After decades of pressure from vulnerable developing countries, the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage (the WIM) was established at the nineteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 19) in 2013 to address costly damages from climate change. However, little progress has been made towards establishing a mechanism to fund loss and damage. The WIM's Executive Committee issued its first two-year workplan the following year at COP 20 which offered, among other things, a range of approaches to financing loss and damage programmes, which we review here. We provide brief overviews of each mechanism proposed by the WIM ExCom, describe their current applications, their statuses under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), some of their advantages and disadvantages, and their current or potential application to loss and damage. We find that several of these mechanisms may be useful in supporting loss and damage programmes, but identify some key gaps. First, most of the mechanisms identified by the WIM ExCom are insurance schemes subsidized with voluntary contributions, which may not be adequate or reliable over time. Second, none were devised to apply to slow-onset events, or to non-economic losses and damages. That is, if harms are inflicted on parts of a society or its ecosystems that have no price, or if they occur gradually, they would probably not be covered by these mechanisms. Finally, the lack of a dedicated and adequate flow of finance to address the real loss and damage being experienced by vulnerable nations will require the use of innovative financial tools beyond those mentioned in the WIM ExCom workplan.
Key policy insights
Despite a full article of the 2015 Paris Agreement devoted to loss and damage, there is little international agreement on the scope of loss and damage programmes, and especially how they would be funded and by whom.
Most of the loss and damage funding mechanisms identified by the WIM ExCom are insurance schemes subsidized with voluntary contributions, which may burden the most vulnerable countries and may not be reliable over time.
None of the mechanisms were devised to apply to slow-onset events, or to non-economic losses and damages.
The Paris Agreement (PA) emphasizes the intrinsic relationship between climate change and sustainable development (SD) and welcomes the 2030 agenda for the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet, there is a lack of assessment approaches to ensure that climate and development goals are achieved in an integrated fashion and trade-offs avoided. Article 6.4 of the PA introduces a new Sustainable Mitigation Mechanism (SMM) with the dual aim to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and foster SD. The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has a similar objective and in 2014, the CDM SD tool was launched by the Executive Board of the CDM to highlight the SD benefits of CDM activities. This article analyses the usefulness of the CDM SD tool for stakeholders and compares the SD tool’s SD reporting requirements against other flexible mechanisms and multilateral standards to provide recommendations for improvement. A key conclusion is that the Paris Agreement’s SMM has a stronger political mandate than the CDM to measure that SD impacts are ‘real, measurable and long-term’. Recommendations for an improved CDM SD tool are a relevant starting point to develop rules, modalities, and procedures for SD assessment in Article 6.4 as well as for other cooperative mitigation approaches.
POLICY RELEVANCE
Research findings are relevant for developing the rulebook of modalities and procedures for Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, which introduces a new mechanism for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development. Lessons learnt from the CDM SD tool and recommendations for enhanced SD assessment are discussed in context of Article 6 cooperative approaches, and make a timely contribution to inform negotiations on the rulebook agreed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 相似文献
Muri Basin in the Qilian Mountain is the only permafrost area in China where gas hydrate samples have been obtained through scientific drilling. Fracture-filling hydrate is the main type of gas hydrate found in the Qilian Mountain permafrost. Most of gas hydrate samples had been found in a thin-layer-like, flake and block group in a fracture of Jurassic mudstone and oil shale, although some pore-filling hydrate was found in porous sandstone. The mechanism for gas hydrate formation in the Qilian Mountain permafrost is as follows: gas generation from source rock was controlled by tectonic subsidence and uplift--gas migration and accumulation was controlled by fault and tight formation--gas hydrate formation and accumulation was controlled by permafrost. Some control factors for gas hydrate formation in the Qilian Mountain permafrost were analyzed and validated through numerical analysis and laboratory experiments. CSMGem was used to estimate the gas hydrate stability zone in the Qilian permafrost at a depth of 100–400 m. This method was used to analyze the gas composition of gas hydrate to determine the gas composition before gas hydrate formation. When the overlying formation of gas accumulation zone had a permeability of 0.05 × 10−15 m2 and water saturation of more than 0.8, gas from deep source rocks was sealed up to form the gas accumulation zone. Fracture-filling hydrate was formed in the overlap area of gas hydrate stability zone and gas accumulation zone. The experimental results showed that the lithology of reservoir played a key role in controlling the occurrence and distribution of gas hydrate in the Qilian Mountain permafrost. 相似文献
Numerous studies have been devoted to the performance of excavations and adjacent facilities. In contrast, few studies have focused on retaining wall deflections induced by pre-excavation dewatering. However, considerable inward cantilever deflections were observed for a diaphragm wall in a pre-excavation dewatering test based on a long and narrow metro excavation, and the maximum deflection reached 10 mm (37.6% of the allowable wall deflection for the project). Based on the test results, a three-dimensional soil–fluid coupled finite element model was established and used to study the mechanism of the dewatering-induced diaphragm wall deflections. Numerical results indicated that the diaphragm wall deflection results from three factors: (1) the seepage force around the dewatering well and the soil–wall interaction caused the inward horizontal displacement of the soil inside the excavation; (2) the reduced total earth pressure on the excavated side of the diaphragm wall above approximately 1/2 of the maximum dewatering depth disequilibrated the original earth pressure on both sides of the diaphragm wall; and (3) the different negative friction on the excavated and retained sides of the diaphragm wall led to the rotation of the diaphragm wall into the excavation. 相似文献