The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRC) captures the idea that it is the common responsibility of states to protect and restore the environment but that the levels and forms of states’ individual responsibilities may be differentiated according to their own national circumstances. This principle has shaped the evolution of the climate regime and has played an important role in promoting compromise and agreement. It is argued that some twenty years after the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the principle of CBDRC remains as relevant as ever. The practice of Parties under the regime and, most recently, the concerted efforts to shape and flesh out the meaning of the principle, underscore the central role that it plays. At the same time, the binary understanding of CBDRC in the Kyoto Protocol is being replaced with a more nuanced, multifaceted understanding. The evolving interpretation of CBDRC is considered, and its continued relevance as the nucleus of a global burden-sharing regime for addressing climate change is demonstrated. Policy relevance The development of a common understanding of the principle of CBDRC is essential for the burden sharing and responsibilities under a future climate agreement. The CBDRC principle captures the idea that it is the common responsibility of states to protect and restore the environment, but that the levels and forms of states’ individual responsibilities may be differentiated according to their own national circumstances. This article informs the international climate change negotiations by considering the development of the principle of CBDRC under the UNFCCC over time. It is concluded that, although there has been a significant shift in how the principle is understood, it remains crucial to the integrity and stability of the climate regime. 相似文献
The question of whether China is on the verge of a ‘shale gas revolution’ is examined. This has potentially significant consequences for energy policy and climate change mitigation. Contrary to the optimistic reading of some commentators, it argues that various technological, environmental, political, regulatory and institutional factors will constrain the growth of China's shale gas market and that such a revolution might in any event have consequences that are at best mixed, at worst antithetical to climate change mitigation.Policy relevanceChina's reserves of unconventional gas have the potential to transform energy policy, as has occurred in the US, resulting in the substitution of shale gas for coal in the energy mix. Because gas emits only approximately half the GHG per unit as coal, such a move would have important implications for climate policy. However, substantial obstacles stand in the way of the ‘energy revolution’ that some policy analysts see China as embarking upon. The need to acknowledge these obstacles, particularly those relating to regulation and governance (and whether or to what extent they can be overcome), is an issue of profound importance to the future of climate and energy policy. 相似文献
It is shown that there are MRV-related activities underway in South Africa, particularly focusing on measuring electricity consumption and monitoring GHG emissions. Yet currently many of these activities happen in parallel systems within multi-polar governance structures. A bottom-up perspective of MRV in South Africa, informed by interviews, workshops, desktop research, and stakeholder consultations, is provided and the systems, data, methodologies, and the institutional environment relevant to a South African MRV system are examined. The development of the local monitoring and evaluation system, and its relevance within the international MRV context, is also discussed. Some recommendations are made: most importantly, there is a need for a coherent approach to be developed, one that is coordinated by government and built on existing MRV systems. 相似文献
China's 12th Five-Year Plan (2011–2015) envisages that shale gas and coal will be central to its energy future. However, for China to meet the energy security and climate change objectives set out in its 12th Five-Year Plan it will be reliant on the widespread commercial deployment of two key technologies; hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling for shale gas, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal. China is moving to acquire these technologies through technology transfer and diffusion from the US, but progress has been slow, and neither is currently available in China on a commercial scale. Drawing on interviews in the US and China, this article argues that China's expectation of technology from the US may well be disappointed because of factors unique to the US institutional environment that have made the development of fracking technology possible and hinder the development of CCS technology at a commercial scale.Policy relevanceIf China is to meet the energy security and climate change objectives set out in its 12th Five-Year Plan it will be reliant on the widespread commercial deployment of fracking and clean coal technologies. While China expects to acquire these technologies via technology transfer and diffusion from the US, progress has been slow. Because of factors unique to the US institutional environment the availability of both technologies on a commercial scale in China is unlikely in the coming years. As a result, Chinese policy makers would be well-advised not to count on these technologies to meet their energy and climate goals. 相似文献
What is the role of the climate regime in facilitating rapid decarbonization of the world’s energy systems? We examine how core assumptions concerning the roles of the nation state, carbon markets and finance and technology in international climate policy are being challenged by the realities of how transitions in the energy systems are unfolding. Drawing on the critical region of sub-Saharan Africa, we examine the potential for international climate policy to foster new trajectories towards decarbonization.Policy relevanceThe international regime for climate policy has been in place for some twenty years. Despite significant changes in the landscape of energy systems and drivers of global GHG emissions over this time, the core principles and tools remain relatively stable – national governments, carbon markets, project-based climate finance and the transfer of technological hardware. Given the diversity of actors and drivers and the limited direct reach and influence of international climate policy, however, there is an urgent need to consider how the climate regime can best support the embryonic transitions that are slowly taking form around the world. To do this effectively requires a more nuanced understanding of the role of the state in governing these transitions beyond the notion of a cohesive state serving as rule-enforcer and transition manager. It also requires a broader view of technology, not just as hardware that is transferred, but as a set of practices and networks of expertise and enabling actors. Likewise, though markets have an important role to play as vehicles for achieving broader ends, they are not an end in themselves. Finally on finance, while acknowledging the important role of climate aid, often as a multiplier or facilitator of more ambitious private flows, it is critical to differentiate between the types of finance required for different transitions, many of which will not be counted under, or directed by, the climate regime. In sum, the (low-) carbon economy is being built in ways and in numerous sites that the climate regime needs to be cognizant of and engage with productively, and this may require fundamental reconsideration of the building blocks of the international climate regime. 相似文献
ABSTRACTThe continuous submission and scaling-up of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) constitutes a key feature of the Paris Agreement. In their NDCs, states propose governance mechanisms for implementation of climate action, in turn distinguishing appropriate roles for the state in climate governance. Clarity on Parties’ suggested roles for the state makes explicit assumptions on the premise of climate policy, in turn contributing to enhanced transparency in negotiations on the scaling-up of NDCs. This also speaks to ongoing debates on roles for the state in climate governance literature. This article identifies the governance mechanisms proposed by states in their NDCs and the roles for the state envisioned by those governance mechanisms, and also examines how cross-national patterns of roles for the state break or converge with conventional patterns of international politics. The analysis shows that states propose a plurality of roles, which to different extents may be complementary or conflictual. We conclude that income, region, and the Annexes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are important for understanding suggested roles for the state, but that there are nuances to be further explored. We argue that this paper has three key findings: i) a majority of states rely on market mechanisms to implement their NDCs while rules on implementation and assessment of market mechanisms are still an outstanding issue in the negotiations, meaning that resolving this issue will be essential; ii) the process for evaluating and assessing qualitative governance mechanisms needs to be specified; and iii) increased awareness of differing views on the state’s roles makes explicit different perspectives on what constitutes an ambitious and legitimate contribution to combating climate change.Key policy insights
A majority of states (> 75%) envision the state as regulator (creating and strengthening legislation), market facilitator (creating and maintaining market structures), or facilitator (creating more favourable material conditions for climate-friendly behaviour).
