Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2021

2021

RESULTS Jan Burck Ursula Hagen Climate Mitigation Efforts of 57 Countries Christoph Bals plus the EU. Covering 90% of the Global Niklas Höhne Leonardo Nascimento Greenhouse Gas Emissions CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

Imprint Foreword

Germanwatch – Bonn Office Authors: Kaiserstr. 201 Jan Burck, Ursula Hagen, Christoph Bals, Informing the process of raising climate ambition D-53113 Bonn, Germany Niklas Höhne, Leonardo Nascimento, Tasneem Essop, Ph.: +49 (0) 228 60492-0 Sophia Binz, Violeta Helling, Björk Lucas Published annually since 2005, the Climate Change sions than were predicted for 2030. Alternatively, the tril- Fax: +49 (0) 228 60492-19 Performance Index (CCPI) is an independent monitor - lions made available worldwide could be used for green With support of: Germanwatch – Berlin Office Pieter van Breen voort, Luisa Hübschen, Ritika Tewari, ing tool for tracking countries’ climate protection perfor- alternatives, which could not only reduce emissions in Stresemannstr. 72 Carmen Álvarez Campo, Luke Sherman mance. It aims to enhance transparency in international the long run but also boost the economy. It remains to D-10963 Berlin, Germany climate politics and enables comparison of climate pro- be seen, which path countries will choose. During the Editing: Ph.: +49 (0) 30 28 88 356-0 Adam Goulston, Janina Longwitz tection efforts and progress made by individual countries. last quarter of the year, several major economies have Fax: +49 (0) 30 28 88 356-1 pledged to increase their climate ambitions for reaching Maps: E-mail: [email protected] The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting need for eco- net-zero GHG emissions. Hopefully, this development will Made by 23° www.germanwatch.org nomic recovery have brought the world to a crossroads: bring a ripple-effect among countries, sparking much- Design: A return to the status quo and a bail-out of fossil fuels needed commitment to our common goal of limiting global Dietmar Putscher could lead to even higher Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emis- warming to 1.5°C. Coverphoto: GPA Photo Archive (CC BY-NC 2.0) (Photo by Dennis Schroeder / NREL)

December 2020 NewClimate Institute – Cologne Office Waidmarkt 11a You can find this publication as well D-50676 Cologne, Germany as interactive maps and tables at Ph.: +49 (0) 221 99983300 www.ccpi.org NewClimate Institute – Berlin Office Schönhauser Allee 10-11 D-10119 Berlin, Germany Ph.: +49 (0) 030 208492742

Jan Burck Ursula Hagen Christoph Bals (Germanwatch) (Germanwatch) (Germanwatch)

CAN Climate Action Network International Contents Rmayl, Nahr Street Jaara Building, 4th floor P.O.Box: 14-5472 Foreword 3 Beirut, Lebanon Ph.: +961 1 447192 1. About the CCPI 4

2 . Overall Results CCPI 2021 6 2.1 Category Results – GHG Emissions 8

2.2 Category Results – Renewable Energy 10 Niklas Höhne Leonardo Nascimento Tasneem Essop 2.3 Category Results – Energy Use 12 (NewClimate Institute) (NewClimate Institute) (Climate Action Network International) 2.4 Category Results – Climate Policy 14

3. CCPI stocktake of the COVID-19 low-carbon economic recovery 16

4. Endnotes 20 Authors and acknowledgements

Annex 21 The Index is published by Germanwatch, NewClimate through the continued support and contributions of around Institute and the Climate Action Network. The CCPI’s unique 400 climate and energy experts. We express our gratitude climate policy section, evaluating countries’ national and to these experts and greatly appreciate their time, efforts international climate policy performance, is only possible and knowledge in contributing to this publication.* With the support of South Pole

* A full list of contributors to the climate policy evaluation can be found in the Annex of this publication. With financial support from the Barthel Foundation

2 3 CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

1. About the CCPI Components of the CCPI

Country coverage: covering more than 90% Compatibility of countries’ performance with of global GHG emissions well-below-2°C pathway and NDC analysis International Climate Policy Current Level of GHG Emissions 10% 10% per Capita On the basis of standardised criteria, the CCPI currently In 2017, the methodology of the CCPI was revised to fully evaluates and compares the climate protection perfor- incorporate the 2015 Paris Agreement, a milestone in inter- National Climate Policy Past Trend of GHG Emissions 10% 10% per Capita mance of 57 countries and of the European Union (EU), national climate negotiations with the goal to limit global 20% TPES/Capita 2030 Target which are together responsible for more than 90% of global warming to well below 2°C or even to 1.5°C. Since then, Climate compared to a well-below-2°C Policy 40% greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The last country to be the CCPI includes an assessment of the well-below 2°C compatible pathway 5% GHG Current Level of GHG Emissions added was Chile for the CCPI 2020. compatibility of countries’ current performances and their per Capita compared to a well- Current Level of TPES/Capita 20% Emissions 10% own targets (as formulated in their Nationally Determined compared to a well-below-2°C 5% Energy below-2°C compatible pathway Contributions, or NDCs). Within the quantitative index cate- Use Methodological approach and data sources compatible pathway 20% gories – “GHG Emissions”, “Renewable Energy” and “Energy 5% Renewable Past Trend of TPES/Capita The CCPI assesses countries’ performance in four Use” – current performance and the respective 2030 target Energy 10% GHG Emissions Reduction categories: are evaluated in relation to their country-specific well- 5% 2030 Target compared to a well- Current Level of Energy Use below-2°C compatible pathway below-2°C pathway. For the well-below-2°C pathways, (TPES/Capita) 5% 5% 5% 5% ambitious benchmarks are set for each category, guided “GHG Emissions” (40% of overall score), Renewable Energy 2030 Target compared Current Share of Renewables per TPES by the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. The three to a well-below-2°C compatible pathway “Renewable Energy” (20% of overall score), benchmarks are: nearly zero GHG emissions (taking into account country-specific pathways, which give develop- Current Share of Renewables per TPES compared Development of Energy Supply to a well-below-2°C compatible pathway from Renewable Energy Sources ing countries more time to reach this goal); 100% energy “Energy Use” (20% of overall score) and from renewable sources; and keeping to today’s average

