Egypt next (INDCs submitted on 16th November 2015). As is so often the case, one of the main issues is population growth:

"Globally, Egypt ranks 16th in terms of population estimated at 89 million (August 2015). Between 1990 and 2015, the population grew by 30 million inhabitants, with an annual growth rate of 2.2%, and a total increase of 30% compared to 1990 census. UN population prospect reports anticipate that the annual growth rate will remain over 2% until 2040, where The Egyptian population is estimated to reach 116 million inhabitants."

"High population growth rates and densities impose huge pressure on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development."

They are also planning hugely to grow the economy, so again they have a circle to square. What are their proposals?

"The key for Egypt to mitigate GHGs emissions is to provide appropriate foundations for the development of low carbon energy systems. Pathways to achieving high CO2 mitigation levels comprise the following:
 Widespread diffusion of locally-appropriate low-carbon energy production technologies, with substantial reductions in energy intensity
 Comprehensive mitigation efforts covering all major sources of emissions
 Locally-appropriate technology transfer and financial flows from industrialized countries (Annex I countries) to support carbon emission abatement according to the UNFCCC principles, which acknowledges that developed countries should
provide required support to developing countries in this regard."

And:

"Policies targeting development that is more sustainable rely upon five main pillars:
1. More efficient use of energy, especially by end users;
2. Increased use of renewable energy as an alternative to non-renewable energy sources;
3. Use of advanced locally-appropriate and more-efficient fossil fuel technologies, which is less-emitting, in addition to new generations of nuclear power;
4. Energy efficiency is the cornerstone to be targeted by policy makers to decouple demand on energy and economic growth; and
5. Reform energy subsidies. This policy is implemented using four pillars, namely:
set different prices for petroleum products based on energy generation efficiency; increase the efficiency of energy use; provide support to certain sectors to promote switching from conventional energy sources to clean energy sources; and apply the fuel subsidy smartcard system to ensure that subsidies are received by target beneficiaries."

Maybe I missed it, but I cannot see anywhere in the INDCs a commitment, either conditional or unconditional, to reduce GHG emissions, though I suppose they would say that their plans involve a reduction against a Business as Usual scenario.

They do say this, however:

"The initial total estimated cost of implementing adaptation measures aiming at mitigating the negative impacts of climate change and the national endeavors aiming at contributing to the efforts made by the international community to reduce GHG emissions during the period 2020-2030 is estimated at USD 73 billion. This figure is adapted to inflation rates and change in currency exchange rate for this period."

As I said earlier, at this rate the Paris Accords are going to costs $tens of trillions to achieve very little.

Mark. In the 1990s I spent much time doing geological research in eastern Egypt, spent many weeks in Cairo, and worked collaboratively with Egyptian geologists. At that time I was under the impression that the state, which had been left a half decent infrastructure of roads, rail, medical facilities and governmental oversight facilities was being overwhelmed by an ever increasing population. What worked was inadequate to cater for the needs of the larger population. Improvements and enlargements could not be paid for because so much of the country's treasure was consumed by the military. This disaster was swallowed up by national pride of being the largest arab country. Egyptians I knew boasted of this.
It started out with assets - a thriving agriculture that exported high value products like cotton, a well educated middle class, and the Suez Canal. These were thrown away or submerged by the rising population.
When discussing problems of overpopulation, Egypt is a classic example. The country cannot afford to indulge in any climate change nonsense.

ACK, many thanks for your interesting first-hand input. I raised the population point about Egypt, partly because the explicit reference in their INDCs gave me the opportunity, and partly because I feel population growth is a huge issue, both generally, and specifically in terms of energy use and any chance at all of GHG emissions reduction targets being met. It is the elephant in the room, in my opinion.

I would have looked at Iraq next (INDCs submitted on 12th November 2015). I suspect it is an important country in this respect, in view of the mayhem going on there and it's status as a major oil exporter. However, whereas with a little more confidence I might have had a go at the INDCs submitted in Spanish, I have no Arabic at all, and that is the language of Iraq's submission. Some countries provide INDCs in their own first language and also provide an English translation, but Iraq hasn't done so. Regrettably, therefore, I will have to move on without further comment.

Instead, I move on to Sudan (INDCs submitted on 10th November 2015):

The stall is set out early:

"Being classified as a least developed country (LDC) Sudan is not obliged to pursue a GHG emission reduction target. Nevertheless, Sudan views the planning process to reduce GHG emissions, or rather pursue low-carbon development, as an opportunity to strengthen national capacity, promote sustainable resource management, facilitate technology transfer, and identify synergies between national economic objectives and sustainable development."

Also, among another of assumptions underpinning Sudan's INDCs is this one: "Funding is available from different sources, particularly through the finance mechanism under the UNFCCC."

And, in case the international community hadn't got the message:

"Being one of the most vulnerable countries to the adverse effects of climate change and given Sudan’s status as LDC, the implementation of the envisaged undertakings communicated in Sudan’s INDCs is depended on various conditions, including
 The full implementation by developed countries of their commitments relating to finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention;
 Reaching the long-term temperature goal that is currently set at below 2°C and subject to be revised at COP 21; and
 Sudan’s access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, including technology transfer and capacity-building."

What, then, subject to those caveats, are they offering?

"Sudan intends to pursue implementing low carbon development interventions in three sectors of energy, forestry and waste inline with Sudan’s national development priorities, objectives and circumstances."

Specifically:

"Integration of renewable energy in the power system" - cost $4.3Bn;
"Energy efficiency" - cost $350Mn;
"Electricity thermal generation using Natural Gas" - cost $2.9Bn;
"Afforestation and reforestation" - cost $1.5Bn;
"National REDD+ strategy " - cost $1.7Bn;
Waste collection, sanitary landfill & zero waste concept - cost $930Mn.