Greater awareness of differing views on roles for the state can increase understanding of different perspectives on ambition and legitimacy of contributions, in turn facilitating trust in negotiations.
A distinction between substantive and procedural qualitative governance mechanisms and their function and interaction would facilitate the stocktaking dialogues.
Global climate negotiations have been characterized by a divide between developed and developing nations – a split which has served as a persistent barrier to international agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. Notable progress in bridging this division was achieved at the 21st Conference of the Parties meeting in Paris through the introduction of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). However, the collective ambition of submitted INDCs falls short of a global 2°C target, requiring an effective ratchet mechanism to review and increase national commitments. Inequitable distribution of additional responsibilities risks re-opening historic divisions between parties. This article presents a flexible ratchet framework which shares mitigation commitments on the basis of per capita equity in line with emerging requirements for a 2°C target. The framework has been designed through convergence between developed and developing nations; developed nation targets are based on an agreed standardized percentage reduction wherever emissions are above per capita equity; developing nations are required to peak emissions at or below per capita equity levels by an agreed convergence date. The proposed framework has the flexibility to be integrated with current INDCs and to evolve in line with shifting estimates of climate sensitivity.Policy relevanceThe outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) negotiations in Paris offered mixed results in terms of level of ambition and submitted national commitments. A global agreement to keep average global temperature rise below two degrees was maintained; however, current pledged Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are projected to result in an average warming of close to three degrees. The implementation of a global ratchet mechanism to scale-up national commitments will remain key to closing this ambition gap to reach this two degree target. How this upscaling of responsibility is shared between parties will be a defining discussion point within future negotiations. This study presents a standardized, equity-based framework for how this ratchet mechanism can be implemented – a framework designed to be flexible for evolution in line with better understanding of climate sensitivity, and adaptable for integrations with current INDC proposals. 相似文献
ABSTRACTAs increasing evidence shows that the risks of climate change are mounting, there is a call for further climate action (both reducing global emissions, and adaptation to better manage the risks of climate change). To promote and enable adaptation, governments have introduced, or are considering introducing, reporting on climate risks and efforts being taken to address those risks. This paper reports on an analysis of the first two rounds of such reports submitted under the UK Climate Change Act (2008) Adaptation Reporting Power. It highlights benefits and challenges for reporting authorities and policymakers receiving the reports that could also inform other countries considering such reporting. For reporting authorities, benefits arise from the reporting process and resulting reports. These benefits include elevating climate risks and adaptation to the corporate level and with stakeholders, alongside facilitating alignment and integration of actions within existing risk management and governance structures. For policymakers, reporting provides enhanced understanding of climate risks and actions from a bottom-up perspective that can be integrated into national-level assessments and adaptation planning processes. The identified challenges are those related to capacity and process. These include limited risk and adaptation assessment capacities; relevance of climate change risks and adaptation in the context of other urgent risks and actions; reporting process effectiveness and robustness; and the provision of effective and sufficiently comprehensive support, including feedback.Key policy insights
Effective adaptation reporting needs to be designed and delivered so as to enhance the value of the reporting process and resulting reports both for those reporting and those receiving the reports, as well as from the broader policy perspective.
Providing a positive and supportive reporting environment is critical to encourage participation and facilitating contiuous learning and improvement, while also facilitating delivery of policy-relevant adaptation reports.
Contributions of adaptation reporting can be enhanced by an inclusive reporting requirement involving a broader organizational mix that enables more effective risk management and reporting that reflects associated (inter)dependencies and consistency with the more comprehensive post-2015 resilience agenda (Paris Agreement, Sendai Framework for DRR and UN Agenda 2030 SDGs).
The EU allows those installations that are subject to emissions trading to use a limited volume of certified emissions reductions (CERs), generated through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), to cover their own GHG emissions. These CERs can be used in addition to the EU allowances (EUAs), which were primarily allocated free to installations in Phase II of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) from 2008 to 2012. For the year 2008, the CER limits, which are differentiated by EU Member State, created substantial arbitrage rents (due to the CER-EUA spread) of approximately EU€250 million. Different options for the allocation of this rent are discussed and it is found that, according to economic theory, making the right to use CERs tradable or the regulator pre-committing to buying CERs at the level of the relevant limit reduces the inefficiencies connected to the current regulation. Furthermore, auctioning these CER usage rights shifts the rents created through the CER-EUA spread to the Member State itself. The improved design and implementation of CDM limits justifies EU policy makers intervening to correct previously competition-distorting choices. 相似文献