パリ協定下のNDCにおける最高可能野心のプロセスと根拠の評価
Assessing processes and evidence for highest possible ambition in Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement (原題)
Julia Katharina Schönfeld, Setu Pelz, Hamish Beath, Joeri Rogelj
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
パリ協定はNDCが「最高可能野心（HPA）」を示すと定めるが、その解釈・評価方法は未定義である。本研究はUNFCCC報告義務やNDC合成報告、研究界の知見を基に、HPAを満たすNDCのプロセス・実施・提示・文書化に関する質的基準を提示する。定量目標ではなく、各国が厳格かつ根拠ある検討を行ったか、その根拠が検証可能かを評価する枠組みを提案し、最新のNDC提出例で実証する。
English
The Paris Agreement requires NDCs to reflect 'highest possible ambition' (HPA) but offers no guidance on assessing it. Building on UNFCCC reporting obligations, NDC synthesis reports, and research best practice, this paper sets out qualitative benchmarks for the process, conduct, presentation, and documentation of HPA-consistent NDCs. It deliberately avoids quantified target benchmarks, instead assessing whether Parties undertook rigorous, reasoned, and transparent processes, illustrated with examples from the latest NDC submissions.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本もNDC提出国として、野心の根拠説明・透明性が問われる段階に入る。SSBJや有報での気候関連開示と同様、『なぜその目標か』の説明責任が投資家・政策対話で重要になる。
In the global GX context
As the global stocktake and next NDC cycle intensify scrutiny of ambition, this work offers a transparency-oriented assessment lens that complements ISSB/TCFD disclosure logic and supports accountability in transition planning.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:NDC野心評価の質的枠組みを構築する際の基準設計に活用できる。
🏢実務担当者:自社の気候目標設定プロセスの根拠と透明性を点検する際の参照枠になる。
🏛政策担当者:NDC策定・審査における説明責任と透明性の実務基準として参考になる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract The Paris Agreement establishes that Parties’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will represent a progression, a country’s highest possible ambition (HPA), and an equitable contribution to the collective long-term temperature goal. However, the agreement provides no guidance on how the HPA standard should be interpreted, assessed, or operationalised in practice. In response to this gap, initial scholarship has proposed frameworks to interpret HPA based on the treaty’s text and the wider international environmental law context, which includes the 2025 Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change from the International Court of Justice. Altogether, this has clarified how HPA is part of states’ due diligence obligations and sets the stage for the next challenge: how can the theoretical understanding of HPA be practically applied to assess whether NDCs reflect this norm? Here, we build on existing reporting obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), emerging approaches reflected in the UNFCCC NDC synthesis report, and best practices from the research community. We describe expectations for the process, conduct, presentation, and documentation of NDCs of HPA. These expectations provide qualitative benchmarks and criteria for assessing whether Parties have undertaken a rigorous and reasoned process to identify their highest possible mitigation efforts, and whether the evidence provided is sufficient to make that reasoning open to scrutiny. This promotes transparency and consistency in the formulation and assessment of NDCs, whilst intentionally not assessing targets against quantified mitigation benchmarks. Finally, the proposed expectations are contextualised and illustrated with examples from the latest round of NDC submissions. This practical translation of theoretical obligations can serve as a starting point for a deeper policy conversation on how HPA of NDCs can be evidenced, assessed or challenged.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aeb55ffirst seen 2026-11-04 04:41:58 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:36:49
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。