{"id":235641,"date":"2025-05-11T01:35:42","date_gmt":"2025-05-11T01:35:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/should-negative-emissions-count-toward-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs-under-the-paris-agreement-pros-and-cons-considering-early-submissions-in-the-third-round-of-ndcs\/"},"modified":"2025-05-11T01:35:42","modified_gmt":"2025-05-11T01:35:42","slug":"should-negative-emissions-count-toward-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs-under-the-paris-agreement-pros-and-cons-considering-early-submissions-in-the-third-round-of-ndcs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=235641","title":{"rendered":"Should Negative Emissions Count Toward Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement? Pros and Cons Considering Early Submissions in the Third Round of NDCs"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n

\u00a9 Image by Billy Joachim<\/a> from UnSplash<\/p>\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThis round of NDCs [Nationally Determined Contributions] is a make or break for [\u2026] safeguarding the future for people and our planet.\u201d<\/a> As stated by the United Nations, this year marks a crucial point in global climate action as countries prepare to submit their third NDCs<\/a> for ambitions until 2035. NDCs<\/a> are documents submitted by all parties to the Paris Agreement<\/a>, which reflect countries\u2019 national efforts to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate impacts.<\/p>\n

The Paris Agreement sets the goal of keeping the global average temperature \u201cwell below 2\u00b0C\u201d<\/a> while striving to limit it to 1.5\u00b0C (Article 2)<\/a>. This is to be achieved through countries\u2019 NDCs, which must represent a progression<\/a> and reflect their \u201chighest possible ambition\u201d (Article 4(3)<\/a>).<\/p>\n

To meet these targets, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) may play a supporting role. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explains<\/a>, CDRs are \u201ctechnologies, practices, and approaches that remove and durably store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.\u201d While CDR cannot replace ambitious emission reductions, it is part of every scenario<\/a> of assessments of the IPCC for limiting temperature rise<\/a> to 2\u00b0C or lower by 2100. CDR can be employed on land (e.g., afforestation<\/a>, enhanced rock weathering<\/a>) or in the ocean (e.g., Blue Carbon Management<\/a>, ocean alkalinity enhancement<\/a>, ocean fertilization<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Article 4(1)<\/a> of the Paris Agreement aims \u201cto achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases.\u201d There is general agreement<\/a> among scholars<\/a> that this definition \u2013 particularly when compared to other treaty translations \u2013 encompasses CDR. Yet, how exactly this inclusion is to be interpreted and implemented is unclear<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here an issue arises: if mitigation encompasses CDR and if the Paris Agreement requires progressively ambitious NDCs, will countries now increasingly rely on CDR to demonstrate progress? Drawing on the first 2025 NDC submissions and other recent developments, this blog post explores answers to a key question:\u00a0Should<\/em> countries be allowed to include CDR in their NDCs under the Paris Agreement?<\/strong>\u00a0While some actors and scholars view CDR as essential for offsetting hard-to-abate emissions<\/a> and achieving net-zero<\/a> targets, others warn<\/a> it could delay urgent emissions reductions. The state practice on this is thin, as explored in the following.<\/p>\n

Status Quo: Third Round of NDCs<\/strong><\/p>\n

CDR was not explicitly mentioned<\/a> in the first two NDC rounds. However, this time around, it is starting to show up. So far (as at end of April 2025), 20 states<\/a> have submitted their 2025 NDCs, as per the list below (in order of submissions made, starting from the most recent). <\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
Countries\u2019 Submissions for the Third Round of NDCs (2025-2035), with those referencing CDR in italics<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Kenya
2. Zambia (provisional)
3. Cuba
4. Maldives
5. Montenegro
6. Japan
7. Canada<\/em>
8. Saint Lucia
9. Zimbabwe
10. Marshall Islands<\/em>
11. Singapore
12. Ecuador
13. Andorra
14. New Zealand
15. United Kingdom (UK)<\/em>
16. Switzerland
17. Uruguay
18. United States of America (US)<\/em>
19. Brazil
20. United Arab Emirates (UAE)<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

Let\u2019s take a closer look. Canada<\/a> outlines that it wants to explore CDR options to reach their net-zero targets. However, it also acknowledges the risk of CDR to undermine other emission reductions and has, therefore, set in place a Carbon Management Strategy<\/a>. Japan<\/a> plans to achieve GHG reduction partly through decarbonization technologies. Zimbabwe<\/a> states that forest restoration will be key to their GHG removal. The Marshall Islands<\/a> plan to \u201caccelerate zero- and low-emission technologies\u201d while particularly mentioning removal technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).<\/a> The UK<\/a> declares to include \u201cengineered\u201d GHG removals in the future. The US<\/a> announced it would \u201ctake advantage of carbon capture technologies.\u201d The UAE<\/a> dedicates a large part of their NDCs to negative emissions, outlining plans to use both nature-based solutions, including mangrove afforestation or protecting and restoring seagrass meadows, as well as engineering-based methods for CO2<\/sub> removal. The latter includes plans for microalgae cultivation, CCS, geological storage, and direct air capture<\/a> for CO\u2082 injection into saline aquifers<\/a> for permanent storage.<\/p>\n

By contrast, Montenegro<\/a>, Zambia<\/a>, and the Maldives<\/a> do not spend a single word on CDR-related methods. They simply state that emissions and removals will be estimated using the 2006 IPCC Guidelines<\/a> without specifying the types of removals included.\u00a0Only St Lucia<\/a> refers to carbon removals from forests and the US from soil carbon<\/a>, without mentioning actual CDR measures.<\/p>\n

Among the third-round NDCs that have been analyzed, Canada<\/a> and the UAE<\/a> \u2013 both high-emitting countries<\/a> \u2013 devote by far the most attention to CDR. Notably, Canada is the only country to explicitly use the term \u201cCDR\u201d and acknowledge its risks, while others rely on vague wording. As these are the first 2025 submissions, other countries may follow their lead on (not) addressing CDR in future NDCs.<\/p>\n

To conclude, the Paris Agreement\u2019s implicit reference to CDR offers no guidance on how, or which, CDR technologies should be deployed, instead it raises unresolved question about legal and practical implications. However, evolving state practice may prove decisive in shaping how CDR is incorporated into future NDCs under the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n

Arguments in Favor of Allowing Negative Emissions in NDCs<\/strong><\/p>\n

In light of states already including CDR in their NDCs, there are several policy arguments in favor of it.<\/p>\n