They then give a detailed summary of where they are with GHG emissions and also projections:

"The trend in Sudan’s total GHG emissions indicates an increase by about 8%; from 72,014 Gg of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) in 1995 to 77,650 Gg CO2e in 2000. In 2000, the total GHG emissions in the three sectors that are covered in Sudan’s INDC are estimated at 8,539Gg from energy, 9,392 Gg from LUCF1 and 2,015 Gg from waste. The major drivers for these changes in GHG emission levels are attributed to, among others, changes in emissions from the energy sector, which increased by roughly 10%, mainly due to increased fossil fuel consumption.
Regarding the waste sector, emissions from waste management have more than doubled, mainly due to greater amounts of municipal solid waste sent to landfill sites. There are a number of limitations and shortcomings affecting the GHG estimations in the three sectors, mainly related to serious problems of data availability and quality, and partly related to technical capacity and application of methods.
Energy consumption in Sudan is expected to reach over 13 million tons of oil-equivalent (TOE) by 2030. Diesel and gasoline, used primarily in the transport sector, dominate future growth in fossil fuels and account for over 70% of energy use by 2030. GHG emissions associated with this energy use trajectory are expected to reach just over 24 million tons of CO2-equivalent by 2030, a 6-fold increase from year 2000 levels (see Figure 4-2). The transport and electricity sectors together account for most of the growth in GHG emissions in Sudan, with these two sectors responsible for around 70% of projected GHG emissions by 2030 (SNC 2013). The current source of electrical power in Sudan is a mix of hydropower and thermal power generation plants. The thermal power generation is composed of steam turbines, diesel engine, and steam turbines which have lower-efficiency of about 14% compared with gas high efficiency diesel-fired combined cycle unit up to 45 %. Therefore, there is a need to shift to the high efficiency diesel fired
combined cycle unit but the initial cost is high, predominantly due to the lack of available infrastructure for LNG importation and as well as the necessary high and long-term investments."

As with Egypt, I may have missed it, but I couldn't see any reference to anticipated GHG emissions reductions targets, whether in absolute or % terms, not even against a Business as Usual scenario. I did find this, though:

"The international support required to implement the intended contribution in terms of finance, technology and capacity building, over a cycle of contributions of 5-10 years, amount to a total of 12.88 USD billions, of which 1.2 billions USD$ for adaptation and 11.68 billions for mitigation.
This amount is required to be met from all possible and accessible international climate finance sources."

Yet again, no great commitment to any reduction in GHG emissions, but a substantial bill for the international community.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has helpfully supplied an English translation of their INDCs (submitted on 10th November 2015), so they're up next. They of course, as a major oil exporter, have a difficult circle to square, and that becomes evident almost immediately:

"The actions and plans outlined in this submission seek to achieve mitigation co-benefits ambitions of up to 130 million tons of CO2eq avoided by 2030 annually through contributions to economic diversification and adaptation. These ambitions are contingent on the Kingdom’s economy continuing to grow with an increasingly diversified economy and a robust contribution from oil export revenues to the national economy. It is also premised on the fact that the economic and social consequences of international climate change policies and measures do not pose disproportionate or abnormal burden on the Kingdom’s economy."

Note the weasel words "up to" when discussing the annual target, and also its highly contingent nature. Furthermore:

"A dynamic baseline will be developed on basis of a combination of two scenarios. One scenario assumes economic diversification with a robust contribution of oil export revenues, and the other on an accelerated domestic industrialization based on sustainable utilization of all indigenous resources including oil, gas and minerals."

"The main difference between the two baseline scenarios is the allocation of oil produced for either domestic consumption or export. While exported oil will not contribute to the GHG emissions of Saudi Arabia, the domestic consumption will increase its GHG emissions."

This helpfully answers my question on an earlier post about whether an oil exporting country's oil exports count when measuring their CO2 emissions. The answer, it seems, is in the negative. I know we have to avoid double counting, but I wonder about the fairness of this methodology.

"Contribution to Economic diversification with mitigation co-benefits" is under 5 headings:

1. Energy Efficiency
2. Renewable energies
3. Carbon Capture and Utilization/Storage
4. Utilization of gas
5. Methane recovery and flare minimization

"The assessment of baseline covers the period 2021 to 2030. As time progresses, this assessment will be expanded until 2050. Estimates and ambitions will be adjusted depending on the level of development and progress toward economic diversification (as outlined in paragraph 3 above) as well as feedbacks from different sectors of the economy."

Refreshingly, "The implementation of Saudi Arabia’s INDC is not contingent on receiving international financial support, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sees an important role for technology cooperation and transfer as well as capacity building for INDC implementation."

BUT:

"1. The ambitions set out in this INDC would require technical assistance and sustained capacity building efforts and upgrading of skills at the individual and systemic levels to support their implementation. Saudi Arabia therefore looks for benefiting from all the assistance made available to developing countries in respect of enabling activities within the framework of the UNFCCC.
2. Cooperate on research programme on the impacts of response measures on international energy markets and economies of fossil fuel exporting countries, as well as success parameters of economic diversification initiatives. Moreover, such international cooperation should focus on the development, diffusion and transfer of less greenhouse gas-emitting advanced technologies including fossil fuel technologies.
3. With regard to adaptation, collaboration on the following technologies is seen as crucial:
(a) water saving, recycling, capture, irrigation and sustainable management for agriculture purposes; (b) early warning system against meteorological extreme events (such as floods, storms and droughts; and (c) transportation technologies that are resilient to the adverse effects of climate change while reducing and/or capturing transportation-related emissions. Saudi Arabia aims to create long-term partnerships with universities, research institutes and the private sector in order to enable utilization of these technologies."

It concludes with this summary:

"The measures outlined in this INDC would achieve significant annual mitigation co-benefits estimated to be up to 130 million tons of CO2eq by 2030. The measures focus on harnessing the mitigation potential in a way that prevents “lock in” of high-GHG infrastructure. These contributions would only be possible under scenario 1 pathway of sustained economic growth."

So, it's all fairly meaningless. Highly contingent, non-binding, and the only reductions offered are limited to a scenario of "sustained economic growth" which would presumably see rising GHG emissions anyway. In other words, as we have seen so often, this is a conditional and non-binding offer of reductions of GHG emissions against a Business as Usual scenario, not a commitment to cut GHG emissions in absolute terms.

