CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all

The principle of common, but differentiated, responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC) is fundamental to the UNFCCC. Some options for a nuanced model of differentiation that addresses both responsibility and capability in a changing world are explored, such as new categories of countries, and some of the political issues that such a model might face are considered. The strengths and limitations of options for graduation based on ‘objective’ criteria such that countries could move between categories or ‘graduate’ – an option provided by the UNFCCC – are discussed. Countries could also choose to join another club (e.g. the G20), self-elect into categories or differentiate among themselves implicitly by accepting different commitments and actions. CBDR&RC will form part of the overall legally binding agreement, and must apply symmetry in some respects and differentiation in others to the commitments and actions contained therein. Some possible characteristics of CBDR&RC of relevance in a regime ‘applicable to all’ are outlined. These include promoting climate action and using mechanisms available in the UNFCCC to instil dynamism. Differentiation on mitigation must consider the distinctions between absolute and relative reductions, as well as commitments to outcomes and implementation. CBDR&RC should be applied to mitigation, adaptation, and the means of implementation.

Policy relevance

In Durban, Parties agreed to negotiate a regime ‘applicable to all’, which sent a political signal that there should be greater symmetry between nations. The world has changed since the UNFCCC was negotiated in 1992. It is now less helpful to think only in terms of two groups of countries (e.g. Annex I and non-Annex I), and evident that there are significant differences between member states. This requires a more nuanced interpretation of the principles of equity and CBDR&RC, which is an integral part of the UNFCCC. The options for the different approaches outlined in this article might help in the construction of a more nuanced model. All must do more, while some must do more still than others. To achieve this, some defining characteristics of CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all are suggested.     

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.     

Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change

Following the conclusion of the official work of the Ad Hoc Group for the Modelling and Assessment of Contributions to Climate Change (MATCH), this article considers the politically more sensitive aspect of the Brazilian proposal, namely the issue of differentiating (historic) responsibility for, and not merely (causal) contribution to climate change. Its aim is (1) to highlight the fact that, while related, the two issues (‘contribution to’ and ‘responsibility for’) are fundamentally different and should not be confused, and (2) to propose a methodology for calculating shares of responsibility as opposed to the shares in causal contribution arrived at through the MATCH results. Two conceptions of responsibility (‘strict’ or ‘limited’) are applied in order to operationalize the notion of ‘respective capabilities’ given in Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC. The key message resulting from the calculations is that causal contribution—while an important indicator of (environmental) relevance to the problem—must not be confused with the moral responsibility for it. The rather large difference between the responsibilities at the two extremes of the scale under both conceptions gives pause for thought as to what sorts of burdens can justly be demanded in any application of the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, whether in the context of the Brazilian proposal or beyond.     

UNFCCC before and after Paris – what's necessary for an effective climate regime?

What can reasonably be expected from the UNFCCC process and the climate conference in Paris 2015? To achieve transformative change, prevailing unsustainable routines embedded in socio-economic systems have to be translated into new and sustainable ones. This article conceptualizes the UNFCCC and the associated policy processes as a catalyst for this translation by applying a structurational regime model. This model provides an analytical distinction of rules (norms and shared meaning) and resources (economic resources as well as authoritative and allocative power) and allows us to conceptualize agency on various levels, including beyond nation states. The analysis concludes that the UNFCCC's narrow focus on emission targets, which essentially is a focus on resources, has proven ineffective. In addition, the static division of industrialized and developing countries in the Convention's annexes and the consensus-based decision-making rules have impeded ambitious climate protection. The article concludes that the UNFCCC is much better equipped to provide rules for climate protection activities and should consciously expand this feature to improve its impact.