global energy use per capita levels and not increasing GHG = Greenhouse Gases | TPES = Total Primary Energy Supply © Germanwatch 2020 “Climate Policy” (20% of overall score). beyond. The CCPI compares where countries actually are today with where they should be to meet the ambitious Aiming to provide a comprehensive and balanced evalua- benchmarks. Following a similar logic, the CCPI evaluates tion of the diverse countries evaluated, a total of 14 indi- the countries’ own 2030 targets by comparing these to the cators are taken into account (see figure below). Around same benchmarks. Disclaimer on comparability to previous CCPI editions 80% of the assessment of countries’ performance is The CCPI 2021 (for 57 selected countries and the EU) is 2018. However, this year’s results are comparable to the based on quantitative data taken from the International Interpretation of results based on the methodological design introduced in 2017 CCPI G20 Edition as well as to the CCPI 2018 to CCPI 2020. Energy Agency (IEA), PRIMAP, the Food and Agriculture covering all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions* and evalu- Please note that there have been slight methodological In interpreting the results, it is important to note that the Organization (FAO) and the national GHG inventories (sub- ates the 2030 targets and the well-below-2°C compatibil- changes compared to last year’s edition. In the categories 1 CCPI is calculated using production-based emissions only. mitted to the UNFCCC). The categories “GHG Emissions”, ity of countries' current levels and targets in the categories “GHG emissions” and “Energy Use” the 2030 target indica- Thereby the CCPI follows the currently prevailing method “Renewable Energy” and “Energy Use” are each defined by “GHG Emissions”, “Renewable Energies” and “Energy Use”. tors are now calculated using an absolute difference to the 2 of accounting for national emissions and the logic that four indicators: (1) Current Level; (2) Past Trend; (3) well- Therefore, there is only limited comparability between this 2°C-pathway rather than a relative difference. the nation producing the emissions is also the one held below 2°C Compatibility of the Current Level; and (4) well- year’s results and versions of the index prior to the CCPI below 2°C Compatibility of the Countries’ 2030 Target. The accountable for them. Further, it is important to note that remaining 20% of the assessment is based on the glob- more than half of the CCPI ranking indicators are quali- ally unique climate policy section of the CCPI. The index fied in relative terms (better/worse) rather than absolute. Disclaimer – Data from before Covid-19 category “Climate Policy” considers the fact that climate Therefore even those countries with high rankings have no protection measures taken by governments often take sev- reason to sit back and relax. On the contrary, the results The CCPI 2021 uses data from 2018 and thus does not take this survey, please see the blog on Covid 19 and Green eral years to have an effect on the emissions, renewable illustrate that even if all countries were as committed as into account the most recent developments and effects Recovery on our website (www.ccpi.org) where you can energy and energy use indicators. This category thereby the current frontrunners, efforts would still not be sufficient caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, some find further information on the impact of the crisis and the covers the most recent developments in national climate to prevent dangerous climate change. questions on the Covid-19 recovery were included in the recovery from it. policy frameworks, which are otherwise not projected in expert survey on climate policy. Regarding the results from the quantitative data. This category’s indicators are (1) National Climate Policy and (2) International Climate Policy,  Disclaimer on maps and the qualitative data for these is assessed annually in a More detailed information on the CCPI methodology and its calculation can be found in the “Background comprehensive research study. Its basis is the performance The depictions of territorial boundaries on maps displayed We apologize if any names used/borders depicted are in and Methodology” brochure, available for download rating provided by climate and energy policy experts from in the CCPI do not imply a political opinion or judgement on conflict with your national identity or your general beliefs. at: www.ccpi.org non-governmental organisations (NGOs), universities and the legal status of any state territory. We would like to point out that the CCPI, focusing solely on think tanks within the countries that are evaluated.3 The state boundaries shown are aligned with the official the global goal of climate protection, in no way intends to stance of the United Nations (UN) on said matter. spark geopolitical controversy.

* All Kyoto gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFKW, PFKW and SF6) including the emissions coming from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

4 5 CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

2. Overall Results CCPI 2021 Climate Change Performance Index – Rating table Rank Country Score** Categories

1.* – – – 2. – – – 3. – – – 4. – Sweden 74.42 5. ▲ United Kingdom 69.66 6. ▼ Denmark 69.42 7. ▼ Morocco 67.59 8. ▲ Norway 65.45 Rating 9. ▲ Chile 64.05 10. ▼ India 63.98 Very High 11. ▼ Finland 62.63 High 12. ▲ Malta 62.21 13. ▲ Latvia 61.88 Medium 14. ▲ Switzerland 60.85

Low 2020 © Germanwatch 15. ▼ Lithuania 58.03 Very Low 16. ▲ European Union (28) 57.29 17. ▲ Portugal 56.80 Not included in assessment 18. ▲ Croatia 56.69 19. ▲ Germany 56.39 20. ▼ Ukraine 55.48 21. ▼ Luxembourg 55.23 22. ▼ Egypt 54.33 23. ▼ France 53.72 24. ▲ Indonesia 53.59 25. ▼ Brazil 53.26 Key results overall rating: Still no country made 26. ▲ Thailand 53.18 27. ▼ Italy 53.05 it to the top three ranks 28. ▲ New Zealand 51.30 The world map shows the aggregated results and overall 29. – Netherlands 50.96 performance of evaluated countries. The table shows the 30. ▼ Romania 50.33 31. ▼ Slovak Republic 49.51 overall ranking and indicates how the countries perform 32. – Mexico 48.76 in the different index categories. Headline results include: 33. ▼ China 48.18

â No country performs well enough in all index catego- 2020 © Germanwatch 34. ▼ Greece 48.11 35. ▲ Austria 48.09 ries to achieve an overall very high rating in the index. 36. ▲ Belarus 47.27 Therefore, once again the first three ranks of the overall The following sub-chapters take a closer look at the results 37. ▼ South Africa 46.13 Rating ranking remain empty. 38. ▼ Estonia 46.01 for the index categories: 39. ▲ Ireland 45.47 Very High â G20 performance: From the G20 countries, this year, GHG Emissions (2.1), Renewable Energy (2.2), 40. ▼ Belgium 45.11 High only the EU as a whole, along with the UK and India, Energy Use (2.3) and Climate Policy (2.4). 41. ▼ Spain 45.02 Medium rank among high performers while six G20 countries 42. ▲ Turkey 43.47 rank under very low performers. 43. ▲ Algeria 43.27 Low 44. ▲ Bulgaria 42.64 â EU performance: Hungary and Slovenia supersede Very Low 45. ▲ Japan 42.49 Poland as the worst performing EU country in this 46. ▼ Argentina 40.48 year’s index, all of them ranked as very low performers. 47. ▼ Czech Republic 38.98 Seven EU countries (excluding the UK) and the EU as 48. ▲ Poland 38.94 Index Categories a whole rank under high performers this year. The EU 49. ▼ Cyprus 38.73 50. ▼ Hungary 38.22 GHG Emissions regains six places. (40% weighting) 51. ▼ Slovenia 37.02 52. – Russian Federation 30.34 Renewable Energy (20% weighting) 53. ▲ Korea 29.76 Energy Use 54. ▲ Australia 28.82 (20% weighting) 55. ▼ Kazakhstan 28.04 Climate Policy 56. ▼ Malaysia 27.76 (20% weighting) 57. ▲ Chinese Taipei 27.11 58. ▼ Canada 24.82 59. ▼ Islamic Republic of Iran 24.58 60. – Saudi Arabia 22.46 61. – United States 19.75

