Examples of using Indcs in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The INDCs SAINT LUCIA.
The EU andthe US said a dialogue would inform the next round of INDCs.
INDCs Trinidad and Tobago.
On the synthesis report of the aggregate effect of the INDCs, parties decided to take note of the document.
The US opposed including INDCs in annexes, indicating that another format will be more appropriate for 195 diverse INDCs.
Parties added brackets around a paragraph related to requesting the Secretariat to publish INDCs on its website.
Welcomes the INDCs that have been communicated by parties;
The EU identified the elements text, rather than the decision on INDCs, as“the right place” to address climate finance.
Invites all parties to consider communicating their undertakings in adaptation planning orconsider including an adaptation component in their INDCs;
Domestic mitigation, finance, and adaptation efforts;intended nationally determined contributions(INDCs); and a binding and effective treaty in Paris 2015.
Japan proposed deleting the paragraph, opposed by the African Group and Mexico,who underscored lack of agreement on the scope of INDCs.
Identifying INDCs as the“vehicle” for mitigation, the UK called for other approaches to address adaptation and finance, and urged agreement on an assessment phase.
Tuvalu, for the LDCs, supported by the EU, suggested reference to Paragraph 11(a)of the draft text(communication of INDCs' mitigation component).
NORWAY called for: a clear focus on mitigation in INDCs; a process to consider the overall effect of contributions; and gender equality in climate action.
It elaborated the elements of a draft negotiating text and the process for submitting andsynthesizing intended nationally determined contributions(INDCs), while also addressing pre-2020 ambition.
SWITZERLAND encouraged all parties to engage in the INDCs process, and called for an equitable approach that builds on evolving circumstances and responsibilities.
Saudi Arabia, for the LMDCs, characterized adaptation efforts as actions or contributions,and underscored the links between intended nationally determined contributions(INDCs) and MOI.
Sudan, for the African Group, stated that INDCs and elements of the 2015 agreement are aspects of the same mandate, expressing concern over the presentation of two separate documents.
The second goal was to agree on the terms under which countries will devise their national commitments- officially,their“intended nationally determined contributions”(INDCs)- in 2015. Here, the compromises were sharply felt.
This concern left Africancountries calling for a single decision in Lima on INDCs and the elements of the 2015 agreement, rather than addressing these pillars in separate decisions.
BRAZIL said INDCs: should not be interpreted as“an expectation of legal terms”; opposed self-differentiation; and, with Sudan, for the AFRICAN GROUP, requested that reference to equity be made.
SOUTH AFRICA called for strengtheningparagraphs dealing with“assurances” in relation to the link between INDCs and the elements of the agreement, and the balance of support for mitigation and adaptation.
On clarifying information provided in the INDCs, after discussions on the paragraph's purpose and its intended outcome, Co-Chair Reifsnyder invited parties to propose modified language to be taken up at a later stage.
At the same meeting, the Co-Chairs underlined the need to continue and possibly finalize the work on the text of a draft decision identifying the information that Parties will provide when putting forward their INDCs. They also stressed the importance of reaching an understanding on the scope of INDCs and on the steps or process that will follow the communication of the INDCs.
On paragraphs 7-12(context for preparation of INDCs), NEW ZEALAND said that, when reporting on INDCs, parties should quantify expected emission outcomes, levels of effort and accounting methodologies in the land sector.
Developing countries wanted the INDCs to include plans for adaptation to climate change as well as emissions cuts, and they wanted developed countries to include financial support for poorer countries. Instead, no commitments to new money were made, and the inclusion of adaptation plans will be optional, not compulsory.
Noting that intended nationally determined contributions, or INDCs, constituted one way for countries to tackle environmental issues based on their national circumstances, he suggested that INDCs could be applied to HFC phase-out.
However, by stating that INDCs“may include, as appropriate, inter alia,” these various aspects, the text fails to set a minimum level of common types of information to be communicated by all parties, thus significantly weakening the prospects of comparability across, and a meaningful aggregation of, contributions.
He identified five issues that needed to be resolved: the scope of INDCs; upfront information for INDCs; actions following INDCs' submission; implementation of existing commitments to build confidence; and how to reflect elements in the decision.
On support for preparation and communication of INDCs, parties exchanged views on calling on“parties with economies in transition in a position to do so” to provide support but decided to keep the text as it is, given divergent views.