Jun 18, 2017 at 3:35 PM | Supertroll & Mark Hodgson

No one should be starving in Egypt, but most exist just above the breadline. The educated are very proud to be Egyptian, but desperate to work and live elsewhere, because there are no opportunities or prospects within Egypt.

Jimmy Carter paid heavily for Peace at Camp David, and I am not sure how much time Begin and Sadat had with each other before the smiling photographs. Sadat paid with his life. The Peace Dividend was absorbed by the Army and corruption.

Tahir Square, 2011 Revolution etc could have ended with far greater loss of life. There are so many Egyptians who know how much better everything could be, but no Egyptian money to do it with.

Jun 18, 2017 at 8:47 PM | Mark Hodgson

Is Saudi Arabia expected to pay towards the compensation fund?

Without the riches of oil, would Saudi Arabia be as poor as Sudan?

Fiji next (INDCs submitted on 5th November 2015).

Not surprisingly, as an island nation, we start with the usual genuflection:

"Fiji, as a small island developing state and because of its location is more vulnerable and is at the forefront of being impacted by climate change. Despite contributing a mere 0.04% of greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere compared to the global average, Fijian communities are experiencing climate change impacts such as eroding shorelines and riverbanks, shortage of water, depleted fisheries stock, reduced food production, large-scale flooding, increase in outbreaks of vector borne diseases and sea level rise. The Fijian government therefore recognizes the importance of adapting to climate change and coordinating climate change related adaptation policies, strategies, plans, and activities to reduce the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of Fiji’s communities to the impacts of climate change and disasters."

Given their minuscule contribution to GHGs, there's not really much point in these INDCs. Nevertheless, what do they say? Well, the conditional part requires $500M, which is really a lot of money for a small reduction (on a Business as Usual basis, i.e. an increase in current emission levels) in minuscule GHG emissions:

"The achievement of the emission reduction target specified above will be through both unconditional and conditional means based on available and additional external financing being made available to Fiji. From the 30% emission reduction target, 10% will be achieved through the implementation of the Green Growth Framework, utilizing resources available in country (unconditional) whereas the remaining target can only be met with the availability of external funding amounting to US$500 million (conditional)."

Burundi next (INDCs submitted on 4th November 2015).

Not surprisingly, Burundi is another country with low GHG emissions. But its unconditional offer is really pretty meaningless: "Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 3% compared to the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for 2030."

Its conditional offer is a little better, but still is not an offer of absolute emissions reductions: "Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, beginning in 2016, compared to the business-as-usual scenario for 2030." The graph on page 9 of the INDCs suggests that even the conditional offer will see GHG emissions doubling between 2016 and 2030.

And of course it comes at a cost:

"Climate risk adaptation and management " - $3.719M
"Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and low carbon developments" - $1.446118Bn
"Promotion of research & development and technology transfers" - $25.787M
"Capacity-building, knowledge management and communication" - $3.465M
"Reforestation and agroforestry" - $10M
"Extension of improved kilns" - $1.5M
"Extension of improved domestic and artisanal ovens" - $3M

Not a massive amount compared to some, but still a cost to the international community of $1.5Bn, give or take, to enable Burundi to double their GHG emissions.

Uganda next (INDCs submitted on 14th October 2015, but re-submitted on 28th October 2015, to correct "minor typological error").

The scene is set early:

"Uganda has contributed least to the potentially catastrophic build up of the human-derived greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere and yet the country is most vulnerable to global warming and climate change impacts. (Uganda has one of the lowest green-house gas emissions per capita in the world, estimated at 1.39 tons carbon dioxide, far below the global average of approximately 7.99 tons of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, Uganda’s contribution to world's total green-house emission is estimated at 0.099%)."

The population time bomb is highly relevant here: "With an average total fertility rate of 6 children per woman, Uganda has an annual growth rate of 3.2 per cent; and the population is expected to grow from 34.8 million people in 2014 to 93.4 million people in the 2040s."

In order to justify international finance for their conditional INDCs, resort is had to a Stern-like economic assessment of the situation: "Recent studies, which require further refinement, have estimated that, in the absence of adaptation actions, the cost of the impacts of climate variability and change in Uganda would range between United States dollars 270 and 332 billion over the 40 year period 2010-2050, for the agriculture, water, infrastructure, and energy sectors. Annual costs could be in the range of United States dollars 3.2 billion to United States dollars $5.6 billion within a decade in these four sectors alone." The "recent studies" in question are not identified, nor is their methodology.

This appears to be the Business as Usual situation:

"National emissions in 2000, including Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry, were estimated at 36.5 Million tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MtCO2eq/yr). Million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MtCO2eq/yr). , and
emissions are projected to rise to approximately 77.3 MtCO2e/a in 2030."

The effect of proposed mitigation policies regarding this more than doubling of GHG emissions is a little vague:

"Estimations of potential mitigation impact are approximate, and are presented for indicative purposes only. Uganda proposes to implement the aforementioned policies and measures, and their impact may be higher or lower than these estimations illustrate."

"The cumulative impact of the policies and measures from the mitigation contribution (section 3.1) could result in
approximately 22% reduction of overall national GHG emissions in 2030, including Land Use Land Use Change and
Forestry, compared to the business-as-usual (BAU) projection"

That's "could" rather than "we commit to" or "will." And the potential, but rather uncertain, reduction on a Business as Usual basis still looks like an increase of around 2/3 compared to the current position.