* None of the countries achieved positions one to three. No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change. © Germanwatch 2020 ** rounded

6 7 CCPI • Results 2021 • Results CCPI * Greenhouse Gas Emissions â performance:G20 four the Emissionsindicatorscategory.GHGdefining the in CCPI the in listed countries all of performance the on information detailed provides right the on table The rating Emissions GHG results: Key rate. year’s this by decline to to continue need would emissions world 1.5°C, For are. recoveries countries’ green how on depends years coming the over continue will movement emissions this Whether pandemic. the of waves successive considering not year, the de for cline worldwide 4%-7% a suggest 2020 May from Studies emissions. GHG global in decrease 8.8% drastic a brought 2020 of half first the crisis, COVID-19 tothe Owing declining are emissions Global effects: COVID-19 – developments Key Emissions: GHG Rating the largest half-year decrease in emissions ever recorded. recorded. ever emissions in decrease half-year largest the

well-below 2°C compatibility.well-below2°C rated level, low comparatively a at stay emissions capita per trends, growth largest the of one has India Although Kingdom. United the and India two year’s last joins France only while category Emissions GHG the in cators No country’s performance is rated rated is performance country’s No inassessment Not included Low Very Low Medium High 2.1CategoryResults – GHG

high efrig 2 countries G20 performing very high very 5

ey high very for all indi for all o their for 4 This is This - - 8 â â â EU performance: performance: EU © Germanwatch 2020

tries, all with an overall overall an with all tries, coun EU performing worst the are Estonia Cyprus, and Ireland UK). the (excluding rating Emissions GHG Emissionscategory.GHG the in As last year, the EU is rated medium rated year, EU is the last As rank. rank. last second the to last the from up moved has member G20 performing worst the Arabia, Saudi countries. ing as rank countries G20 the of Eight Five EU countries rank as as rank countries EU Five Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch, * Emissions verylow high performers in this year’s rating in this category. category. this in rating for its performance performance its for ey low very perform - - © Germanwatch 2020 * unweighted and rounded ** Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 2021 • Results CCPI Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Rating table Rating – Emissions Gas Greenhouse Rank 44. 43. 48. 34. 46. 49. 40. 33. 38. 45. 36. 39. 30. 50. 35. 42. 60. 32. 54. 24. 23. 28. 26. 53. 29. 58. 56. 20. 22. 59. 25. 55. 52. 47. 37. 31. 41. 27. 16. 14. 61. 18. 13. 19. 10. 57. 21. 15. 12. 51. 17. 11. 4. 8. 6. 9. 5. 7. Ireland Estonia China RussianFederation Poland Slovenia NewZealand Hungary CzechRepublic Bulgaria Japan Greece Netherlands Turkey South Africa Austria Latvia Belgium Spain Portugal Indonesia Lithuania Belarus Thailand Slovak Republic Algeria Italy Mexico Brazil European Union (28) Ukraine Finland Germany Romania Luxembourg France Croatia Kazakhstan Denmark India Saudi Arabia Chinese Taipei Switzerland Islamic Republic of Iran Norway Morocco Korea Malta Canada UnitedKingdom United States United Chile Egypt Malaysia Sweden Cyprus Australia Country Argentina Sc 20.43 23.34 33.00 20.33 20.40 20.39 20.48 24.38 24.99 23.45 23.66 28.39 24.24 22.93 28.53 29.66 29.35 26.32 28.26 20.47 25.42 20.75 15.94 18.06 22.77 24.74 10.44 21.39 20.31 20.31 21.96 16.55 18.65 21.86 18.55 16.47 14.95 24.41 29.01 19.27 20.19 23.19 33.15 15.37 32.16 31.77 22.15 15.70 17.23 17.57 11.02 16.17 ore* 8.34 8.00 2.84 5.98 9.87 7.92 Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very Low Very Rating Overall Very Low Very

Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Low Low Very Low Very High Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low High Very Low Very Medium High Very Low Very Low Very high Very Low Very Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very High Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High High Very Low Very Very high Low Very Low Very LULUCF)** (including level – current Capita per GHG Low

Low Low Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium High Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High High Medium Very Low Very High Medium Very Low Very Medium Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Low Low Medium Medium Low High Medium High High High Low High Medium Low Very Low Very High Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very Low Very high Medium Very high Medium Low Medium Medium High Very Low Very Medium LULUCF)** (excluding trend – current Capita per GHG Medium

Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch,

Low Low Low Medium Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Low Low Low Low Low High Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High Low Medium High High Medium High Very Low Very Medium Very high Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very high Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very high Very high Very Low Very High Very Low Very Low benchmark well-below-2°C a to – compared Capita per GHG Very Low Very

Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Very Low Very Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Very Low Very Very high Very high Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very high Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Very high Very high Very Low Very High Low Low benchmark well-below-2°C a to – compared Target 2030 GHG Very Low Very Low © Germanwatch 2020

CCPI • Results 2021 • Results CCPI  indicators category. four Energy Renewable the the in defining CCPI the in listed countries all of performance the on information detailed provides table The Keyresults:Renewable Energyrating chains. supply andlabour disrupted with to cope had sector the that, 2020.Despite in supply energy only primary of the share their the increasing sources were these market, electricity the accessing in lower to energydemandrenewablesand givenbeing anadvantage Owing sector. energy an renewable had the on crisis COVID-19 impact the emissions, GHG on did it As 2025. in expected is plants power gas natural or coal ing newinstalledrenewablesthanoperat cheaperis capacity where point tipping expected The world. the of parts most in 2020 in generation electricity new of sources cheapest the been also have power solar and Wind date. to growth annual largest the – gigawatts 200 over by grew capacity installed 2019, In expand. to continues energy Renewable COVID-19 from Renewableenergysourceonlyprofittothe RenewableEnergy:Key developments – Rating the Renewable Energy category. Since the energy sec energy the Since category. Energy Renewable the rated is country No renewableenergy. of deployment accelerated of means by mitigat emissions in ing improvement for room much is there indicate that rating Energy Renewable the of results the CO country’s a to greatly contributes tor inassessment Not included Low Very Low Medium High 2.2 2.2 CategoryResults – Renewable Energy very high very 7 for all indicatorsforalldefining 2 emissions, emissions, 6 - - -

10     performance: G20 EU performance: performance: EU © Germanwatch 2020 Eleven of the G20 countries are rated rated are countries G20 the of Eleven Of the 18 countries rated rated countries 18 the Of h E’ promne n h Rnwbe nry cat Energy Renewable the in performance EU’s The Turkey and Indonesia joined Brazil and the United United the and Brazil joined Indonesia and Turkey Renewable Energy category. category. Energy Renewable low rated EU countries, ing perform worst the are Republic Czech the and Poland a with country EU only Sweden receives a Only UK). the (excluding countries EU are 11 index, year’s this in category Energy Renewable the in year. last to compared improvements no shows egory the on based is performance Brazil’s While category. Energy Renewable the in performance rated countries G20 only the as Kingdom cat egory. Energy Renewable the in performance their for in renewable development between 2013 and 2018. 2018. and 2013 between development renewable in Turkey receive a and Kingdom United the mix, energy the in renewables high Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch, rating for its 2030 target and is also the very high very very high very rating for their positive trend trend positive their for rating for all indicators defining the the defining indicators all for high o ter performance their for share of renewables. very high very low high or or share of very low very for theirfor - - -

