This document discusses strategic reviews of nations' climate change mitigation contributions and the use of carbon markets. It notes that a strategic review process could enhance countries' climate ambitions over time. There is debate over whether reviews should focus on current or future commitments and whether recommendations should be prescriptive. The document also stresses the importance of enabling carbon markets in nations' climate plans to engage the private sector and ensure environmental integrity, while details can be determined later.

1. Climate Change Expert Group www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxg.htm
(Intended) nationally
determined contributions
Olai Uludong and Pete Betts

2. 2 Climate Change Expert Group
“Strategic review” of mitigation
contributions

3. 3 Climate Change Expert Group
General
 Strategic review shaped by understanding of NDCs, target
setting process
 Would encompass both individual and aggregate
contributions – not clear where emphasis should be
 Expectations and peer pressure can be drivers for
ambition
 Consider how the process could usefully impact national
policies…
 …and how it might impact long-term private investment
decisions
 Would require better data
 Distinct from/not a substitute for legal form

4. 4 Climate Change Expert Group
Areas of convergence
 Strategic review/ambition assessment could be important
part of political signal in Paris, given mitigation gap
 Strategic review takes place within the context of a
dynamic cycle of contributions
 The ultimate aim of the process is to enhance ambition
 Nationally-determined contributions can be compatible
with a multilateral process
 Need to consider existing and past review processes, and
how to build on these
 Outcome of strategic review process unlikely to be
prescriptive

5. 5 Climate Change Expert Group
Areas of divergence
 Scope of the review: mitigation only?
 Timing of the review: midway through implementation
(impacting existing contributions), end of implementation
period (impacting future contributions)
o Whether ex ante or ex post review process most
effective
 Basis of the review: NDCs, or some other type of
contribution/commitment in the future
 Process: focus on better identifying gaps and actions
(clarification)? have recommendations delivered by
Convention body?
 Striking right balance between forward- and backward-
looking elements

6. 6 Climate Change Expert Group
Use of transferred mitigation in
(I)NDCs

7. 7 Climate Change Expert Group
General
 Markets play an important role, including in engaging the
private sector
 Clear signal needed for markets to be up-and-running for
2020; this requires actions in the very short term
 Some contribution types can make it difficult to robustly
account for international transfers
 INDCs can provide a strong political signal on markets, e.g.
Switzerland
 No provision for markets could be a concern: limits
confidence regarding double counting and environmental
integrity
 Important to have a provision or placeholder in agreement
enabling use of markets, with details to be determined later