They go into a lot of detail regarding the international financial assistance they require, and it adds up to a lot of money:

"However, the full implementation of the priority adaptation and mitigation actions is conditional on the support of international stakeholders. The implementation of the prioritised policies and actions assume the continued use of existing and planned national and international financial sources. As set out in the National Climate Change Policy and Costed Implementation Strategy, national sources are assumed to cover approximately 30% of incremental costs of the activities in the next 15 years, with 70% assumed to originate from international sources.
The National Climate Change Policy and Costed Implementation Strategy estimated that Uganda will require United States dollars 2.9 billion over the next 15 years to address the impacts of climate change in addition to the existing interventions. This represents approximately 1.2% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per annum over the next 15 years (GDP at market prices as of 2011).
For adaptation:
 The total adaptation cost in the adaptation priority sectors is estimated at around United States dollars 2.4 billion over the next 15 years.
 During the next five years (short term) the cost of adaptation in these eight sectors is estimated at around United States dollar 537.1 million.
 On an annual basis this amounts to $107.4 million, which is around 6.6% of net Overseas Development Assistance received by the country in 2013 and 4.2% of total government revenues (excluding grants) in 2012.
 In the future, the adaptation budgets in these sectors rise significantly: to United States dollars 936.8 million for 2021-2025 and United States dollars 932.1 million for 2026-2030.
 Climate Smart Agriculture Programme (2015-2025) is estimated at United States 476.0 million
For mitigation:
 The total costs of the activities in the priority mitigation sectors are uncertain.
 The upfront capital investment for the renewable energy installations has been estimated at United States dollars 5.4 billion over the next 10 years.
 The initial costed plan for the National Climate Change Policy indicates costs of around United States dollars 36 million over the next ten years for the implementation of measures in the forestry sector.
 These costs will be adjusted as more evidence-based information is obtained (mainly from the costed national Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) Strategy).
 The achievement of the target in the forestry sector assumes continuation of existing supported measures in the sector and in particular financial flows through the implementation of REDD+.
 The costs of the additional policies and measures are included in the above information where available, but will largely need to be assessed at a later stage."

Again, a lot of money to assist in increasing your GHG emissions by approximately 2/3.

Djibouti next (INDCs submitted on 28th October 2015). I have to say their submission is rather more ambitious than the last 3 I have just looked at, but given their relative insignificance in the context of global GHGs, sadly that doens't make much difference:

"On a global scale, the IPCC calculated the quantity of GHGs as more than 49,000 Mt of CO2e in 2004. As a result, the annual emissions produced by the Republic of Djibouti, estimated at close to 2 Mt CO2e in 2010, represent less than 0.005% of the global volume. In other words, its emissions are nonsignificant compared with worldwide emissions."

Still, "The planned unconditional level of emissions reductions, planned under the unconditional scenario, is 40% compared to the business-as-usual scenario for 2030."

"To fulfil that level of ambition, the Republic of Djibouti will need to invest more than US $3.8 billion, in collaboration with the international community. An additional US $1.6 billion, conditional on new funding sources like the Green Climate Fund, along with international support, would enable the country to reduce its emissions by a further 20% by 2030. The total effort, under both the unconditional and conditional scenarios, would essentially entail maintaining the country’s emissions at roughly their level in 2010."

So, at last a country committing (at least with international funding) not to increase their emissions (though not to reduce them either), and at considerable cost to the international community, given that their existing contributions are in any event "nonsignificant."

Suriname next (INDCs submitted on 28th October 2015).

"Historically, the Republic of Suriname has been maintaining and protecting its pristine forests and ecosystems. Consequently, approximately 15 million hectares or about 94% of Suriname’s territory remains forested resulting in 12.9 hectares per capita or net carbon capture per capita of 3.3 tons. The tropical rainforest of Suriname stores about
11 gigatons and absorbs more than 8.8 million tons of forest carbon annually. This represents approximately over 350 million tons of carbon absorbed since 1972. As aresult of its forest carbon sequestration and avoided deforestation, Suriname has been providing a key ecosystem benefit to the world long before the issue of climate change was widely recognized and accepted. A service for which Suriname has not been paid.
Despite this significant mitigation function, as a country with a low lying coast where over 80% of the population resides, and where the major economic activities and infrastructure are concentrated, Suriname is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Suriname has already suffered extensive losses and damages from the effects of climate change. Current projections for sea level rise will result in severe damage to coastal ecosystems, in particular, the mangrove forests and large expanse of arable lands. Impacts are projected to affect over 40% of the country’s GDP and the well-being of more than 80% of the population and Suriname’s capital, Paramaribo, a UNESCO Heritage City. Amongst the most vulnerable and who stand to be significantly impacted include those living in the coastal zone, along the coastal rivers as well as Indigenous and forest-dependent people living along the rivers and shores.

Based on current trends, climate departure for Suriname will take place in 2028 at which point the country will experience, inevitably, huge losses and irreversible damage. This will impact the very way of life of the Surinamese people.
Thus far, Suriname has had to deal with the losses and damages, undertake adaptation interventions and build climate resilience mainly from its small national budget. "

I suppose you might as well set your stall out early. The above statement amounts to "we're not contributing to climate change, we're helping to avert it, we're doing you all a favour; despite that we're at risk from it, and nobody's paying us anything!"

"While Suriname reaffirms its commitment to addressing climate change and in particular, maintaining its forest and freshwater resources, it recognizes the need for the international community to work collectively, responsibly and with urgency to address this issue. In this regard, there are four critical elements necessary for international collaboration:
(i) Direct access to climate finance;
(ii) Compensation for loss and damage;
(iii) Technology transfer to engender large scale adaptation and mitigation; and
(iv) Compensation for the forest climate services that forest countries have been and continue to provide."

And:

"Suriname remains committed to playing its part in the fight against climate change and recognizes the significant role its forests can play. In this regard, Suriname is keen to pursue a green economy through a climate compatible development approach and with REDD+ as a key mechanism. In addition, Suriname strongly supports the UN sustainable development priorities regarding ‘Renewable Energy’. Suriname is therefore prepared to deploy its forests, as part of a global mitigation contribution as well as continue promoting and introducing the use of renewable energy, specifically in
remote areas, provided adequate financing is made available to support these transitions."

In other words - send us money!

Basically, they propose to carry on being slow to chop down their forests, and if the international community send them a lot of money, they will install some renewable energy systems. How much money do they want?