© Germanwatch 2020 * unweighted and rounded ** Total Primary Energy Supply 2021 • Results CCPI Renewable Energy (RE) – Rating table Rating – (RE) Energy Renewable Rank 44. 43. 48. 34. 46. 49. 40. 33. 38. 45. 36. 30. 39. 50. 35. 42. 60. 54. 32. 24. 23. 28. 53. 26. 58. 29. 56. 20. 59. 22. 25. 55. 52. 47. 37. 31. 41. 27. 61. 16. 14. 18. 13. 57. 19. 10. 21. 15. 12. 51. 17. 11. 4. 8. 6. 9. 5. 7. Argentina Poland CzechRepublic Hungary Japan Slovenia Saudi Arabia Algeria France Kazakhstan Korea Netherlands Spain Belgium Ukraine Romania Slovak Republic Greece Cyprus Italy Switzerland European Union (28) Germany India Thailand Morocco Portugal China Austria UnitedKingdom Bulgaria Estonia Malta Ireland Luxembourg Indonesia Islamic Republic of Iran Turkey RussianFederation Croatia Chinese Taipei Chile Malaysia Brazil Belarus Lithuania Mexico NewZealand Egypt Finland Denmark Canada Sweden United States United Norway Australia Latvia South Africa Country Sc 10.04 13.94 13.93 10.29 12.38 13.62 13.67 12.97 11.84 11.64 10.71 14.17 11.21 10.11 4.50 ore* 5.33 5.00 6.38 5.94 5.38 9.34 6.80 3.46 6.98 5.86 3.96 6.50 9.48 8.08 9.38 5.32 8.68 6.37 4.75 0.55 6.47 2.59 2.05 5.70 0.79 8.77 7.84 7.94 7.03 7.89 1.34 6.21 7.56 7.62 8.41 1.68 6.14 5.13 9.71 1.70 3.12 2.17 6.11 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High High High High High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very High Low High Low High Low Ranking Overall

Low Low Low Low Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Medium Low Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Medium High Medium Medium Medium High Very Low Very High Low High Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very high Very Low Very Medium Low Very high Very Low Very High High Medium Very high Low Very high Low High Low Low hydro) (incl. level current – (TPES)** Use Energy in RE of Share 11

Low Low Medium High Low Very high Very high High Very high Very high High Very Low Very Medium High High Medium Medium High Low High Medium Medium High Low Very high Low Very high Low Very high High High Very high Very high Very high High Very Low Very Very high Very Low Very Very high Very Low Very Medium Low Low Low High Medium Low Low Medium High Very Low Very Medium Medium High High High Medium Medium hydro) (excl. trend current RE Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch,

Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Low Low Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very Medium Low Low Low High Very Low Very Very Low Very benchmark well-below-2°C a to compared – hydro) (excl. Use (TPES) Energy in RE of Share

Low Low Low Low Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Very Low Very Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Medium Medium Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very benchmark well-below-2°C a to compared – hydro) (incl. Target 2030 RE © Germanwatch 2020

CCPI • Results 2021 • Results CCPI  *  performance:G20 (IEA, 2020). Report sectors Efficiency Energy efficiency energy in 10% over of cuts ing spend inducingrecession, global a triggerexpectedto is pandemic COVID-19 2019, the in stable remained efficiency energy in investment While world. the around targets be hind falling are efficiency energy in improvements Report, Efficiency Energy latest IEA’s the to According increasingly is important. efficiency energy of concept rise the the 2019, on in still consumption energy primary total With energyefficiencybehindfurtherin falling EnergyUse:Key developments Improvements– Rating sources across all countries available, the CCPI evaluates the per capita energy use of a country to measure improvements in this category. Increases in energy efficiency in its strict sense are complex to measure and would require a sector-by-sector approach. As currently there are no comparable data Use rating are G20 countries. G20 are rating Use eleven the of out Five target. use energy 2030 their of compatibility well-below-2°C rated are that CCPI year’s this in coun tries few the among is Mexico category. Use Energy rated are G20 the of Only Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, India and Germany out out Germany and India Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Only inassessment Not included Low Very Low Medium High 2.3 Category2.3Results – Energy Use very low high for their performance in the in performance their for performers in the Energy Energy the in performers very high very for the - - - 12   performance: EU © Germanwatch 2020 (excludingUK).the rated is EU year,the last As Only two EU countries rank high rank EU countries two Only in the Energy Use category. Use Energy the in Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch, medium in the Energy Use rating rating Use Energy the in for its performance *

© Germanwatch 2020 * unweighted and rounded ** Total Primary Energy Supply 2021 • Results CCPI Energy Use – Rating table Rating – Use Energy Rank 44. 43. 48. 34. 46. 49. 33. 40. 38. 36. 45. 30. 39. 50. 35. 42. 32. 60. 54. 24. 23. 28. 26. 53. 29. 58. 56. 20. 22. 59. 25. 55. 52. 47. 37. 31. 41. 27. 16. 14. 61. 18. 13. 19. 10. 21. 57. 15. 12. 51. 17. 11. 4. 8. 6. 9. 5. 7. Slovenia Sweden Austria Norway Turkey RussianFederation NewZealand Cyprus Poland Bulgaria Spain Belgium Kazakhstan Portugal Hungary Latvia CzechRepublic Slovak Republic Croatia Malaysia Chile France Netherlands Ireland Lithuania Japan Denmark European Union (28) Italy Germany Algeria Thailand Greece Romania South Africa Argentina Egypt Canada Indonesia UnitedKingdom Saudi Arabia Korea Belarus Finland India Brazil United States United Switzerland Islamic Republic of Iran Morocco Chinese Taipei Mexico Malta Estonia Ukraine Luxembourg China Country Australia Sc 10.09 10.45 10.45 10.24 16.34 10.20 10.29 10.50 10.26 10.26 13.60 13.89 16.06 14.86 13.89 12.84 13.24 18.54 13.68 14.95 10.27 10.87 10.87 10.67 16.82 13.73 14.77 12.70 14.74 11.40 12.74 11.93 10.16 11.95 12.91 11.55 12.21 14.51 11.52 10.12 11.07 11.67 11.07 12.14 11.71 11.71 11.13 ore* 4.49 4.69 3.50 5.39 8.93 8.53 9.06 5.25 8.79 8.75 9.18 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very Low Very Rating Overall Very Low Very

Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Medium Medium Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very High Medium Medium Low Low High Medium High Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Low Very high High High High Medium High Very high Very Low Very Very high Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Very Low Very Very high Very high Very Low Very Medium Medium Very high Low Very high Very high Very Low Very High Very Low Very Medium level current – Capita per (TPES)** Use Energy Very Low Very 13

Low Medium Medium High Very Low Very Low Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Medium High Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium Low Very Low Very High Medium High Medium Low Very Low Very Medium Medium Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium Very Low Very High High Very Low Very Low Low High Low Low Medium Medium Low High Medium High Low Low Medium High Very high Low Very high Very high Low trend – current Capita per (TPES) Use Energy High

Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch,

Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Medium High Low Medium Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very Low Low Low High Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium Medium High Very Low Very High High Very Low Very Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very high High Very Low Very High Very Low Very Very high Very Low Very High High Low Very high Low Very Low Very benchmark well-below-2°C a to – compared Capita per (TPES) Use Energy Very Low Very

Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Medium High Low High Low Low Medium Low Very Low Very Medium High Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium High Low Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Very high High Low Very high Very Low Very High Medium Very Low Very Very Low Very Very high Very Low Very High Medium Very Low Very High Medium Very high Low Very high Low Very Low Very Very high Very Low Very Very Low Very benchmark well-below-2°C a to – compared Target 2030 Use Energy Very Low Very Low © Germanwatch 2020

CCPI • Results 2021 • Results CCPI  category. Policy Climate the defining indicators two the in EU the and countries 57 all of on performance information the detailed provides right the on table The rating Policy Climate results: Key world. 1.5°C a for insufficient are Asia from 2060 or 2050 by zero net of goals the Even so. do to yet have emitters large ous numer improvements, NDC their submitted already have countries some While Agreement. Paris the from withdrew formally US the November, in election presidential after US the day A way. opposite the gone have developments some movements,these Despite 2050. by neutral carbon the and Japan Republic while 2060, by zero net of target a of commit to ted emitter, Korea largest world’s the China, even NDCs. their announced updated countries de several as postponement, growing COP26’s spite is their policy climate on momentum aim political The to become targets sufficientwithout contradictionand of year A – developments Key Policy: Climate Rating category. Policy Climate the for rating high very overall an reaches country no performance, policy climate international hl a e cutis ae a have countries few a While inassessment Not included Low Very Low Medium High 2.4CategoryResults – Climate Policy ey high very rating for their their for rating - - - 14    performance: EU  performance:G20 © Germanwatch 2020 Five G20 countries rank under under rank countries G20 Five low the joins Arabia Saudi while rating, category. South Africa was able to improve to a medium The EU improves by eight ranks in the Climate Policy Policy Climate the in ranks eight by improves EU The e E cutis ak under rank countries EU Ten are the worst performing EU countries, both with an an with overall both countries, EU performing worst the are Hungary and Bulgaria UK). the (excluding ranking the ing lead countries EU five with rating, Policy Climate year’s climatepolicy. rated is and rating medium only scoring now France with rating Policy Climate year’s or As last year nine of the G20 countries are rated rated are countries G20 the of nine year last As very low very verylow . for their performance in the Climate Policy Policy Climate the in performance their for Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch, rating in the Climate Policy category. category. Policy Climate the in rating high seily o is international its for especially high high efres n this in performers efres n this in performers performers. performers. low -

© Germanwatch 2020 * unweighted and rounded 2021 • Results CCPI Climate Policy – Rating table Rating – Policy Climate Rank 44. 34. 43. 33. 48. 46. 40. 38. 36. 30. 54. 49. 39. 45. 35. 60. 53. 23. 24. 32. 20. 58. 56. 50. 26. 28. 42. 29. 22. 59. 55. 25. 52. 37. 14. 16. 13. 10. 31. 18. 47. 19. 27. 61. 21. 57. 15. 41. 12. 51. 17. 11. 4. 6. 8. 5. 9. 7. Country Portugal Finland Sweden Latvia Denmark Morocco UnitedKingdom India European Union China Netherlands Estonia Lithuania Norway Germany France Korea Luxembourg Italy Thailand Switzerland NewZealand Slovak Republic Chinese Taipei Kazakhstan Chile Austria Canada Belarus South Africa Indonesia Croatia Belgium Ireland Spain Greece Mexico Islamic Republic of Iran Argentina Saudi Arabia Poland Cyprus Ukraine Romania Egypt Malta CzechRepublic Japan Hungary Slovenia Bulgaria Malaysia RussianFederation Brazil Turkey Algeria Australia United States United Sc 14.00 13.96 13.80 10.00 19.38 10.63 16.20 12.30 15.35 12.92 16.76 10.76 11.39 17.22 11.20 11.85 12.81 14.10 10.13 10.18 11.57 ore* 4.04 3.54 6.54 8.86 8.69 4.26 6.53 0.80 8.59 5.03 6.32 3.55 8.02 6.02 5.28 3.67 8.87 6.67 5.52 8.77 2.75 7.50 6.61 9.81 7.02 0.81 7.87 8.10 7.78 7.78 7.76 9.10 7.76 2.19 3.12 1.81 9.11 High High Rating Overall High High High High High High High High High High High High Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very

Medium High Climate National Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very 15

Policy

Performance Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Action &Climate Institute NewClimate Germanwatch, Very high Very high Climate International Very high High High High High High Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very Low Very

Policy

Performance © Germanwatch 2020 CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

3. CCPI stocktake of the COVID-19 low-carbon Measures included in the survey (Figure 1) economic recovery This is a non-exhaustive list of measures that support (green) or undermine (red) a low-carbon economic recovery.