Policy relevance

The international community is negotiating a new global climate agreement, to be adopted at the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in December 2015 in Paris and to be applicable from 2020. This article analyses the successes and limitations the UNFCCC has had so far in combating climate change and it develops recommendations on how to enhance efforts within and beyond the framework of the Convention. From our analysis we derive two main recommendations for an effective and structurationally balanced treaty: First, multidimensional mitigation contributions going beyond emission targets could strongly improve countries’ abilities to tailor their contributions around national political discourses. Second, the UNFCCC regime should be complemented with another treaty outside of the UNFCCC framework. This ‘Alliance of the Ambitious’ would allow the pioneers of climate protection to move ahead and enjoy the benefits of cooperation. The dynamics generated through such a club approach could be fed back into the UNFCCC, leading to increased ambition by others in future commitment cycles.     

国际气候谈判背景下的国家温室气体排放清单编制

基于"共同但有区别的责任"原则,《联合国气候变化框架公约》对附件I和非附件I缔约方提交国家温室气体排放清单的要求不尽相同。2007年以来,发展中国家自主减缓行动透明度、以国家温室气候排放清单为核心的国家信息通报提交频率及其磋商分析问题成为气候谈判争论的焦点之一,发展中国家承担的相关义务有不断增加的趋势。通过阐述该公约对发达国家和发展中国家排放清单编制的不同要求,特别是通过对目前发达国家所接受的清单审评制度和我国国家温室气体排放清单编制情况的分析论述,明确我国国家清单编制所面临的挑战,并提出相应的对策建议。     

Accounting for impacts due to climate change in GHG mitigation burden sharing

This study focusing on the climate equity debate in the context of GHG mitigation explores design of a framework that is based on the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ principle of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Besides incorporating the widely recognized differences among countries such as current and historic GHG emissions and capabilities, the framework also accounts for their relative vulnerabilities to climate change. The study argues that since climate change impacts are akin to global public bad, compensation, especially for the poorer nations who are also the worst victims of the climate change impacts, could be conceived in the form of greater share in the GHG emission rights. This, it is argued, would provide the much needed space to grow for the poorer countries and facilitate enhancement of their adaptive capacity to face climate and other threats. It is also argued that the framework results accord with one of the welfare principles, the Weak Equity Axiom (WEA) (Sen, A. K. (1973). On economic inequality. Delhi: Oxford University Press), and yield an equitable distribution of burden.

Policy relevance

The present study attempts to inform the equity debate in the international climate negotiations. The multi-criteria framework of the study suggests a means to incorporate various national attributes which could result in an equitable sharing of the GHG mitigation burden among countries. The study results highlight that impacts due to climate change could provide an important and equitable basis for burden sharing in the present and in future. The study also highlights the significance of scientific literature on climate change impact assessments in informing the future policy dialogue in the climate negotiations.     

Future mitigation commitments: differentiating among non-Annex I countries

Abstract

In the long term, any definition of adequacy consistent with UNFCCC Article 2 will require increased mitigation efforts from almost all countries. Therefore, an expansion of emission limitation commitments will form a central element of any future architecture of the climate regime. This expansion has two elements: deepening of quantitative commitments for Annex B countries and the adoption of commitments for those countries outside of the current limitation regime. This article seeks to provide a more analytical basis for further differentiation among non-Annex I countries. To be both fair and reflective of national circumstances, it is based on the criteria of responsibility, capability and potential to mitigate. Altogether, non-Annex I countries were differentiated in four groups, each including countries with similar national circumstances: newly industrialized countries (NICs), rapidly industrializing countries (RIDCs), ‘other developing countries’, and least developed countries (LDCs). Based on the same criteria that were used for differentiating among non-Annex I countries, a set of decision rules was developed to assign mitigation and financial transfer commitments to each group of countries (including Annex I countries). Applying these decision rules results in (strict) reduction commitments for Annex I countries, but also implies quantifiable mitigation obligations for NICs and RIDCs, assisted by financial transfers from the North. Other developing countries are obliged to take qualitative commitments, but quantifiable mitigation commitments for these countries and the LDC group would be not justifiable. As national circumstances in countries evolve over time, the composition of the groups will change according to agreed triggers.     

Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria

Equitable access to sustainable development (EASD) is crucial for the future of the climate regime as it applies to adaptation, mitigation, and the means of implementation. An approach to allocating effort and deriving carbon budgets is presented here based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) principles of responsibility, capability, and sustainable development. A transparent model to operationalize EASD is applied by applying quantitative proxies for these criteria, and results for selected countries and groups are presented. A robust result is that the mitigation burden calculated by the model is significantly greater for developed than developing countries. For individual countries the results vary depending on the parameters chosen. A middle value of the mitigation burden for South Africa of 15 GtCO₂e over the first half of the 21st century is reported, with the greatest effort required when a starting year of 1970 is chosen and historical land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) emissions are excluded when accounting for responsibility. In a regime applicable to all, it is clear that although all countries must do more, some must do more than others.

Policy relevance

Equitable access to sustainable development is crucial to the climate negotiations. Quantified allocations are presented for South Africa and other countries, based on the UNFCCC principles of responsibility, capability, and sustainable development. It is shown that the mitigation burden given these principles must be significantly greater for developed than developing countries. The results are relevant to, inter alia, the upcoming 2013–2015 review and the negotiations under the Durban Platform.     

Climate governance,justice, and transnational civil society

Justice dilemmas associated with climate change and the regulatory responses to it pose challenges for global governance, arguably hampering progress and raising concerns over efficacy and relevance. Scholarly literature suggests that transnational civil society groups can help address problems of governance and injustice that cross borders and pit states against each other. Findings of a comparative, qualitative study of climate justice advocacy suggest, however, that civil society groups' work in the US and EU is significantly shaped by institutional factors specific to those regimes, limiting advocates' broader impact. Moreover, political opportunities for the pursuit of climate action, and justice particularly, have diminished in those settings. By contrast, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides greater opportunities for discussions of justice, although civil society actors are significantly constrained within it. It is argued that greater roles for civil society in the UNFCCC could prove constructive in the face of current challenges connected with justice issues. Three themes in civil society advocacy linking principles of global justice with current climate policy debates are summarized. Finally, it is suggested that the first iteration of the UNFCCC Periodic Review provides timely opportunities to more fully draw upon civil society's potential contributions toward a fair and effective global climate regime.

Policy relevance

The roles of civil society organizations in climate governance were examined in three policy contexts: the UNFCCC, the US, and the EU, with special attention to advocacy addressing issues of equity and justice, identified as key challenges for a post-2012 global agreement. Findings suggest that (1) civil society roles are significantly constrained in each context, and (2) political opportunities for climate advocacy have diminished since 2009 in the US and EU, underlining (3) the continued salience of the UNFCCC as a forum for engagement and the construction of effective and equitable climate policy. Potential exists for increased civil society involvement at the UNFCCC to help resolve obstacles based in divergent national priorities. Three areas of justice-focused civil society activity are reviewed for current negotiation topics and the governance structure of the institution. The current UNFCCC Periodic Review is identified as an opportunity to increase civil society involvement.     

The changing geopolitics of climate change finance

Funding for climate change efforts in developing countries is firmly established in the Articles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since the early days of the climate change negotiations, finance has been a key focus of attention and, often, a principal source of tension between developed and developing countries. Understandably, these tensions have led to numerous efforts to reform the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. The history of reforms of the Global Environment Facility – for some time the only operating entity of the financial mechanism – and the recent establishment of the Green Climate Fund are good examples of such efforts. It is asked here whether these efforts have been sufficient to keep pace with a rapidly changing, more complex and radically different world from that of 1992 when the UNFCCC was signed by most countries in Rio de Janeiro. On the 21st anniversary of the signing of the UNFCCC, the effects that global transformations have had on climate change finance are here explored, and some of the new challenges, as well as emerging opportunities, resulting from the new landscape of climate finance that has emerged as a result are described.