"The implementation of the INDC of the Republic of Suriname will require financial support. Several actions have been identified in the energy and forestry sectors that would contribute to mitigation. An estimate of these costs is US$2.492 Billion. For critical adaptation needs, however, Suriname requires an estimated US$ 1Billion to support its climate resilience program of activities. The total costs for the implementation of the INDC of the Republic of Suriname are therefore estimated at US$3.492 Billion."

Burkina Faso next (INDCs submitted on 23rd October 2015).

"The chosen reference year is 2007, the date when the second report on greenhouse gas inventories in Burkina Faso was completed. The future projections under the various scenarios are made on the basis of this reference year and the appropriate parameters resulting from the previous development of the socioeconomic situation (trend-based) or the forecast-based assumptions (unconditional and conditional scenarios)."

"Burkina has chosen 2030 as the target year, given that this date coincides with the second Millennium Development Goals meeting."

"Analysis of the current trend scenario shows that Burkina’s GHG emissions are going to continue to grow significantly. At the 2030 horizon, the emissions level will increase by a factor of five compared to 2007 and by a factor of almost 1.6 compared to 2015".

"Despite all efforts, the urgency of dealing with recurrent crisis situations in several sectors requires the use of low-cost technologies available in the market, which are quite often less appropriate for local or global environmental protection (emergency thermal power plants very frequently financed at the time of large-scale load shedding and social movements, dependence on obsolete means of transportation, agricultural techniques with little technological input that consume space and manpower, poor waste management etc.). Hence there is a preference to think of GHG reductions in comparison to a possible trend rather than in comparison to a reference year that we see as unrealistic."

Which, given its poverty and development needs, is probably fair enough. But again it has the effect of INDCs seeing GHG emissions rise rather than fall over the target period. Their emissions rose substantially between 2007 and 2015, so holding them to 2007 probably isn't fair. But even using 2015 as the base line, the proposed "reductions" against a Business as Usual scenario still actually constitute significant increases in reality.

The unconditional "reduction" proposed (6.6% by 2030) against BAU looks roughly like an increase of approximately 50%, while the conditional "reduction" of 11.6% by 2030 looks roughly like an increase of around 40% over 2015 levels.

And as usual, this is going to cost money:

"The G7 countries have committed to contribute 100 billion dollars per year from now to 2020 to the fight against climate change, part of which is to pass through the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
This sum promised by the international community is to support the developing countries in the limitation of their greenhouse gas emissions and their adaptation to the effects of climate change.
However, this commitment does not cover all that is needed to finance worldwide reduction of greenhouse gases, an amount estimated at between 650 billion and 1,950 billion US dollars per year.
Burkina Faso through its INDC should position itself among the community of nations to have access to these funds."

How much, exactly?

"Burkina Faso’s commitment comes about through three scenarios.
A first scenario, Unconditional (annex 1), the objective of which is to reduce GHG emissions by 7,808 Gg per year in 2030, i.e. 6% when compared to BaU, for ongoing investments of US $1.25 billion.
A Hybrid Conditional scenario (annex 1), which aims to reduce GHG emissions by 11.6%, which corresponds to 13,766 Gg per year in 2030, for investments of US $756,032,667.
A third scenario, Adaptation (annexe 2), which aims, among other things, to restore and develop 5,055 million ha of degraded lands at the 2030 horizon, corresponding to 55% of the total current area of degraded lands in the country and making it possible to feed more than 6 million additional persons at the 2030 horizon. Moreover, these adaptation projects will contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions of 43,707 Gg of CO2, i.e. 36.95% when compared to BaU, for an overall investment of US $5,804,949,915."

United Arab Emirates next (INDCs submitted on 22nd October 2015).

"The UAE welcomes the inclusive structure of the INDC model, which is consistent with a recognition of the special circumstances of developing countries with high dependence on fossil fuel production – an issue which was recognized by the COP in Decision 24/CP.18 on economic diversification...". No surprise there, then!

As ever - the elephant in the room: "The UAE’s population has more than tripled since 1995, and will continue to grow, putting increased pressure on the supply of energy and water."

Thus: "The UAE has therefore made the strategic decision to diversify its energy mix, increase efficiency, and continue to use world-class performance standards and the best available technologies in its energy intensive industries and its oil and gas sectors."

"The UAE has set a target of increasing clean energy contribution to the total energy mix from 0.2% in 2014, to 24% by 2021. This will be achieved through renewable and nuclear energy, and is underpinned by detailed emirate level targets and policies."

And: "The UAE’s energy intensive industries and oil and gas sectors will continue to use innovative technologies to improve efficiency and reduce emissions.
The UAE’s oil companies are among the most efficient globally. The UAE’s national oil company was the first in the region to promote the reduction of gas flaring, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In energy intensive industries, overall performance indicators will be improved through carbon abatement measures and increased resource
efficiency.
The UAE is also developing the region’s first commercial-scale network for carbon capture, usage and storage. The project notably captures and compresses emissions at a steel manufacturing facility, which will be compressed and transported to oil fields, where it will be used to enhance oil recovery and ultimately be stored underground providing one of the first viable mechanisms to decarbonize essential energy intensive industries."

And that seems to be about it. Nowhere did I read about conditional or unconditional reductions of GHG emissions, even on a Business as Usual scenario, which would of course almost certainly amount to a real-terms increase. I can see no reference to numbers at all, in that respect. So, it looks like another Middle Eastern fossil fuel exporter offering little if anything, while paying lip-service to the Accords. Oh well - at least so far as I can tell, they're not asking anyone for any money.

Togo next (INDCs submitted on 21st October 2015).

They helpfully provide an executive summary at the beginning, which describes the "Level of commitment" as being "Reduction of GHG emissions compared to a scenario of uncontrolled development." So, not a reduction at all in real terms. Sectors covered are "Energy; agriculture; land use, land-use change and forestry; human settlements (buildings and cities) and health; coastal erosion."

Unconditional reduction target is 11.14% and Conditional reduction target is 31.14%. Funding needs are US$3.54 billion (Adaptation = 1.54; Mitigation = 1.10; Tech transfers = 0.5; Capacity-building = 0.4).