• Dedicated budget for green spending in recovery or rescue package In a nutshell of the rescue and recovery from COVID-19, can support • Fiscal reform reducing fossil fuel subsidies curbing emissions and avoiding a lock-in to carbon-inten- • Corporate bailouts without conditions for a low-carbon transition 8 General 1. The COVID-19 pandemic-induced drop in emissions is sive energy sources or stranding of high-carbon assets. • Roll back economy-wide environmental and climate regulations just temporary if no structural changes are implemented towards a low-carbon transition. Steering fiscal rescue The economic recovery from the current crisis can catalyse • Support for zero-emissions technologies and infrastructure in energy supply and recovery spending towards low-carbon and sustain- emissions reductions and resilience building, if it is correct- • Revive plans for ‘shovel-ready’ fossil fuel power plants able measures can support a systemic transformation ly designed. The ideal stimulus must account for both long- Energy • Waive environmental regulations related to fossil fuel exploration 9 and lead to myriad long-term benefits. term development and short-term benefits. Evaluation of supply • Bail out fossil fuel energy utilities without conditions for a low-carbon transition the recovery status in terms of mitigation efforts supports 2. The unique CCPI survey gives reasons for optimism about understanding the overall direction of current plans. It also • Direct investment or support for green mobility or urbanisation projects the direction of recovery. More countries have reported helps in identifying measures that affect the systemic trans- • Fiscal or financial incentives for zero-emission vehicles low-carbon measures in their COVID-19 recovery plans formation required to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals. • Support for the uptake of efficient technologies in industry and buildings than measures that undermine a low-carbon transition. • Stimulus programmes for new buildings without energy efficiency criteria However, there are widespread contradicting measures The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) overviewed Energy • Support for industry without conditions for a low-carbon transition in current plans. This hinders low-carbon economic re- the state of the recovery in 2020 concerning its effect on use • Support to automobile companies without conditions for a low-carbon transition covery efforts. GHG emissions. In this unique survey, in September-No- vember 2020, we asked over 170 experts in 55 countries • Large-scale landscape restoration and reforestation 3. There are numerous examples of low-carbon measures about their governments’ COVID-19 recovery plans. These in the recovery worldwide. Yet these may not necessarily countries were responsible for 83% of global emissions in Non-energy sectors • Dismantling the enforcement of state protection for natural habitats reflect investment volumes (tracked in other analyses). It 2018.10,11 In the survey, we asked about the implementa - is crucial that high fiscal spending in a few high-carbon tion status (under discussion, in place, or not in place) of Source: Climate Action Tracker (2020a) measures does not hamper efforts towards a low-carbon key measures that support rebuilding a more sustainable recovery. economy or reinforce an unsustainable high-carbon status technologies in the energy sector. This is the case in both A third implemented or are considering fiscal reform to re- quo (Figure 1). energy supply and demand. These measures result in direct duce fossil fuel subsidies. These measures can be imple- 4. Popular low-carbon interventions focus on stimulating short-term economic impacts by stimulating consumption mented because fuel prices are currently very low. They 12 consumption or creating demand for new jobs. Common or creating demand for new jobs. also provide new revenues for other rescue measures. high-carbon interventions, however, often focus on pro- Stocktake of the COVID-19 A quarter of the countries supported large-scale landscape tecting incumbent industries, and existing jobs, without recovery More than half of the countries considered dedicated a restoration and afforestation efforts. conditions for low-carbon transition. particular share of recovery spending to green measures. Most countries have implemented measures that support 5. Policymakers still have the chance to scale up low-car- a low-carbon economic recovery alongside measures that bon interventions, because national recovery plans are then undermine their efforts. Measures supporting a low-carbon recovery (Figure 2) not fully laid out. The survey reveals many measures un- Survey results (173 experts) for measures supporting low-carbon recovery. der discussion. These show that countries recognise the The survey shows reasons for optimism about the recov- Percentages represent the share of surveyed countries. need to dedicate a share of the recovery budget to low- ery’s direction. This owes to the many supportive measures carbon measures. Future interventions must expand cur- in place or under discussion, across the board. However, rent good practices to situate low-carbon investments at short-term rescue of high-emissions sectors, without emis- In place Under discussion Not in place No information the centre of the recovery efforts. sions-reduction conditions, pulls efforts in opposite direc- Fiscal or financial incentives for zero-emission 68.9% 5.7% 18.2% 7.3% tions. vehicles

Support for the uptake of efficient technologies 61.6% 5.7% 18.2% 14.5% Introduction Policymakers still have the chance to scale up low-carbon in industry and buildings interventions since national recovery plans are not fully laid Support for zero-emissions technologies and 54.2% 9.4% 18.2% 18.2% Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 are lower than out. It’s crucial that high fiscal spending in a few high-car- infrastructure in energy supply in previous years. This dip is, however, induced by the bon measures does not undermine efforts towards a low- Direct investment or support for green mobility 63.4% 7.5% 20.0% 9.1% COVID-19 pandemic and may only be temporary if no struc- carbon recovery. or urbanisation projects tural changes are made. Decades of steady reductions of a Dedicated budget for green spending in recovery 37.2% 28.3% 25.5% 9.1% similar rate of decrease are needed to keep the 1.5°C warm- On average, more countries reported low-carbon meas- or rescue package ing limit within reach. ures in COVID-19 recovery plans compared with measures Large-scale landscape restoration and 25.2% 7.5% 50.9% 16.4% that undermine low-carbon transition (Figure 2). Support reforestation Emissions could bounce back and even overshoot previ- for low-emissions motor vehicles is part of the recovery in Fiscal reform reducing fossil fuel subsidies 19.4% 17.0% 56.4% 7.3% ously projected levels by 2030, even despite lower eco- 3/4 of the countries surveyed. Most countries also include nomic growth. Dedicated low-carbon interventions, as part measures supporting uptake of zero- or low-emissions 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16 17 CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

The most prominent measures leading to high carbon lock- Countries still have room to shape the recovery, with many in or higher greenhouse gas emissions include bailout of measures reported as “under discussion” (Figure 4). High- Number of countries with measures under discussion (Figure 4) corporations and industries with no conditions to foster carbon measures are being discussed in some countries, Maximum number of countries per measure: 55 transition to low-carbon economies (Figure 3). Amid states but the most prevalent measures under discussion seem of emergency, many governments simply focussed on to support low-carbon recovery. Approximately one-third keeping the economy afloat. Forward-looking strategies of countries reported discussions on setting a specific Supporting a low-carbon recovery Undermining a low-carbon recovery would need to ensure that corporate and industry bailouts budget for green spending. Also, almost one-quarter had do not reinforce unsustainable practices. discussed reform of fossil fuel subsidies. These countries Fiscal or financial incentives for zero-emission vehicles 3 probably want to seize the opportunity that recent low en- Support for the uptake of efficient techologies in industry and buildings 3 Despite these findings, the reporting of what countries ergy prices provide. Support for zero-emissions technologies and infrastructure in energy supply 5 have not done is positive. At least two-thirds have avoided restarting plans for shovel-ready, coal-fired power plants Though there are widespread examples of low-carbon Direct investment or support for green mobility or urbanisation projects 4 or for weaking environmental regulations associated with measures worldwide, these are not necessarily aligned with Dedicated budget for green spending in recovery or rescue package 15 protecting natural habits or fossil fuel exploration. investment volumes. The share of low-carbon investments Large-scale landscape restoration and reforestation 4 over gross domestic production is still small, despite a rela- Fiscal reform reducing fossil fuel subsidies 9 Countries with high dependency on fossil fuel rents tend tively high number of positive interventions.13,14,15 High fis- Corporate bailouts without conditions for a low-carbon transition to have higher prevalence of high-carbon measures com- cal spending in a few high-carbon measures must not un- 1 pared with measures that support low-carbon recovery. dermine efforts towards low-carbon recovery. Support for industry without conditions for a low-carbon transition 4 This owes to the focus on rescue-type measures (especially Roll back economy-wide environmental and climate regulations 1 liquidity support for emissions-intensive incumbent indus- Our survey shows signs for optimism about the direction of Bail out fossil fuel energy utilities without conditions for a low-carbon transition 2 tries) and still-unfinalized recovery-focused packages, in recovery, but a low-carbon economic transition relies on Support to automobile companies without conditions for a low-carbon transition 3 which low-carbon measures may figure more prominently. the next steps. Recovery plans provide a chance to raise ambition in developing long-term strategies and ratchet-up Stimulus programmes for new buildings without energy efficiency criteria 4 Our analysis also suggests developed countries are not nationally determined contributions. Policymakers still have Waive environmental regulations related to fossil fuel exploration 2 necessarily implementing either more or fewer low-carbon the chance to scale up low-carbon interventions, because Dismantling the enforcement of state protection for natural habitats 2 measures than developing countries. No substantial cor- national recovery plans are not fully laid out. Future inter- Revive plans for ‘shovel-ready’ fossil fuel power plants 1 relation was observed between income level and type of ventions must expand current good practices to situate low- measures. carbon investments at the centre of the recovery efforts. © Germanwatch e.V. & NewClimate Institute 2020

