Mid-Century Strategies: pathways to a low-carbon future?

Since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, both national and subnational governments have been encouraged to submit Mid-Century Strategies, outlining how they would reach their deep decarbonization goals. However, research on the design and potential of these strategies has been very limited. To address this shortcoming, here we assess 13 such strategies – six national, seven subnational – in a comparative fashion. We find that the energy-economy-climate models underpinning these strategies are generally of high quality, though national jurisdictions generally performed better. However, most strategies are not plausible without significant changes to policy, and the industrial sector in particular presents a major limitation. The strategies are helpful in revealing this gap, but much works remains to be done for plausible mid-century decarbonization trajectories to become a reality. We also find that public input and societal participation in strategy building were a double-edged sword depending on the constellation of domestic preferences.

• Governmental Mid-Century Strategies for deep decarbonization are underpinned by high-quality energy-economy-climate models

• Governments’ proposed strategies require significant new policies, as even among jurisdictions that have an MCS, extant policies are insufficient to achieve deep decarbonization

• No jurisdiction studied has yet put forward a plausible decarbonization policy for the industrial sector.

• Public input and societal participation can be a double-edged sword: they can increase durability of the strategy but also enable opposing forces to mobilize against ambitious changes.

     

Intellectual property rights and the transfer of climate change technologies: issues,challenges, and way forward

The role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the development and transfer of climate change technologies has been a contentious issue in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Irreconcilable differences seem to oppose those who believe IPRs are an inherent barrier to the transfer of climate change technologies and those who argue they are an essential incentive to innovation. After providing an overview of the polarized debate on this issue, this article reviews the existing literature and empirical evidence and looks into some practical initiatives and recent developments. Finally, it seeks to identify a way forward that could help overcome the current stalemate in international deliberations by suggesting a number of parameters to structure the discussion on this complex issue.     

The economics of boldness: equity,action, and hope

Equity is usually interpreted in terms of the concept of justice, such that an equitable share of the atmospheric space is understood in terms of past emissions. This emphasizes the collective nature of sharing the burden of mitigation and the duty to act for those who have emitted the most. An alternative is considered: the aggregate costs and benefits to all Parties that could result from both increasing the level of collective ambition and implementing a climate regime that supports bold actions across all Parties. The regional impacts and carbon flow costs across differentiated scenarios are assessed and it is argued that the majority of developing-country Parties would be better off if a high ambition outcome to which all contributed, but some more than others. Moreover, those with middle or low emissions would have proportionally more to gain (or lose) relative to the level of ambition compared to those that have had higher emissions. The climate regime should be built on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC), in which all act early even if some do much more; one that accounts for justice but does not forget hope.

Policy relevance

Differing interpretations of equity and the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are discussed, with a focus on how these can enhance or hinder collective action. Whilst the climate change negotiations are usually taken as games in which one party gains and another loses, and interactions are dogged by continuous conflict, it is explored instead how negotiation responses can be framed in terms of cooperation. This would emphasize the gains that could be achieved by common but differentiated collective action, which could result in a collective avoidance of impacts. The possibilities that this shift of perspective could bring are explored by comparing costs under global cooperation (or lack of it). It is found that cooperation reduces the total costs for these regions. Thus, thinking in terms of cooperation focuses the options for negotiation on the means and interpretations of the UNFCCC principles that spur action and avoid climate impacts through collective action.     

Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies

Over 40 studies that analyse future GHG emissions allowances or reduction targets for different regions based on a wide range of effort-sharing approaches and long-term concentration stabilization levels are compared. This updates previous work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Regional reduction targets differ significantly for each effort-sharing approach. For example, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1990 region, new proposals that emphasize the equity principles of responsibility, capability, and need, and those based on equal cumulative per capita emissions (carbon budgets), lead to relatively stringent emissions reduction targets. In order to reach a low concentration stabilization level of 450?ppm CO₂e, the allowances under all effort sharing approaches in OECD1990 for 2030 would be approximately half of the emissions of 2010 with a large range, roughly two-thirds in the Economies in Transition (EIT), roughly at the 2010 emissions level or slightly below in Asia, slightly above the 2010 level in the Middle East and Africa and well below the 2010 level in Latin America. For 2050, allowances in OECD1990 and EIT would be a fraction of today's emissions, approximately half of 2010 emission levels in Asia, and possibly less than half of the 2010 level in Latin America.

Policy relevance

The concept of equity and the stringency of future national GHG reduction targets are at the heart of the current debate on the new international climate change agreement to be adopted in 2015. Policy insights gained from an analysis of over 40 studies, which have quantitatively analysed the proposed GHG reduction targets, are presented. It is found that the outcome of effort-sharing approaches is often largely determined by the way the equity principle is implemented and that the distributional impacts of such approaches can be significantly different depending on the criteria used, the stabilization level and shape of the global emissions pathway. However, the current literature only covers a small proportion of the possible allocation approaches. There should thus be an in-depth modelling comparison to ensure consistency and comparability of results and inform decision making regarding the reduction of GHG emissions.     