The detail starts in the usual way - "Togo has historically emitted little in the way of greenhouse gases and so has only had a very small part to play in the current climate crisis. However, it must already contend with the harmful consequences of climate change." So it emits few GHGs (and therefore makes little difference to anything) but it still wants its hands on over $3.5Bn of international money, please, to enable it to do something about its insignificant contribution "the current climate crisis."

The description of the socioeconomic context makes dispiriting reading, and might suggest they have bigger problems to worry about:

"Togo’s 2010 population was 6,191,155 (4th Census, 2010), with an average annual growth rate of 2.84%. On that basis, the country can expect to reach 7,121,673 inhabitants in 2015, 60% of whom under the age of 25. As a result, Togo will need to meet the challenge of providing decent jobs to that population, once it hits the labour market. Gross domestic product (GDP) rose from FCFA 1,581.3 billion in 2010 (baseline year) to FCFA 2,076.6 billion in 2015, or a per capita GDP of FCFA 255,419 and FCFA 291,583 respectively. Despite the progress made (0.459 in 2012 (2013 HDI Report),
or a 0.007 improvement over 2010), Togo’s Human Development Index (HDI) remains low (ranked 159th out of the 187 countries evaluated). Poverty is still very high in Togo, affecting 58.7% of the population in 2011 (SCAPE, August 2013), compared with 61.7% in 2006. The household lighting penetration rate stands at 23%, according to the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP, July 2015). The 2011 QUIBB well-being indicator questionnaire showed that the main social indicators had generally improved, although their levels are still worrying: net primary schooling rate (87.8%),
adult literacy rate (60.3%, with a clear disparity between the sexes: 74.0% for men and 47.9% for women), morbidity rate (20.6%), rate of access to drinking water (56.1%), proportion of households with sanitation (53.1%), rate of malnutrition (27.9%), rate of households having difficulty meeting their dietary needs (49.5%), rate of use of health services (66.2%) and unemployment rate (24.3%)."

The conditional and unconditional "reductions" in GHG emissions amount to no such thing in real terms. With GHG emissions forecast to increase by well over 50% between 2016 and 2030, even the optimistic 31.14% reduction against the Business as Usual Scenario, which is itself entirely conditional on external funding, represents a not insignificant increase in GHG emissions over the 2016 level.

But given this country's problems, I can see why it is asking for international financial help.

Trinidad and Tobago next (INDCs submitted on 21st October 2015). This is an interesting case, since they admit "Trinidad and Tobago is the most industrialized economy in the English-speaking Caribbean. It is the leading Caribbean producer of oil and gas, and its economy is mainly based upon these resources. Trinidad and Tobago also supplies manufactured goods, mainly food products and beverages, as well as cement, to the Caribbean region. Even though other products are also manufactured, oil and gas is the leading economic sector and accounts for 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 80% of exports."

But as we have already seen, countries are held responsible for the GHG emissions they create directly, not for exporting oil and gas for others to burn. Thus: "Trinidad and Tobago does not contribute largely to the total worldwide GHG emissions. In fact, as of 2013, Trinidad and Tobago was ranked 62nd of all the countries if they were classified by
total national GHG emissions."

As with many others, they are offering not an absolute reduction in emissions, but a reduction against a Business as Usual scenario. However, as they do not tell us what level of increase is involved in Business as Usual, we cannot assess whether the "reduction" they are offering is a real one or not. The sceptic in me assumes not, on the basis that if a real reduction was on offer, they would presumably be shouting about it.

Trinidad and Tobago's Mitigation Contribution - Mitigation Objectives:

"Unconditional: 30% reduction in GHG emissions by December 31, 2030 in the public transportation sector compared to a business as usual (BAU)scenario (reference year 2013).

Conditional: Additional reduction achievable under certain conditions which would bring the total GHG reduction to 15% below BAU emission levels by December 31, 2030.

Financial Requirements:
The estimated cost of achieving the reduction objectives is USD 2 billion, which is expected to be met partly through domestic funding and conditional on international climate financing including through the Green Climate Fund."

$2Bn isn't a lot these days in the scheme of things, though it is a lot of money to hand over in return for INDCs which don't let you work out whether or not they are going to reduce their GHG emissions (but probably not).

Niger next (INDCs submitted on 20th October 2015). As with many sub-Saharan countries, their problems are great, so one wonders why they would be concerned with GHG emissions - the answer, as always, seems to be to extract money from the international community.

"Its population of 17.7 million has a high rate of demographic growth (3.9% per year) (RGPH, 2011). A completely landlocked country, its GDP was US $6.3 billion in 2015, or US $413 per inhabitant, with a human development index of 0.374, placing it in the lowest rank of countries (UNDP). The production of the primary sector, dominated by the agropastoral sector with 37% of the GNP and 80% of employment (INS), varies greatly from year to year."

Their first 2 objectives seem perfectly sensible- their third objective less so: "The objectives of Niger’s INDC are to assure food security, combat poverty and contribute to the reduction of world greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions so that they will not increase in excess of 2°C in the 2050 horizon thanks to green growth and a low-carbon development strategy, the purpose of which is to assure resilience of the population and ecosystems." Bear in mind that they tell us:

"Like other non-Annex I countries of the list of the UNFCCC, Niger has no obligation to present GHG emissions mitigation measures."

So why bother? This is probably the answer:

"Total cost of the INDC over 10 years: US $8.667 billion (US $866.7 per year), or 48% of the GDP and US $490 per
inhabitant, of which:
- Adaptation: US $1.607 billion, of which US $0.337 billion (21%) is unconditional and US $ 1.270 (79%) is conditional.
- Mitigation: US $7.060 billion, of which $0.830 billion unconditional (12%) and $6.230 US conditional (88%)."

What are they offering in return for this largesse? Not a lot:

"- Unconditional reduction of 2.5% (BaU 2020) and 3.5% (2030).
- Conditional reduction of 25% (BaU 2020) and 34.6% (2030, or a reduction of 33,400 GgCO2e)."

