马德里气候大会盘点及全球气候治理展望

《联合国气候变化框架公约》（简称《公约》）第25次缔约方会议取得了一定进展,但未能就各方最为关注的《巴黎协定》第六条市场机制实施细则达成一致。会议成果平淡主要有4个原因:第一,过度强调提高各方减排目标力度而未能聚焦《巴黎协定》第六条相关谈判;第二,主席国和部分缔约方急切将各方尚未形成政治共识的提高承诺力度问题引入谈判进程,破坏了谈判氛围;第三,各个议题推进不平衡;第四,发达国家企图逃避责任,促使发展中国家更加团结并形成对立。展望2020年的全球气候多边进程形势,《巴黎协定》第六条相关谈判将继续作为重点,提高力度也将成为讨论主题,但片面强调1.5℃目标可能引发重谈《巴黎协定》风险,同时发达国家背弃《公约》、转嫁责任意图明显。全球气候治理应聚焦落实承诺的力度,并平行推进《公约》及其《巴黎协定》的实施。     

COP28全球盘点成果解读及全球气候治理形势展望

《联合国气候变化框架公约》第28次缔约方会议（COP28）完成了《巴黎协定》下首次全球盘点,就多项议题达成一揽子名为“阿联酋共识”的成果。全球盘点成果的达成在机制上维护了《巴黎协定》的有效性,成果文件凸显了全球以1.5℃为温控目标强化减排行动力度的紧迫性,构建了全球适应目标框架,建立了损失与损害基金,高度关注气候资金支持缺口问题,并澄清了气候资金的概念关系。中国在元首外交、气候治理理念、谈判磋商方案等方面为全球盘点成果的达成作出了重要贡献。展望首次全球盘点后的全球气候多边形势,全球气候治理格局的多渠道化、多领域化、目标细化趋势显现,地缘政治加剧绿色贸易壁垒,发展中国家立场日渐碎片化,各国将在《巴黎协定》下以“自主贡献+”的模式开展气候行动,并不断按照新的要求更新和提高自主贡献。建议中国强化统筹国际国内两个大局,顺应全球绿色发展大势,积极完成各项履约任务并强化气候变化相关研究支撑和能力建设,提前统筹谋划COP29工作方案。     

从巴黎到卡托维兹：全球气候治理中的统一和分裂

《巴黎协定》达成之后的实施细则谈判从一开始就面临各种挑战。尽管如此,卡托维兹气候大会基本完成了实施细则的磋商,通过统一规则的制定夯实了基于规则的气候治理框架,为“自下而上”的松散协定注入了更多规则绑定强制性色彩,提升了协定的法律地位。会议也见证了气候世界的分裂,包括主要缔约方立场的退化、谈判集团的分化重组、利益集团的博弈、对科学报告的分歧等,从而使关于力度的磋商没有实质进展。从巴黎到卡托维兹的谈判路程表明治理全球化、治理效率以及国家主权之间暂时存在“不可能三角”。未来的谈判应促进从规则到行动的转变。     

巴黎协定——全球气候治理的新起点

巴黎气候变化大会完成了历时4年的德班平台谈判进程,达成了以《巴黎协定》（简称《协定》）为核心的一系列决定。《协定》确立了一种全缔约方参与,以“自主贡献+审评”为中心,全面涉及减缓、适应及其支持的全球应对气候变化新模式。这一模式在继承《公约》原则的基础上,明确了发达国家和发展中国家各自的责任,通过国家自主贡献的方式充分动员所有缔约方采取应对气候变化行动,促进可持续发展。《协定》还鼓励除缔约方外的其他主体积极参与应对气候变化进程,鼓励市场和非市场机制的加入,动员资金流向绿色低碳领域。在制度安排上,《协定》体现了激励、透明、非对抗、非惩罚性的特点。《协定》的达成标志着全球气候治理进入了新的发展阶段,传递出全球推动实现绿色低碳、气候适应型和可持续发展的强有力信号。然而由于《协定》全面平衡了各方的利益,在未来的遵约细节和实施落实方面将会有更多的难题,如果处理不当,将可能会损害发展中国家的利益,尤其是发展中大国。     