Constructed peer groups and path dependence in international organizations: The case of the international climate change negotiations

International organizations sometimes institutionalize country groupings by specifying differentiated commitments that may, in turn, affect negotiation dynamics. Drawing on incentive-based and socialization arguments, we develop a “constructed peer group” hypothesis suggesting that by creating these groups those organizations may actually construct new lines of confrontation over and above the substance-based disagreements existing between countries. This generates a particular type of path dependence, rendering broad-based international agreements more difficult in the future.We analyze this question at the example of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's increasingly politicized split between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. Using a self-coded dataset of country oral statements during the negotiations between December 2007 and December 2009 we assess whether Annex I membership influences a country's stance toward other countries’ arguments, while controlling for country characteristics that may drive their preferences and the affiliation to Annex I. We find that the split between Annex I and non-Annex I has indeed influenced negotiation behavior and amplified the divide between developing and industrialized countries in the climate negotiations.     

Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss & damage debate

The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (L&D) associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established in 2013 to advance i) knowledge generation; ii) coordination and iii) support to address losses and damages under the UNFCCC. So far, the work undertaken by the WIM Executive Committee (ExCom) has focused on enhancing understanding and awareness of the issue and promoting collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Delivering on the WIM’s third function on action and support has lagged behind, and ‘the political’ nature of L&D has often been blamed for this. Key terrains of contention among Parties have included the positioning of L&D governance vis-à-vis the adaptation space and struggles around state liability and compensation. As a way to facilitate discussion on implementation options, recent research has suggested de-politicising aspects of the L&D debate; yet we have very little insight into how the politics are understood within the realm of international L&D governance. This paper brings an analysis of ‘the political’ into the picture by identifying the complex and underlying issues that fuel contention within UNFCCC L&D negotiations. It gives centre stage to the way different framings of norms and material interests affect the debate, and challenges the tendency in current L&D literature to overlook the socio-historical and political underpinnings of this area of policy-making. We employ a qualitative multi-methods research design which draws on content analysis of 138 official Parties’ submissions and statements, 14 elite interviews with key current and former L&D negotiators and is built on a foundation of 3 years of participant observation at COPs and WIM meetings. We approach this data with a political ethnographic sensibility that seeks to explore how meanings are constructed within and across different sources of data. Our empirical results show that, rather than being a monolithic dispute, L&D catalyses different yet intertwined unresolved discussions. We identify five areas of contention, including continued disputes around compensation; conflicts on the legitimacy of L&D as a third pillar of climate action; tensions between the technical and political dimension of the debate; debates over accountability for losses and damages incurred; and the connection of L&D with other unresolved issues under the Convention.     

Implementing adaptation in developed countries: an analysis of progress and trends

Little attention has been paid thus far to the experiences of developed countries in adapting to climate change. This article addresses this research gap by providing an assessment of broad trends in progress on planning and implementing adaptation in developed countries. Primary inputs are the National Communications (NCs) by these countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), although the article also discusses illustrative examples of recent adaptation activities that have not been covered in the NCs. NCs reflect ‘whole government’ perspectives and follow a standardized reporting format, which facilitates cross-national comparisons. The analysis shows that impacts and adaptation receive limited attention within NCs. The discussion on impacts and adaptation has typically been dominated by climate scenarios and impacts analysis, while the discussion on adaptation is often limited to the identification of generic options. There are signs of recent progress, however, in the Third and especially the Fourth NCs, in which a growing number of developed countries report on establishing frameworks for adaptation and on efforts to implement adaptation measures that take future climate into account. Although an encouraging sign, it is still too early to assess the eventual impact of such measures.     

How to increase technology transfers to developing countries: a synthesis of the evidence

The existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has failed to deliver the rate of low-carbon technology transfer (TT) required to curb GHG emissions in developing countries. This failure has exposed the limitations of universalism and renewed interest in bilateral approaches to TT. Gaps are identified in the UNFCCC approach to climate change TT: missing links between international institutions and the national enabling environments that encourage private investment; a non-differentiated approach for (developing) country and technology characteristics; and a lack of clear measurements of the volume and effectiveness of TTs. Evidence from econometric literature and business experience on climate change TT is reviewed, so as to address the identified pitfalls of the UNFCCC process. Strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches are highlighted. International policy recommendations are offered aimed at improving the level of emission reductions achieved through TT.     

The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities

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.     

From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy

Abstract

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adaptation has recently gained importance, yet adaptation is much less developed than mitigation as a policy response. Adaptation research has been used to help answer to related but distinct questions. (1) To what extent can adaptation reduce impacts of climate change? (2) What adaptation policies are needed, and how can they best be developed, applied and funded? For the first question, the emphasis is on the aggregate value of adaptation so that this may be used to estimate net impacts. An important purpose is to compare net impacts with the costs of mitigation. In the second question, the emphasis is on the design and prioritisation of adaptation policies and measures. While both types of research are conducted in a policy context, they differ in their character, application, and purpose. The impacts/mitigation research is orientated towards the physical and biological science of impacts and adaptation, while research on the ways and means of adaptation is focussed on the social and economic determinants of vulnerability in a development context. The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the national adaptation studies carried under the UNFCCC are broadening the paradigm, from the impacts/mitigation to vulnerability/adaptation. For this to occur, new policy research is needed. While the broad new directions of both research and policy can now be discerned, there remain a number of outstanding issues to be considered.