Policy relevance

The climate change negotiations are entering a critical period. The issue of finance is one of the key pillars on which the success of a new deal on a binding agreement depends. A better understanding of the increasing complexity of the climate finance landscape is essential. The world of climate finance and the geopolitics in which it operates have been significantly transformed since the signing of the UNFCCC. A better understanding of this transformation would help policy makers and negotiators find more effective and realistic ways to help unleash the immense amount of financial resources that could potentially be made available for the great challenge that many countries face to address climate change. The need for up-front and significantly scaled-up investments requires effective mechanisms that can leverage and encourage investments into areas where they are most needed to face the challenge of climate change. The role of the Green Climate Fund will be critical in this regard.     

Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development

Abstract

In this paper we argue that the discussion on how to get to an equitable global climate change regime requires a long-term context. Some key dimensions of this discussion are responsibility, capability and development needs. Each of these, separately or in combination, has been used in designing schemes for differentiation of commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many implementation problems of these proposals are often side-stepped. In particular, some proposals may be incompatible with Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), i.e. they are unlikely to keep the option open of long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at relatively low levels. We present some evidence that shifting the emphasis from emission reduction to sustainable development needs can contribute significantly to relieving the threat of human-induced climate change.     

(Re)Framing ocean acidification in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Paris Agreement

ABSTRACT

Ocean acidification is most frequently framed by the scientific community as a concurrent threat to climate change, rather than an effect of it. This separation of the two phenomena has long been deemed as a way of garnering heightened policy attention for ocean acidification rather than having it bound up in the often contested politics of climate change. This effort, however, appears to have resulted in the inadvertent placing of ocean acidification outside of the mandate of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This has created a significant gap in the global governance of this issue with no multilateral agreement understood as having jurisdiction over the mitigation of rising ocean acidity. For these reasons this paper argues that an alternative framing of ocean acidification as an effect of climate change is warranted. This would include ocean acidification in the core obligations of the Convention, thereby filling the mitigation governance gap and avoiding perverse implementation outcomes. It is contended that interpreting the UNFCCC in this way is more consistent with its objective and purpose than the existing interpretations that place ocean acidification beyond the remit of the Convention.

Key policy insights

• Ocean acidification is best understood as an effect of climate change in the context of the UNFCCC, and therefore is included in its obligations to combat climate change and its adverse effects.

• An obligation to address ocean acidification has implications for the way that the provisions of the Convention, particularly on mitigation, are implemented. Mitigation activities that exacerbate ocean acidification or lead to emission reduction pathways that do not prevent dangerous acidification should be deemed inconsistent with the Convention.

• Protection, conservation and restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems should become a priority area for action within the UNFCCC.

     

Governing people on the move in a warming world: Framing climate change migration and the UNFCCC Task Force on Displacement

Different ways of framing the nexus between climate change and migration have been advanced in academic, advocacy and policy circles. Some understand it as a state-security issue, some take a protection (or human security) approach and yet others portray migration as an adaptation or climate risk management strategy. Yet we have little insight into how these different understandings of the ‘problem’ of climate change-related migration are beginning to shape the emergence of global governance in the climate regime. Through a focus on the UNFCCC Task Force on Displacement we argue that these different framings of climate change migration shape how actors understand the appropriate role of the TFD, including the substantive scope of its mandate; its operational priorities; the nature of its outputs and where it should be situated in the institutional architecture. We show that understanding the different framings of the nexus between climate change and migration – and how these framings are contested within the UNFCCC – can help to account for institutional development in this area of climate governance.     

