From Paris to Marrakech: Global Politics around Loss and Damage

2016 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Taub ◽  
Naznin Nasir ◽  
M. Feisal Rahman ◽  
Saleemul Huq

The issue of loss and damage has historically been politically contentious, with developed countries being afraid of being held responsible, and developing countries demanding some form of compensation for being disproportionately impacted by climate change-induced loss and damage. After much debate between developed and developing countries, the Paris Agreement took the middle road between the varying outcomes envisioned by developed and developing countries. The Agreement recognised the most vital demands of the developing countries to incorporate loss and damage as an independent pillar of the UNFCCC process and made the Warsaw International Mechanism permanent. Considering the discomfort among the developed block, the language of the Agreement was general and non-binding in character, overtly excluding the possibility of liability or compensation under loss and damage, which many have been described as a failure for vulnerable countries. Thus, the major challenge for the COP22 will be to expedite the discussion around financing and legal responsibility for loss and damage. This article discusses the road towards the Paris Agreement in light of the history of negotiations on loss and damage under the UNFCCC and aims to understand how it will impact the future of loss and damage.

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. eaau3855 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Rashid Sumaila ◽  
Travis C. Tai ◽  
Vicky W. Y. Lam ◽  
William W. L. Cheung ◽  
Megan Bailey ◽  
...  

The Paris Agreement aims to mitigate the potential impacts of climate change on ecological and social systems. Using an ensemble of climate-marine ecosystem and economic models, we explore the effects of implementing the Agreement on fish, fishers, and seafood consumers worldwide. We find that implementing the Agreement could protect millions of metric tons in annual worldwide catch of top revenue-generating fish species, as well as billions of dollars annually of fishers’ revenues, seafood workers’ income, and household seafood expenditure. Further, our analysis predicts that 75% of maritime countries would benefit from this protection, and that ~90% of this protected catch would occur within the territorial waters of developing countries. Thus, implementing the Paris Agreement could prove to be crucial for the future of the world’s ocean ecosystems and economies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Macey

Following a familiar pattern of UN climate change negotiations, the 2011 Durban conference of the parties (COP17) was concluded by sleep-deprived delegates well after its scheduled end, after crises and last-minute drama. Just what it might mean for the future was not immediately obvious to observers. Early reactions ranged from seeing yet another failure by governments to grasp the seriousness and urgency of climate change – ‘a disaster for us all’ – to much more positive assessments. The executive secretary of the UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), Christiana Figueres, described Durban as ‘without doubt … the most encompassing and furthest reaching conference in the history of the climate change negotiations’. 


2019 ◽  
pp. 142-156
Author(s):  
Chandrashekhar Dasgupta

In this chapter, India’s lead negotiator for the framework convention recalls that the negotiations were marked by deep differences between developed and developing countries (though there were also significant divergences within these groups). Developing countries pressed for an equity-based agreement, maintaining that developed countries should accept their responsibility for precipitating climate change. They called on industrialized countries to accept time-bound emission reduction obligations and to transfer finance and technology to support voluntary mitigation actions by developing countries. The Convention recognized that voluntary obligations agreed upon by developing countries were conditional on receipt of financial resources to cover all incremental costs. However, developed countries accepted only an ambiguously worded emission stabilization commitment. This deficiency was rectified by the Kyoto Protocol 1997, which prescribed time-bound emission reduction targets for each developed country. The Paris Agreement 2015 halted this line of progress, marking a reversal to the ‘pledge and review’ approach rejected in 1991.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Carty ◽  
Jan Kowalzig ◽  
Bertram Zagema

International climate finance is vital to global cooperation on climate change. As many developing countries reel from the effects of coronavirus, the prospect of climate-induced extreme weather risks compounding crises and poverty. Climate change could undo decades of progress in development and dramatically increase global inequalities. There is an urgent need for climate finance to help countries cope and adapt. Over a decade ago, developed countries committed to mobilize $100bn per year by 2020 to support developing countries to adapt and reduce their emissions. The goal is a critical part of the Paris Agreement. As 2020 draws to a close, Oxfam’s Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020 offers an assessment of progress towards the $100bn goal. The third in a series, this report looks at the latest donor figures for 2017–18, with a strong focus on public finance. It considers how climate finance is being counted and spent; where it is going; how close we are to the $100bn goal; and what lessons need to be learned for climate finance post-2020.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-177
Author(s):  
Serge Silatsa Nanda ◽  
Omar Samba ◽  
Ahmad Sahide

The adoption of international climate agreements requires thorough negotiation between parties. This study aims to analyse the inequities between developed and developing countries in climate negotiations. This was done through a scrutiny of the main stages of these negotiations from the Rio Conference to the advent of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis has shown pervasive inequities along the climate negotiations over time. The UNFCCC made a qualitative separation between developed and developing countries in the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol emphasized this with the commitment of developed countries to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5%. The Kyoto Protocol by introducing flexibility mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) contributed to increase inequalities. The Paris Agreement has increased inequity by requesting each country to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) even though the global emission of developing countries remains very low. The negotiation style of developing countries is mostly limited to compromise and accommodation to the desires of the powerful states, as is the case in most international cooperation. The reality of the climate change negotiations mirrors the inequalities between developed and developing nations.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
endang naryono