《巴黎协定》实施细则评估与全球气候治理展望

《巴黎协定》在确立2020年后应对气候变化框架性制度安排的同时也给出了一系列留待解决的后续任务,包括制定《巴黎协定》实施细则,细化相应规则、制度和指南等。经过3年的谈判,2018年年底在卡托维兹举行的第24次缔约方会议对《巴黎协定》涉及的除市场机制外的众多议题做出了一揽子安排,建立了一系列指导和帮助各方在2020年后落实和履行《巴黎协定》的实施细则,为全面有效实施《巴黎协定》提供了更明确的指导。本研究致力对《巴黎协定》实施细则的内容和特点、对中国的潜在影响和要求、后续谈判走向以及中国的对策等进行全面深入的梳理和分析。评估发现,实施细则继续保持了《巴黎协定》的“精妙平衡”,严格恪守并充分体现了“自下而上”的《巴黎协定》模式,在为发展中国家保留一定灵活性的基础上统一了报告和审评的“度量衡”,并进一步明确了以五年为周期提高行动和支持力度的序贯决策机制。细则可能给中国引领全球气候治理和国内履约带来新的机遇和挑战。中国需要从观念认识、责任担当、业务协调上做好新的布局,根据国内外新趋势、新特点构建中国特色的气候治理新体系。     

国家自主贡献更新进展、特征及其对全球气候治理的影响

国家自主贡献(NDC)是《巴黎协定》最核心的制度,体现了全球气候治理模式从"自上而下"到"自下而上"的变迁.文中对截至2021年7月1日92个缔约方通报或更新的NDC进行了比较分析,识别出7种更新方式:提高量化减排目标数字、调整减排目标类型和覆盖范围、增加适应目标和政策、增加2050年减排愿景、主动适用NDC信息和核算...     

巴黎气候会议对全球长期目标的新发展

巴黎气候会议（COP21）达成了包括《巴黎协定》在内的重要成果,丰富和深化了应对气候变化的一揽子长期目标。1.5℃温升控制目标意味着全球管控气候风险的政治意愿得到强化,减缓温室气体排放的路径得到初步勾勒。在未来的科学评估和政治谈判中,全球各区域甚至是各个排放大国的排放空间、排放路径和减缓需求将会进一步清晰化和定量化,还会丰富和深化自上而下的国际气候合作规则,结合当前以国家自主决定贡献（INDC）为特征的、主要以自下而上方式推进全球气候治理的新模式,将对发展中国家、尤其是发展中排放大国的排放配额与发展空间产生重要影响,并进一步影响各国制定其国家贡献目标与行动的自主性。     

“后巴黎”时代气候适应国际合作进展与展望

纵深并拓宽气候适应国际合作,是《巴黎协定》增强适应行动的主要内容,是“后巴黎”时代延续全面适应行动的重要组成部分。在系统地调研和梳理主要国家/集团适应气候变化国际合作机制以及全球气候适应国际合作重点领域的基础上,分析中国近年来开展的政府间交流机制,双、多边合作机制,国际组织合作以及与发展中国家开展的南南合作等适应气候变化合作重点工作,总结出资金缺乏、合作渠道多元化不足、国际合作模式亟待深化以及“后疫情”时代经济绿色复苏的挑战是中国开展适应气候变化国际合作面临的主要问题。“后巴黎”时代,中国作为全球生态文明建设的重要参与者、贡献者、引领者,深化气候适应国际合作将落脚于深度参与全球气候适应治理机制的建设、深化与全球适应中心的合作、探索气候适应国际合作重点领域和重点工作以及进一步开拓跨国对标城市间的适应气候变化国际合作。     

美国退出《巴黎协定》对全球气候治理的影响

自特朗普就任美国总统,美国退出《巴黎协定》已在意料中,但当特朗普正式宣布退出仍引发了国际社会的广泛关注。究其宣布退出的考虑不难看出,尽管美国政治信誉、国际合作和长远经济均受影响,但借此特朗普既可以提高其政治影响力、同时又可向国际社会重新要价。从国际应对气候变化的大形势看,美国的退出不会根本逆转全球气候治理的大方向。但美国削减国内气候变化研究、多边环境基金的资金支持和援助等政策将影响气候变化的基础研究和国际应对气候变化多边机制,以及未来应对气候变化的国际合作和长期目标的实现。《联合国气候变化框架公约》的"共同但有区别"的责任原则将受到冲击。就未来而言,全球应对气候变化的正向发展仍旧是主旋律,气候治理正进入多元主体发挥作用的时代,地方和民间组织层面将开展更多的技术创新务实合作,提高气候变化科学及认知的能力建设仍将是长期的任务。     

