，以正式化附件I目标的常见会计规则，并为非Annex I行动做出澄清过程。

执行摘要

Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Cancun Agreements, both Annex I and non–Annex I Parties have announced a diversity of mitigation targets and actions respectively for emissions reduction by 2020. While Annex I Parties have put forward economy-wide emissions reduction targets, non–Annex I Parties have proposed a variety of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). These non–Annex I actions include economy-wide goals (e.g., business-as-usual goals, carbon neutrality goals, and intensity goals) as well as sectoral actions, project-level activities, and policies (e.g., energy efficiency measures, no-till farming, projects related to mass transport systems, and investments in renewable energy sources).

尽管由于共同但分散的责任和各自的能力的原则，附件I和非附件I派对的目标和行动的形式不同，但许多人在关键细节，假设和方法论方面缺乏明确性，许多人在缺乏明确性方面相似。例如，其中许多承诺没有指定涵盖哪些扇区或气体的方面，哪些方法用于估计预期减少（如果适用）和/或偏移的作用。没有此信息和其他信息，跟踪履行承诺，确保透明度，估计减少的排放以及评估总体全球排放量减少是否足以满足全球温度限制是否足以满足总体全球排放量的进度，这是一项挑战。

For Annex I Parties, these problems should be resolved through the negotiation of common accounting rules. Although beyond the scope of this paper, the design of such rules is a critically important determinant of the regime’s environmental integrity. While common assessment methodologies for non–Annex I countries may be developed in the future, it is unlikely that the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, will resolve this issue.

造成这种情况的原因有很多，包括共同但差异的责任的原则，各种类型的非Annex I行动的复杂性水平以及与为开发的常见会计规则相比，该领域缺乏经验附件I派对根据京都协议可以从中汲取的附件协议。在没有类似于附件I的一系列规定的情况下，澄清非Annex I行动可以帮助提供透明度和跟踪绩效，以实现国内和国际用途。

While this paper focuses on clarification of non–Annex I actions, we first explain how common accounting rules for Annex I targets resolve the lack of clarity surrounding targets for developed countries. The remainder of the paper is devoted to discussing why and how non–Annex I Parties’ pledges should be clarified. In doing so, we describe the benefits of clarification, as well as the related mandates under the Cancun Agreements. We then outline the specific clarification needs associated with each type of non–Annex I action. It should be noted that this paper focuses only on non–Annex I pledges that are stated in terms of emissions reductions or emissions limitation and not on pledges that are framed in terms of indicators unrelated to emissions (e.g., capacity building initiatives). Lastly, we recommend decisions that can be made in Durban to formalize both common accounting rules for Annex I targets and a clarification process for non–Annex I actions.