Even the rather more ambitious (and expensive) conditional "reduction" on offer amounts to a significant increase in real terms. The graph they submit for projected GHG emissions growth shows a near-doubling between 2010 and 2030. A 34.6% reduction against a near doubling is still a real-terms increase. The unconditional offer represents a significant increase.

As I look at the INDCs of poor countries I see a theme developing. Countries whose emissions are negligible and which contribute next to nothing to the perceived problem of man-made climate change don't really need to do anything - indeed, as Niger makes clear, many of them can sign up to Paris and have no obligations at all. But still they agree to do something. Reading the detail of their plans it's apparent that this has more to do with modernising and improving their economies, and leveraging international finance to achieve it, than anything else. Which is fair enough - if I were the leader of such a country I like to think I'd have enough about me to play the game and try to do the same. Presumably the UN also knows that this is what is happening. And there might be much merit in transferring money from the developing to the developed world, on grounds of fairness and humanity. But one thing it won't do is reduce GHG emissions. Indeed, as the populations of these poor countries explode, and as they industrialise and modernise (with international money) their GHG emissions are bound to increase. From what I have read so far, the Paris Accords are likely, if implemented in full, to achieve the exact opposite opposite of their stated aims. Why is the UN not being honest with the world about this? Why do the MSM not investigate? Why do the MSM unthinkingly parrot the UN's views?

Oops. "transferring money from the developing to the developed world" should of course be the other way around - "transferring money from the developed to the developing world."

Guinea next (INDCs submitted on 20th October 2015). The comments for Niger stand just as well for Guinea. The opening summary within the INDCs really tells the whole story:

"Background:
Population: 7.2 million (RGPH 1996)
Demographic growth rate: 3.1%/p.a. (RGPH 1996)
GHG emissions: 2.1 tonnes CO2eq/per capita in 1994
Guinea's share of global emissions: less than 0.1%
GDP growth: 3.9% in 2012 (PRSP-III)
Share of agriculture in GDP: 20.1% in 2014 (World Bank)
Poverty rate: 55.2% in 2012 (PRSP-III)

Year of reference: 1994
Commitment period: 2016-2030
Contribution conditional upon international support.
Sectors concerned: Agriculture, forestry, energy, water resources, coastal zone, livestock, fisheries and mines
Estimated level of mitigation: -13% greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2030 as compared to 1994 (Initial National Communication of the Republic of Guinea), excluding Land-Use Change and Forestry (LUCF)

Estimated funding needs:
Adaptation: up to US$1.7 billion over the period
Mitigation: at least US$6.5 billion over the period for the energy sector alone "

Again, given their problems, one might ask why they have any concern about GHG emissions at all (the answe, of course, is money):

"Coming 178th (out of 187 countries) on the Human Development Index, the Republic of Guinea suffers from severe structural vulnerabilities, despite recent progress. The national poverty rate stood at 55.2% in 2012, meaning that 6.2 million Guineans were living below the poverty line. Around one child in every three was suffering from malnutrition in 2012. In short, few Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are likely to be reached in 2015. Nevertheless, against a background of strong demographic growth (with the population doubling every 25 years), there is an urgent need to speed up and diversify economic growth to meet the present social challenges whilst not placing undue constraints on future generations.
Sustainable development is therefore still a priority if the vital needs of the Guinean population are to be addressed. Moreover, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Republic of Guinea are well below the global average."

Their GHG emissions are minuscule, but forecast to double or thereabouts in short order:

"Guinea must now face up to two major challenges: lifting its people out of poverty and ensuring the country's food security – with a population growing at 3% per year and expected to reach 18 – 20 million in 2030. Its ambition is also to move from the status of Least Developed Country (LDC) to that of Emerging Country by 2030, which means that GDP must grow by 5-7% per year. Bearing in mind these aims and population growth, Guinea's energy needs may well double in the space of 20 years. Consequently, assuming that practices and systems remain unchanged, the estimated annual emissions growth rate is +4.4%, i.e. slightly more than doubling every 20 years."

All of which makes their emissions target quite impressive, but rather unnecessary given their current low level. It will, of course, cost a lot of money.

Oman next (INDCs submitted on 19th October 2015). Oman represents a very different end of the spectrum from the poor countries with low GHG emissions we have just looked at.

As we know, under international rules, GHG emissions are held against the countries burning oil, not those which produced and exported it. So, Oman's oil doesn't count against it, and it can export as much as it likes with impunity, in these terms. (It has only recently dawned on me that this is the trick the SNP are playing with their oil-based "green economy" in Scotland).

But even looking at their GHG emissions as attributed to Oman, the INDCs amount to virtually nothing, and are exceptionally brief.

"Oman will control its expected GHG emissions growth by 2o/o to be 88714 Gg during the period from 2020 - 2030 as depicted in the following chart."

NB That is not a reduction of 2% in GHG emissions. That is a control of expected growth, by 2%. It still represents real growth of c 10% over the INDCs period. They are well and truly telling the world they have no intention of playing. But at least they're not asking for money.

Antigua and Barbuda next (INDCs submitted on 19th October 2013).

"Antigua and Barbuda’s emissions are negligible in a global context (less than 0.002%)" so one might wonder why they are interested in reducing their GHG emissions. But then we learn:

"Without any known fossil fuel resources, Antigua and Barbuda relies almost exclusively on imported fossil fuels for energy: heavy fuel oil in electricity generation; gasoline and diesel in transport; and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking. This has resulted in relatively high emissions and extremely high fuel costs. In 2006, Antigua and Barbuda’s national emissions totaled 945.5 Gg CO2, of which 92% were derived from fuel combustion in the energy sector.
In addition, the cost of fossil fuel imports, valued at US $165.4 million in 2013, or equivalent to 13.7% of the country’s GDP, is a financial burden on the country’s economy. The cost of electricity has risen to over US $0.40 per kWh,and consumers in Antigua and Barbuda pay among the highest electricity prices in the world. High electricity rates inhibit adaptation strategies, such as energy intensive seawater desalination; the provision of essential services; small businesses and low- and middle-income households; and economic growth."