Measures undermining a low-carbon recovery (Figure 3) About the methodology Survey results (173 experts) for measures that undermine low-carbon recovery. Percentages represent the share of surveyed countries. Our method is based on a survey conducted among sev- Experts may have diverging perspectives on the level of eral national experts, conducted in September–November measures’ implementation. We accounted for the level of In place Under discussion Not in place No information 2020. We approached 850 experts and had a 20% response agreement between experts by averaging the answers rate. The method considers measures in place and under for each country and measure. Opposite answers were Corporate bailouts without conditions for a 54.5% 1.9% 23.6% 20.0% low-carbon transition discussion. It allows for an overview of implemented and assigned positive and negative scores. Contradicting an- planned measures, without analysing individual interven- swers from two experts, for the same measure and country, Support for industry without conditions for a 54.3% 7.5% 29.1% 9.1% low-carbon transition tions. This, however, restricts analyses that account for the cancelled each other out and were not considered in the scope of individual measures. analysis. We considered a measure in the results only if a Roll back economy-wide environmental and 29.0% 1.9% 49.1% 20.0% climate regulations majority of experts stated the measure was implemented or under discussion. Bail out fossil fuel energy utilities without 38.0% 3.8% 49.1% 9.1% conditions for a low-carbon transition Support to automobile companies without 25.2% 5.7% 56.4% 12.7% conditions for a low-carbon transition Stimulus programmes for new buildings without 16.1% 7.5% 61.8% 14.5% energy efficiency criteria Waive environmental regulations related to fossil 25.3% 3.8% 60.0% 10.9% fuel exploration Dismantling the enforcement of state protection 25.3% 3.8% 65.5% 5.5% for natural habitats Revive plans for ‘shovel-ready’ fossil fuel power 23.6% 1.9% 69.1% 5.5% plants 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18 19 CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

4. Endnotes Annex

1 The latest available data, which allows for comparison of all 57 countries plus the EU included in the CCPI 2021, dates List of contributors to the climate policy evaluation back to 2018 for the quantitative index categories. About 350 climate and energy experts contributed to this year’s edition of the Climate Change Performance Index with 2 The CCPI takes into account a five-year linear trend (for CCPI 2021, the period 2013–2018). their evaluation of national climate policies and international climate policy performance. The following national experts 3 The survey for CCPI 2021 was carried out between September and November 2020. The results therefore cover recent agreed to be mentioned as contributors to the policy evaluation of this year's CCPI: policy developments as of 1 November 2020.

4 UNEP (2020). Emission Gap Report 2020. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Country Name Organisation 5 Zhu Liu, Philippe Ciais, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber et al. (2020). Near-real-time monitoring of global CO emissions 2 Algeria Sofiane Benadjila reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Argentina Bruno Giambelluca Greenpeace Argentina Australia Suzanne Harter & Gavan McFadzean Australian Conservation Foundation 6 Hodges, Jeremy (2020): Wind, Solar Are Cheapest Power Source In Most Places, BNEF Says. Bloomberg Green. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-solar-are-cheapest-power-source-in-most- Graeme McLeay & Dr. John Iser Doctors for the Environment Australia places-bnef-says. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Richie Merzian The Australian Institute

7 REN21 (2020). Renewables Global Status Report. Available at: https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2020. Austria Johannes Wahlmüller GLOBAL2000 [accessed on 02 December 2020] Adam Pawloff & Jasmin Duregger Greenpeace 8 Climate Action Tracker (2020a). A government roadmap for addressing the climate and post COVID-19 economic Karl Schellmann WWF Austria crises. Climate Action Tracker (Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute). Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/ Belgium WWF, IEW, BBLV, Greenpeace documents/706/CAT_2020-04-27_Briefing_COVID19_Apr2020.pdf. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Brazil Carlos Nobre Brazil Institute of Advanced studies 9 Bals, C., Berendsen, S. and Jürgens, I. (2020). Die Krise als Katalysator für eine bessere Zukunft nutzen, German- Roberto Kishinami Instituto Clima e Sociedade watch Blogpost. Available at: https://germanwatch.org/de/18597. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Bulgaria Meglena Antonova Greenpeace 10 FAOSTAT (2019). ‘Land use emissions’. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Genady Kondarev Za Zemiata - Friends of the Earth Bulgaria Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GL. [accessed on 19 September 2019] Canada Teika Newton, Eddy Pérez, Jay Ritchlin, Climate Action Network 11 Olivier, J. G. J. and Peters, J. A. H. W. (2019.) Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions: 2019 report. Adréanne Brazeau, Sarah Petrevan, Joanna Kyriazis, Brendan Haley, Karen The Hague, Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Available at: Ross, Catherine Abreu https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2019-trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse-gas- André Bélisle AQLPA emissions-summary-ot-the-2019-report_4004.pdf. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Bora Plumptre Pembina Institute 12 Climate Action Tracker (2020a). A government roadmap for addressing the climate and post COVID-19 economic crises. Climate Action Tracker (Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute). Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/ Chile Nuria Hartmann documents/706/CAT_2020-04-27_Briefing_COVID19_Apr2020.pdf. [accessed on 02 December 2020] Teresita Alcántara Adapt-Chile