Covid-19 or the corona virus is a virus that has become a disaster and a global humanitarian disaster began in December 2019 in Wuhan province in China, April 2020 the spread of the corona virus has spread throughout the world making the greatest humanitarian disaster in the history of human civilization after the war world II, Already tens of thousands of people have died, millions of people have been infected with the conona virus from poor countries, developing countries to developed countries overwhelmed by this virus outbreak. Increasingly, the spread follows a series of measurements while patients who recover recover from a series of counts so that this epidemic becomes a very frightening disaster plus there is no drug or vaccine for this corona virus yet found, so that all countries implement strategies to reduce this spread from social distancing, phycal distancing to with a city or country lockdown.


Author(s):  
Daniel Krahl

The Paris Agreement has turned traditional approaches to global governance upside down, using a bottom-up approach that made it possible for emerging powers like China to agree to binding emissions targets to contain climate change. It thus marks a further step away from the old order centered on Western power, and at the same time it fits well into Chinese attempts to create a post-American order that rests on great power diplomacy within a multilateral framework of cooperation that privileges developing countries. The Paris Agreement allows China to leverage the internal fight against pollution and the restructuring and upgrading of its economy for international status. That the agreement has so far survived President Trump’s announcement of America’s departure suggests that it could yet serve as a blueprint for other, future arrangements for world order that would be able to integrate a risen China.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Armin Rosencranz ◽  
Kanika Jamwal

This article argues that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s conception of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) was never effectively implemented through the Kyoto Protocol. The investments under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism suggest that CBDRRC has been used by developed countries to buy a “right to pollute”, i.e., maintaining or even increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, while investing in clean energy in developing nations, thus defeating the essence of CBDRRC as intended under the UNFCCC. Second, it points out that the Paris Agreement reflects a significant shift in the CBDRRC, both in terms of its textual understanding as well as its implementation. A qualifier, “in the light of national circumstances”, was added to the principle of CBDRRC in the Paris Agreement, allowing a form of voluntary self-differentiation. This qualifier diluted a top-down, objective analysis of States’ commitments. For several scholars, this shift has meant a softening of the principle, making the “differentiation” more dynamic and flexible. In the authors’ opinion, the qualifier is a fundamental modification of the principle to make it politically more palatable. It completely disregards the notion of historical responsibility for climate change, which was the cornerstone of CBDRRC as conceived under the UNFCCC. Therefore, rather than presenting a more flexible understanding of UNFCCC’s conception of CBDRRC, the Paris Agreement marks a total departure from it. Lacking an explicit redefinition of the principle of CBDRRC, it is misleading to contend that the Paris Agreement is still anchored in it.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-210
Author(s):  
Simone Borghesi

AbstractThe present article describes the main insights deriving from the papers collected in this special issue which jointly provide a ‘room with a view’ on some of the most relevant issues in climate policy such as: the role of uncertainty, the distributional implications of climate change, the drivers and applications of decarbonizing innovation, the role of emissions trading and its interactions with companion policies. While looking at different issues and from different angles, all papers share a similar attention to policy aspects and implications, especially in developing countries. This is particularly important to evaluate whether and to what extent the climate policies adopted thus far in developed countries can be replicated in emerging economies.


2013 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 1350008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mou WANG

Drawing on the idea that countries are eligible to implement differentiated emission reduction policies based on their respective capabilities, some parties of UNFCCC attempt to weaken the principle of “Common but differentiated responsibilities(CBDR)” and impose carbon tariff on international trade. This initiative is in fact another camouflage to burden developing countries with emission cut obligation, which has no doubt undermined the development rights of developing countries. This paper defines Carbon Tariff as border measures that target import goods with embodied carbon emission. It can be import tariffs or other domestic tax measures that adjust border tax, which includes plain import tariffs and export rebates, border tax adjustment, emission quota and permit etc. For some developed countries, carbon tariffs mean to sever trade protectionism and to build trade barriers. Its theoretical arguments like “loss of comparative advantage”, “carbon leakage decreases environmental effectiveness” and “theoretical model bases” are pseudo-propositions without international consensus. Carbon tariff has become an intensively debated issue due to its duality of climate change and trade, but neither UNFCCC nor WTO has clarified this issue or has indicated a clear statement in this regard. As a result, it allows some parties to take advantage of this loophole and escape its international climate change obligation. Carbon tariff is an issue arising from global climate governance. To promote the cooperation of global climate governance and safeguard the social and economic development of developing countries, a fair and justified climate change regime and international trade institution should be established, and the settlement of the carbon tariff issue should be addressed within these frameworks. This paper argues that the international governance of carbon tariff should in cooperation with other international agreements; however, principles and guidelines regarding this issue should be developed under the UNFCCC. Based on these principles and guidelines, WTO can develop related technical operation provisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document