"“By 2030 Antigua and Barbuda will meet the needs of the present generation while safeguarding the environment and enabling future generations to meet their own energy needs. All citizens and residents will have access to affordable, efficient, socially responsible and reliable forms of energy”. This strategic plan proposes to exploit local energy resources and reduce fossil fuel dependence."

An excellent plan, especially if someone else pays for it:

"The cost of implementing the adaptation targets is estimated at approximately $20M USD per year for the next ten years, and the cost of implementing the mitigation targets is estimated at approximately $220M USD, however these figures require further analysis."

Not a huge amount of money in the scheme of things, but taken across dozens of small countries, it all adds up. However, the GHG emissions reductions don't add up. The starting point is GHG emissions of "less than 0.002%" of those globally. The commitment in respect of that minuscule contribution is vague:

"Contributions will reduce GHG emissions in the energy sector, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, reduce the cost of energy and help alleviate poverty through increasing access to affordable and sustainable energy".

Still, someone else will have paid to reduce their energy costs and make them better off, so what's not to like?

Afghanistan next (INDCs submitted on 13th October 2013).

Again, one might have thought that this was a country with rather more to worry about than their GHG emissions, especially since any commitments they make will be difficult to implement, given that the government does not control large swathes of the country.

Given that, I don't think there's much need to analyse in depth. The summary provided helpfully does the job for us. It's about extracting international funds:

"Financial Needs: Total: USD 17.405 billion
 Adaptation: USD 10.785 billion
 Mitigation: USD 6.62 billion (2020-2030)"

The offer is modest:

"There will be a 13.6% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a business as usual (BAU) 2030 scenario, conditional on external support." This is based on a 2020 starting year. You could argue that it doesn't matter anyway, given that:

"Afghanistan has very low relative per capita GHG emissions. While 1990 emissions were at 0.2 metric tons CO2 per capita, data indicates that per capita emissions were around 0.3 for 2010, making Afghanistan one of the lowest GHG emitters globally".

But "the country is on a growth path, which is expected to strengthen over the coming years [questionable, given the state of the country, one might have thought], meaning GHG emissions are likely to increase. It is important that support be provided to Afghanistan to develop LEDS to minimize the increase in its GHG emissions" [therefore send us money].

It seems fairly clear in the circumstances that the projections can only be rough estimates, but even after spending almost $17.5Bn over a 10 year period, there is no commitment to absolute emissions reductions, only relative reductions on a business as usual basis.

Mark. Regarding less developed countries (preferred nomenclature because many of them are NOT developing): the stated and unstated aims of the UN are to equalize the great differences between developed and less developed countries. Climate change was seized upon as a vehicle to achieve this and the Paris accords are simply a mechanism for achieving it. What is interesting is the diversity of approaches adopted by different countries - for some their submissions are seemingly reasonable (but still won't achieve the reduction in CO2 emissions sought) whereas for others the exercise is a naked money grab accompanied by laying the blame elsewhere. Do these countries really expect to get any money at all?

Supertroll and Ravising Rattie, thank you for your input. The more I read of the INDCs, the more it seems obvious to me that you are absolutely right in this statement:

"...the stated and unstated aims of the UN are to equalize the great differences between developed and less developed countries. Climate change was seized upon as a vehicle to achieve this and the Paris accords are simply a mechanism for achieving it."

Perhaps I should have looked and commented in more detail regarding the precise proposals of each country, but an already time-consuming job would then have become unmanageable for an amateur like me. I have been struck by how sensible and thoughtful some of the proposals are, and how bonkers or wildly optimistic are some of the others. They're all worth a read if you can find the time. The common theme is the desire for international finance, and the making of the necessary noise about climate change to try to unlock the manage money tree. I genuinely had no real idea about this before I started. I'm glad I've taken the time to look.

The other common theme so far is the paying of lip service to all this by the middle eastern oil producers, who really seem not to care less!

Ecuador next (INDCs submitted on 13th October 2015).

A moment ago I commented "The common theme is the desire for international finance, and the making of the necessary noise about climate change to try to unlock the manage money tree." Ecuador play this game in fine style:

"Climate Change is one of the greatest challenges faced by humankind and represents an irreversible threat to societies and the planet as a whole. This is why urgent global action is required to address its effects. It remains clear to Ecuador
that the urgency of this phenomenon requires the widest global cooperation, in line with the norms, objective and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and, in particular, the principle of
common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as well as the continuous and sustained implementation of the commitments derived from the Convention."

They're a small player, but they're talking big:

"According to the national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sectors, Ecuador’s emissions in 2010 were 71.8 million t/CO2eq. These numbers are relatively low when compared to global emissions of 49 billion t/CO2eq, making Ecuador’s emissions approximately 0.15% of the world’s emissions. Out of this total, the Energy (50%) and AFOLU (43%) (Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Uses) sectors are the largest contributors to the country’s emissions."

We are told "Emission reduction projections have been carried out through the LEAP (Longrange Energy Alternatives Planning Systems) software, taking into account population and GDP projected growth and establishing a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario, which constitutes the baseline of the emission reductions expected by Ecuador’s policies. This BAU scenario makes projections and comprises the period between 2011 and 2025."

Unfortunately we are not told to what extent BAU emissions, without mitigation, would increase over current emissions, therefore the plans versus BAU do not enable us to assess whether or not they consist of real reductions, or only reductions -v- BAU:

"Ecuador intends to reduce its emissions in the energy sector in 20.4-25% below the BAU scenario. However, a potential for reducing emissions even further in the energy sector, to a level between 37.5 and 45.8% with respect to the BAU baseline has also been calculated. This potential could be harnessed in light of the appropriate circumstances in terms of availability of resources and support offered by the international community. This is a second scenario dependent upon international support and will translate into a per capita emissions reduction in 2025 of 40% below the BAU levels."

Whilst we do get quite a lot of detail about some of their plans, the crucial areas - how much will they reduce emissions and at what cost? - are regrettably vague.