13 Climate Action Tracker (2020b). Pandemic recovery: Positive intentions vs policy rollbacks, with just a hint of green. Matias Asun Greenpeace Chile Climate Action Tracker (Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute). Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/docu- Sara Larrain Fundación Chile Sustentable ments/790/CAT_2020-09-23_Briefing_GlobalUpdate_Sept2020.pdf. [accessed on 01 October 2020] Chinese Taipei Ying-Shih Hsieh Environmental Quality Protection Foundation 14 O’Callaghan, B. et al. (2020). The Smith School Tracker of Recessionary Fiscal Stimulus. Available at: Robin Winkler Wild at heart Legal Defense Association https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/wpapers/Oxford-Economic-Stimulus-Observatory.xlsx. Gloria Kuang-Jung HSU Mom Loves Taiwan Association [accessed on 03 December 2020] Cyprus Georgia Shoshilou FEO 15 Vivid Economics (2020). Green Stimulus Index - August 2020 Update. Available at: https://www.vivideconomics.com/ Czech Republic Mirek Prokeš Friends of Nature wp-content/uploads/2020/08/200820-GreenStimulusIndex_web.pdf. [accessed on 07 September 2020] Katerina Davidova Centre for Transport and Energy Egypt Riham Helmy Abdelhamid EnVarious for Development Copyright Waleed Mansour Amended FES Estonia Sharna Terase Nolan SEI The content and works on these pages created by the operators of these pages are subject to German copyright law. The reproduction, processing, dissemination and all kinds of use outside the limits of copyright require the writ- EU Tara Connolly Friends of the Earth Europe ten consent of each author or creator. Downloads or copies of this site are for private, non-commercial use only. Raphael Hanoteaux Bankwatch If the content on this site was not created by the operator, the rights in copyright of third parties were respected. In Wendel Trio Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe particular, content of third parties is marked as such. Nevertheless, should you notice a breach of copyright, you are France Marine Pouget RAC requested to let us know. If we become aware of a breach of the law, we will remove this content immediately.

20 21 CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network CCPI • Results 2021 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network

Country Name Organisation Country Name Organisation

Germany Sebastian Scholz NABU New Zealand Caitlin Holling Lawyers for Climate Action Manfred Treber Germanwatch David Tong Oil Change International Greece Dimitris Ibrahim WWF Norway Hakon Grindheim Norwegian Church Aid Takis Grigoriou Greenpeace Poland Andrzej Kassenberg Institute for Sustainable Development Hungary Béla Munkácsy ELTE University Andrzej Ancygier Climate Analytics András Lukács CAAG Wojciech Szymalski Institute for Sustainable Development Adam Harmat WWF Izabela Zygmunt Polish Green Network András Perger Greenpeace Kacper Szulecki University of Oslo India NS Prasad Individual Aleksander Śniegocki WiseEuropa Aishwarya Raj TERI Zofia Wetmańska WiseEuropa Ajita Tiwari LAYA-INECC Portugal Laura Carvalho Quercus Neha Pahuja & Makhala Sastry TERI Francisco Ferreira & Pedro Nunes ZERO - Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável D. Raghundandan All-Indias People Science Network Romania Laura Nazare Bankwatch Aviral Yadav WWF Alin Tanase Greenpeace Sanjay Vashist CAN South Asia Rocana Ducata 2Celsius Indonesia Erina Mursanti IESR Lavinia Andrei TERRA Mileniul III Tiza Mafira Climate Policy Initiative Russian Federation Michael Yulkin Environmental Investment Centre Satrio S. Prillianto Greenpeace Vladimir Chuprov Greenpeace Fabby Tumiwa IESR Slovenia Barbara Kvac Focus Association for Sustainable Development Dicky Edwin Hindarto Green Partner Foundation Renata Karba Umanotera, The Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development Ireland Sadhbh O Neill Stop Climate chaos South Africa Prabhat Upadhyaya & James Reeler WWF Islamic Republic of Iran Mahdjid Abbaspour Happy Khambule Greenpeace Italy Stefano Caserini Italian Climate Network Richard Halsey Project 90 by 2030 Tommaso Franci Amici delle Terra Italia Spain Josep Puig Group of Scientists and Engineers for a Non Japan Kimiko Hirata Kiko Network Nuclear Future Korea Jieon Lee Korea Federation for Environmental Movements Switzerland Jürg Staudenmann Alliance Sud HyeJin An WWF Georg Klingler Greenpeace Yong-Gun Kim Korea Environment Institute Thailand Tara Buakamsri Greenpeace Latvia Janis Brizga & Krista Petersone Green Liberty Latvia Turkey Önder Algedik Climate change, Energy and Environment Lithuania Domantas Tracevicius Žiedinė ekonomika Association Malaysia Nithi Nesadurei Environmental Protection Society Özlem Katisöz CAN Europe Anthony Tan Kee Huat candidate for Master in Sustainable Development Ukraine Yevheniia Zasiadko, Ecoaction Management at Sunway University Konstyantyn Krynitsky, Anna Danyliak, Mihailo Amosov, Iryna Bondarenko, Malta Edward A. Mallia FoE Oksana Omelchuk Mexico Sandra Guzman Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Oksana Kysil Covenant of Mayors Caribbean Oksana Aliieva Heinrich Boell Foundation, Kyiv-Ukraine Office Luisa Manzanares CEPEDES Oksana Mariuk Ukranian Climate Network José María Valenzuela Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University Oleh Savytskyi Ukranian Climate Network Morocco Saddik Mohammed Association Homme & Environnement United Kingdom Caterina Brandmayr Green Alliance Touria Barradi Professor Christoph v. Friedeburg CF Energy Research & Consulting UG Said Chakri United States Christoph v. Friedeburg CF Energy Research & Consulting UG Bauke Baumann Heinrich Boell Foundation, Rabat Morocco Office Basav Sen Institute for Policy Studies Netherlands Jan Verhagen University of Wageningen Robert Koelemeijer Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving

22 23 Germanwatch NewClimate Institute

Following the motto of Observing. Analysing. Acting. The NewClimate Institute for Climate Policy and Global Germanwatch has been actively promoting global equi- Sustainability is a Germany-based research institute gen- ty and liveli-hood preservation since 1991. We focus on erating ideas on climate change and driving their imple- the politics and economics of the Global North and their mentation. They do research, policy design and know worldwide consequences. The situation of marginalised ledge sharing on raising ambition for action against climate people in the Global South is the starting point for our change and supporting sustainable development. Their work. Together with our members and supporters, and core expertise lies in the areas of climate policy analysis, with other actors in civil society, we strive to serve as a climate action tracking, climate finance, carbon markets, strong lobbying force for sustainable development. We and sustainable energy. aim at our goals by advocating for prevention of dangerous climate change and its negative impacts, for guaranteeing www.newclimate.org food security, and for corporate compliance with human rights standards.

Germanwatch is funded by membership fees, donations, programme funding from Stiftung Zukunftsfaehigkeit Climate Action Network (Foundation for Sustainability), and grants from public and private donors. CAN members work to achieve this goal through information exchange and the coordinated development of NGO You can also help us to achieve our goals by becoming a strategy on international, regional, and national climate member or by making a donation via the following account: issues. CAN has regional network hubs that coordinate these eff orts around the world. Bank fuer Sozialwirtschaft AG BIC/Swift: BFSWDE33BER CAN members place a high priority on both a healthy en- IBAN: DE33 1002 0500 0003 2123 00 vironment and development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future genera- www.germanwatch.org tions to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Commission). CAN’s vision is to protect the atmosphere while allowing.