Civil society lobbying and countries’ climate change policies: a matching approach

Does civil society lobbying affect states’ policies on climate change? Does it facilitate or hamper cooperation towards ‘greener’ policies? Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and business lobbying groups alike are increasingly seeking to access states’ negotiation delegations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in order to affect or even change official delegates’ policies. Previous studies have failed to control for the fact that the set of states that have granted civil society access to their delegations is unlikely to be a random sample. Moreover, the fact that a delegation's policy outputs may converge with the preferences of a civil society group cannot be taken as evidence that it was caused by civil society lobbying. A matching approach that addresses both problems is proposed, which corrects for the non-random assignment of civil society organizations to state delegations and forms quasi-experimental contrasts by sampling a set of ‘most similar’ cases that only differ in their treatment; i.e. civil society lobbying. This approach facilitates a causal interpretation of lobbying efforts. The results indicate that only business groups are likely to exert a causal influence on states’ climate delegations. However, contrary to expectations, these groups appear to have enhanced states’ efforts towards environmentally friendly policies.

Policy relevance

What impact can non-governmental actors have in influencing states’ policies at the climate change negotiations? This question is addressed empirically using a matching approach, which corrects potential challenges in the research on interest group influence. It is shown that business groups are likely to influence states’ policies at the UNFCCC – unlike green interest groups or civil society in general. In light of these findings, three policy implications are derived that might be of importance for states and non-governmental decision makers alike. Most importantly, ENGOs should refocus their efforts for exerting their influence. ENGOs could make their lobbying more effective by first identifying the states that may be more receptive to their preferences and positions.     

Introducing population-adjusted historical contributions to global warming

The 1997 Brazilian Proposal suggested that differentiated emissions reduction targets for Annex I parties of the UNFCCC should be based on the impact of their historic greenhouse gas emissions on global temperature rise. In this paper, we develop methodologies for (and undertake) population-adjusted historical responsibility calculations. These adjust national-level historical responsibility calculations for historical population trends. We find a weak correlation between current per capita emissions levels and population-adjusted historical responsibility. Our calculations may contribute to burden sharing schemes in future climate agreements.     

A new look at climate equity in the UNFCCC

Equity has been at the core of the global climate debate since its inception over two decades ago, yet the current negotiations toward an international climate agreement in 2015 provide a new and critical opportunity to make forward progress on the difficult web of equity issues. These negotiations and the discussions about equity are taking place in a context that has shifted: all countries will be covered under a new agreement; growing climate impacts are being felt, especially by the most vulnerable; and there is an emergence of new institutions and increasing complexity in the international climate regime. Innovative thinking on equity, including which countries should take action and how, is therefore essential to finalizing an agreement by 2015. A broader, deeper, and more holistic view of equity is necessary, one that sees equity as a multi-dimensional challenge to be solved across all the facets of the international climate process.

Policy relevance

This article is relevant to policy makers following the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform as it prepares the way for a new agreement in 2015. The article focuses specifically on the issues most relevant to the debate around equity in the negotiations and how that debate is evolving with the expansion of the UNFCCC. It explains the current state of the negotiations and what issues are on the negotiating table, including the fact that negotiations on equity are now much broader than the mitigation commitments, to include the possible ‘equity reference framework’, concerns relating to adaptation and loss and damage, and the need for ambition in terms of mitigation and finance support.     

《联合国气候变化框架公约》适应谈判历程回顾与展望

减缓和适应是应对气候变化的互补性策略,但在《联合国气候变化框架公约》（简称《公约》）的谈判中,适应在很长一段时期都处于减缓的从属地位。《公约》20多年的适应谈判进程可划为早期缓慢发展、科学和技术讨论、适应与减缓并重、增强适应行动和全面适应行动5个阶段,呈现出由无到有、重要性不断增强的特点。这一特点反映了全球对气候变化影响和适应重要性认识的不断深入及适应气候变化挑战的不断增强。未来适应谈判将聚焦于如何通过《公约》现有机制增强行动及如何增加适应资金以满足发展中国家的适应需求。     