美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》后全球气候减缓、资金和治理差距分析

2017年6月1日,美国总统特朗普正式宣布退出《巴黎协定》,有关美国退协原因、后续影响和应对策略的研究成为国际社会关注的焦点。本文基于自主构建的美国政策评估模型,综合定性定量分析,系统评估了美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》可能造成的全球气候变化减缓、资金和治理"三大赤字",并据此提出中国的应对策略和建议。研究表明,考虑美国退协对后续政策的影响,美国2030年的排放将有可能达57.9（56.0~59.8）亿t CO₂-eq,仅相当于在2005年的水平上下降12.1%（9.1%~15.0%）,相对自主贡献目标情景将上升16.4（12.5~20.1）亿t CO₂-eq,额外增加8.8%~13.4%的全球减排赤字。美国拒绝继续履行资金支持义务还将使得本不充裕的气候资金机制更加雪上加霜,绿色气候基金（GCF）的筹资缺口将增加20亿美元,而长期气候资金（LTF）的缺口每年将增加50亿美元左右。这就要求欧盟和日本对GCF的捐助至少上升40%,同时欧盟及其成员国的长期资金支持至少上浮25.2%才能填补上述资金赤字。美国是全球气候博弈的重要一方,且美国退协的影响已蔓延至全球治理的主要议事平台,期望中欧、基础四国+等模式短期内迅速填补美国退出后全球气候治理的治理赤字是不现实的,政治推动乏力的情况可能会在今后一段时期内始终存在。虽然国际社会对中国领导全球气候治理充满期待,但中国应有清醒认识,全面评估"接盘"美国领导力的成本、效益和可行性,并秉持"国家利益"优先的原则,谋定而后动。同时,中国应聚焦国内工作,凝聚应对气候变化的战略共识,做好长期战略谋划,并积极推动国际社会从合作中寻找出路应对"三大赤字"难题。     

Resilience through interlinkage: the green climate fund and climate finance governance

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a significant and potentially innovative addition to UNFCCC frameworks for mobilizing increased finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet the GCF faces challenges of operationalization not only as a relatively new international fund but also as a result of US President Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Consequently the GCF faces a major reduction in actual funding contributions and also governance challenges at the levels of its Board and the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), to which it is ultimately accountable. This article analyzes these challenges with reference to the GCF’s internal regulations and its agreements with third parties to demonstrate how exploiting design features of the GCF could strengthen its resilience in the face of such challenges. These features include linkages with UNFCCC constituted bodies, particularly the Technology Mechanism, and enhanced engagement with non-Party stakeholders, especially through its Private Sector Facility. The article posits that deepening GCF interlinkages would increase both the coherence of climate finance governance and the GCF’s ability to contribute to ambitious climate action in uncertain times.

Key policy insights

• The Trump Administration’s purported withdrawal from the Paris Agreement creates challenges for the GCF operating model in three key domains: capitalization, governance and guidance.

• Two emerging innovations could prove crucial in GCF resilience to fulfil its role in Paris Agreement implementation: (1) interlinkages with other UNFCCC bodies, especially the Technology Mechanism; and (2) engagement with non-Party stakeholders, especially private sector actors such as large US investors and financiers.

• There is also an emerging soft role for the GCF as interlocutor between policy-makers and non-Party actors to help bridge the communication divide that often plagues cross-sectoral interactions.

• This role could develop through: (a) the GCF tripartite interface between the Private Sector Facility, Accredited Entities and National Designated Authorities; and (b) strengthened collaborations between the UNFCCC Technical and Financial Mechanisms.

     

Aligning climate and sustainable development finance through an SDG lens. The role of development assistance in implementing the Paris Agreement

Climate change and development are strongly interconnected. An efficient use of financial resources would, thus require alignment between climate finance and development priorities, as set out in the context of both the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this paper, we investigate to what extent climate-related official development assistance (ODA) before and after the Paris Agreement adoption supports the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, we assess to what extent donors align this finance with recipient countries’ climate-related priorities as spelled out in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). First, we find that climate-relevant ODA contributes to multiple SDGs, above all SDG 7 (energy) and SDG 11 (cities). Second, we find that there is substantial alignment between donors’ and recipients’ SDG priorities, but that this alignment has not improved in recent years, since the conclusion of the Paris Agreement. Third, we find that albeit climate-finance continues to be allocated more to climate-change mitigation than to adaptation, the difference became smaller in recent years. This reduced the misalignment with recipient countries’ NDC climate activities, which focus more on adaptation than mitigation. Overall, we identify coherence, gaps and opportunities for further alignment of climate and development actions, and related finance. Such an alignment is essential to increase the likelihood of implementation of the two international agreements and to ensure that action is guided by recipient countries’ needs.     

Africa and the Green Climate Fund: current challenges and future opportunities

Although the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is widely commendable in several ways, access to the Fund has been very challenging for many African countries. Using GCF published statistics, we identify possible challenges likely to be responsible for this. First, we present an assessment of the GCF’s Readiness Support Programme with respect to how the programme’s performance may have affected achievement of African countries’ readiness outcomes. Second, a critical evaluation of the status of African GCF portfolio (pipeline and approved projects) provides a means by which to assess how well Africa’s current portfolio aligns with GCF strategic impact areas, results areas and investment priorities. We then discuss GCF access modalities and the implications of relying on International Accredited Entities (IAEs) to indirectly access the Fund. The readiness support assessment indicates that the distribution of support requests and funding approvals is nearly equal across the regions of Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. However, when the regions are considered individually, Africa demonstrates lower approvals with respect to requests and securing funding. Results from the GCF portfolio evaluation reveal that little or no attention has been devoted to GCF critical result areas such as forests and land use or transport, where great potentials for low-carbon development transitions exist. With respect to access modalities, the IAE financing mechanism currently provides access to the Fund for the majority of projects in both the global and African GCF portfolios. The implications of these findings are extensively discussed.

