Refine
Year of Publication
- 2013 (18) (remove)
Document Type
- Contribution to Periodical (8)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4)
- Working Paper (3)
- Report (2)
- Conference Object (1)
Language
- English (18) (remove)
Division
Industrialized countries have committed to providing "new and additional" funding to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, lack of a common definition of "new and additional" undermines the climate process. This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the principle of additionality by assessing possible definitions. The article first contextualizes the guiding principles that led to the endorsement of "new and additional" finance within the history of international climate negotiations. Second, we survey definitions of "new and additional" put forward by industrialized countries as well as further proposed definitions put forward by scholars. Third, we assess the respective strengths and weaknesses of these definitions.
Our analysis shows that there is no singular formula that would resolve the problem of how to define additionality. Definitions that would be politically acceptable to developed countries are subject to gaming while definitions that are technically robust are politically difficult. We conclude that a combination of using innovative sources and defining specific future levels of development assistance ex ante may offer the best prospects for resolving the climate finance conundrum.
Apart from the much-debated question of what legal form the 2015 climate agreement is supposed to have, another core issue is the substantive content of countries' commitments. While the climate regime has so far mostly been based on emission targets, literature has identified a broad range of other possible types of mitigation commitments, such as technology targets, emission price commitments, or commitments to specific policies and measures (PAMs). The nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) submitted by developing countries under the Cancún Agreements also show a broad range of different forms of participation. This article surveys the possible commitment types that have so far been discussed in literature and in the UNFCCC negotiations and assesses their respective advantages and disadvantages against a set of criteria: environmental effectiveness, cost effectiveness, distributional aspects and institutional feasibility. The article finds that no commitment option provides a silver bullet. All options have several advantages but also disadvantages. The environmentally most effective way forward may lie in pursuing a multi-dimensional approach, combining emission targets with other commitment types to compensate for the drawbacks of the emission-based approach. However, such an approach would also increase complexity, both in terms of the negotiations and in terms of implementation and administration.
This report analyses the international climate negotiations at the UN climate conference in Warsaw in November 2013. The report covers the discussions under the Durban Platform on developing a new comprehensive climate agreement by 2015 and increasing short-term ambition as well as the issues relating to near-term implementation of previous decisions in the areas of emission reductions and transparency, adaptation, loss and damage, finance and technology. The report concludes that Warsaw once again starkly highlighted the sharp divisions and lack of trust among countries. Industrialised countries' collective lack of leadership strongly contributed to re-opening the traditional North-South divide. As a result, on many issues the outcomes hardly go beyond the lowest common denominator. The conference only agreed on the bare minimum to move the 2015 process forward and also made no headway in strengthening short-term ambition. Some progress was made with the establishment of the "Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts" and the completion of the rules for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. However, here as well further substance, in particular financial support from industrialised countries, is required to actually fill these mechanisms with meaning. If countries want to escape from groundhog day, they will have to start seeing and utilizing the UN climate process rather differently.
Global climate
(2013)
The eighteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 18) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the ninth Conference of Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 8) came to a close in the evening of 8 December 2012. This report lays out the main developments in Doha and assesses the main outcomes. The first chapter outlines the overall situation coming into Doha. The subsequent chapters cover the negotiations on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the discussions under the Durban Platform on developing a new comprehensive climate agreement by 2015 and increasing short-term ambition, and further near-term action under the UNFCCC.
The Durban Climate Conference agreed on the creation of a new market-based mechanism under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to consider the establishment of an overall framework for various mitigation approaches, including opportunities for using markets ("Framework"). The creation of such a Framework is therefore of high political significance, as it should ensure on the one hand that new market-based mechanisms contribute to global climate change mitigation and to achievement of targets, and on the other hand, that different market-based approaches can be integrated in a global carbon market. As yet, there is little clarity as to the roles and design of such a framework. This paper contributes to the debate by discussing and evaluating inter alia several design options, and explores how the various options could be implemented and how they interrelate. It concludes that a strong central oversight at the level of the UNFCCC is probably the only option that could reassure the vast majority of UNFCCC Parties that the environmental integrity of new market-based mechanisms is in fact ensured. This does, however, not exclude that some reasonable balance may be struck between centralization and flexibility.
As part of the discussion on a new international climate agreement, which is supposed to be concluded by 2015, the European Commission conducted a stakeholder consultation, to which the Wuppertal Institute contributed. The Wuppertal Institute suggests that Parties should revisit the widely shared assumption that there is a trade-off between climate protection and economic well-being. The problem is not so much the macro-economic outlook. The problem is that climate policy causes substantial distributional impacts and thus naturally leads to resistance. The Wuppertal Institute recommends to reconsider the political wisdom of the quantity-based approach that climate policy has so far been based on. As long as emissions are seen as inextricably linked to economic well-being, framing commitments in terms of emission reductions directly triggers the perspective of seeing climate protection as an economic loss. Commitments should ideally be multi-dimensional. Possible types of commitments to consider may include scaling up certain climate-friendly technologies, improving energy efficiency, limiting fossil fuel use and fossil fuel extraction, or emission price commitments. The strongest mobilisation of political support might perhaps be achieved by framing commitments as a joint international undertaking to provide universal access to sustainable energy services by a specific date.
Time for pilots : discussions on new market-based mechanisms show little movement of positions
(2013)
Global climate
(2013)
This report lays out the major developments in Durban and assesses the main outcomes. It is structured along the Bali roadmap for a future climate agreement that was agreed at the Bali climate conference in 2007. The Bali roadmap comprises negotiations under two tracks. First, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Countries under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), established at the conference in Montreal in 2005, has been negotiating future emission targets for developed countries (listed in Annex I of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and hence called Annex I countries). As the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period expires in 2012, the AWG-KP is to agree on new targets for a second commitment period post-2012 as well as associated rules for accounting emissions. Second, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) has also been negotiating commitments for Annex I countries, intending to cover those that have not ratified the Protocol - that is, the USA. In addition, the LCA negotiates "Nationally appropriate mitigation actions" of developing countries, which are to be supported by Annex I countries with technology, financing and capacity-building. Both the actions and the support are to be "measurable, reportable and verifiable". The LCA also negotiates how such support for developing countries' mitigation actions may be delivered as well as how developing countries may be supported in adapting to the impacts of climate change.