Global climate policy and deep decarbonization of energy-intensive industries

If we are to limit global warming to 2 °C, all sectors in all countries must reduce their emissions of GHGs to zero not later than 2060–2080. Zero-emission options have been less explored and are less developed in the energy-intensive basic materials industries than in other sectors. Current climate policies have not yet motivated major efforts to decarbonize this sector, and it has been largely protected from climate policy due to the perceived risks of carbon leakage and a focus on short-term reduction targets to 2020. We argue that the future global climate policy regime must develop along three interlinked and strategic lines to facilitate a deep decarbonization of energy-intensive industries. First, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility must be reinterpreted to allow for a dialogue on fairness and the right to development in relation to industry. Second, a greater focus on the development, deployment and transfer of technology in this sector is called for. Third, the potential conflicts between current free trade regimes and motivated industrial policies for deep decarbonization must be resolved. One way forward is to revisit the idea of sectoral approaches with a broader scope, including not only emission reductions, but recognizing the full complexity of low-carbon transitions in energy-intensive industries. A new approach could engage industrial stakeholders, support technology research, development and demonstration and facilitate deployment through reducing the risk for investors. The Paris Agreement allows the idea of sectoral approaches to be revisited in the interests of reaching our common climate goals.

Policy relevance

Deep decarbonization of energy-intensive industries will be necessary to meet the 2 °C target. This requires major innovation efforts over a long period. Energy-intensive industries face unique challenges from both innovation and technical perspectives due to the large scale of facilities, the character of their global markets and the potentially high mitigation costs. This article addresses these challenges and discusses ways in which the global climate policy framework should be developed after the Paris Agreement to better support transformative change in the energy-intensive industries.     

波兹南会议之后的气候变化政治格局

2008年12月的波兹南会议作为巴厘岛和哥本哈根一次中间会议,既要全面回顾巴厘路线图的执行情况又要为即将到来的哥本哈根谈判作好准备,因此极为重要。发达国家、发展中国家两大谈判阵营,欧盟、美国和"77国集团+中国"三股主要力量围绕长期愿景、减排目标、适应、资金和技术转让等问题谈判激烈。2009年奥巴马执政以来美国与欧盟气候立场逐渐靠拢,新兴发展中大国地位愈发凸显,其他谈判力量也根据自身情况不断作出立场调整。中国在国际气候机制形成和发展中已处于关键位置,如何根据政治格局变化维护发展中国家利益和立场,实现负责任大国形象和国内低碳发展将伴随着整个后京都过程。     

Climate change mitigation strategies for agriculture: an analysis of nationally determined contributions,biennial reports and biennial update reports

The role of agriculture in the context of climate change is a complex issue. On the one hand, concerns about food security highlight the need to prioritize adaptation; on the other hand, the target of the Paris Agreement (keeping global temperature rise well below 2°C) cannot be achieved without a significant decrease in agricultural emissions. Various analyses of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) submitted under the Paris Agreement show how countries intend to prioritize the needs for adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sector. This paper focuses on 46 countries that contribute 90% of global agricultural emissions and asks how they are addressing the agricultural sector in their climate mitigation policies. It takes into account that conditions and circumstances in countries vary significantly but might also indicate similar patterns. The analysis is based on information provided by countries in their NDCs, as well as their Biennial Reports (BRs) or Biennial Update Reports (BURs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It further includes data on national agricultural emissions. By applying a mixed methods approach, which combines qualitative content analysis and comparative cluster analysis, we find that countries vary in their progress on agriculture and climate mitigation for many different reasons. These reasons include the national perception of the problem, divergent starting points for climate policy, particularities of the agricultural sector and, correspondingly, the availability of cost-effective mitigation technologies.

Key policy insights

• While for many countries the NDCs signify the beginning of their climate policy, UNFCCC biennial reports can be used to learn more about the policies that countries have already implemented.

• Mitigation action in the agricultural sector is emphasized most prominently in cases where co-benefits are possible and production is not impacted negatively.

• Policies and measures in the agricultural sector often do not align with the UNFCCC system of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV). In addition to improving MRV-systems, it seems equally important to exchange national experiences with implemented measures and policies.

• The Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture could take into account the problem of different definitions of sector boundaries and thus the importance of different mitigation measures.