Key policy insights

• For Africa, limited readiness support and a reliance on International Accredited Entities constrains capacity building, thereby reinforcing a lack of both readiness and direct access to the GCF.

• There are opportunities for Africa to diversify its GCF portfolios, adhere to international commitments, and address its adaptation and development needs by identifying and capitalizing on linkages between GCF funding priorities, mitigation, and adaptation.

• There are leverage points within existing climate finance and governance systems that could catalyse a shift in Africa’s engagement with the GCF and generate positive, cascading effects on institutional strengthening, direct access accreditation and securing funding.

     

Proposal for a poverty-adaptation-mitigation window within the Green Climate Fund

The stakes for alleviating poverty and avoiding unbridled climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change impacts will slow down and may even reverse trends in poverty reduction. The pathways consistent with global warming of no more than 2?°C require strategies for poverty alleviation to make allowance for the constraint of low-carbon development. Existing climate funds have failed to target poverty alleviation as a high-priority strategy for adaptation or as a component of low-carbon development. This article proposes a funding window as part of the Green Climate Fund in order to foster synergies targeting greater satisfaction of basic needs, while making allowance for adaptation and mitigation. This financial mechanism is based on indicators of the satisfaction of basic needs and could respond to the claims of the developing countries, which see alleviating poverty as the first priority in climate negotiations. It defines a country continuum, given that there are poor people everywhere; all developing countries are therefore eligible with a mechanism of this sort.

Policy relevance

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for substantial emissions reductions and adaptation strategies over the next decades to reduce the high risks of severe impacts of climate change over the 21st century. Industrialized countries and developing countries alike recognize the need to mitigate climate change and to adapt to it. But they face many challenges that lead to an ‘emissions gap’ between an emissions level consistent with the 2?°C increase limit and the voluntary pledges that they have made thus far in the climate negotiations (United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). The Emissions Gap Report 2014. A UNEP synthesis report). In this arena, many developing countries underline that their first domestic priority is the satisfaction of basic needs. In the run-up to the next climate negotiations at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris, the proposed poverty-adaptation-mitigation funding window could contribute to alleviate the conflict between development and climate goals in developing countries. In this sense, it could spur developing countries to integrate more ambitious emissions limitations pledges into their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. This could in turn entice industrialized countries to act similarly. In the end, it could pave the way to an ambitious climate agreement in Paris at COP 21.     

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.     

The global climate action summit: increasing ambition during turbulent times

In September 2018, leaders in climate action within and outside the U.S. will convene in San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit. They plan to demonstrate strong ongoing commitment to exceeding the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, despite U.S. federal opposition under President Trump, and to spur greater ambition among subnational governments and the private sector. Now that the Trump Administration is working to undo the progress made under President Obama, it is more important than ever that states and cities, as well as the private sector, redouble their efforts. Since the 2016 election, many U.S. states have demonstrated leadership by establishing ever-more ambitious clean energy and electric vehicle targets through legislation and executive action; by pushing back on the Trump Administration in public forums and in the courts; and by banding together to realise greater effectiveness through collective action. The commitment of leading states, cities, and businesses alone will not be enough to achieve the rapid reductions needed to keep planetary warming to 1.5 degrees C in the absence of U.S. federal efforts. But coming after a summer of extreme weather events, the Summit represents a critical opportunity to re-energise constituencies, highlight the need for urgent and ambitious action, and bring climate change to the forefront of policy conversations across the U.S. and beyond.

Key policy insights

• The reversal of U.S. ambitious clean energy and transportation policy, including replacing the Clean Power Plan, freezing fuel standards, and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, have created a gap at the federal level under President Trump that will be difficult – but perhaps not impossible – to fill with subnational action.

• States, local governments, and the private sector have shown a strengthened commitment to combating climate change and to the goals set out in the Paris Agreement through more ambitious legislative and executive targets, and regional initiatives like RGGI and cross-jurisdictional zero emissions vehicle programmes.

• The Global Climate Action Summit in September 2018 is a pivotal moment to energise a broader coalition within and outside the U.S. towards catalysing the level of ambition needed to exceed goals set out in the Paris Agreement.