scholarly journals Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020: Assessing progress towards the $100 billion commitment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Carty ◽  
Jan Kowalzig ◽  
Bertram Zagema
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Finance ◽  
Critical Part ◽  
The Third ◽  
Strong Focus ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Weather Risks

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.

scholarly journals Inequity in International Climate Change Negotiations

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-177
Author(s):  
Serge Silatsa Nanda ◽  
Omar Samba ◽  
Ahmad Sahide
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Kyoto Protocol ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Change Negotiations ◽  
Climate Agreements ◽  
Climate Negotiations ◽  
International Climate Agreements ◽  
International Climate

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.

scholarly journals Shifting Traction: Differential Treatment and Substantive and Procedural Regard in the International Climate Change Regime

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Huggins ◽  
Md Saiful Karim
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Differential Treatment ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
Common But Differentiated Responsibilities ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Treaty Implementation ◽  
Robust Framework ◽  
International Climate Change

AbstractThe Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signifies a shift in how the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) manifests in the international climate change regime. Unlike the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement does not enshrine differentiated substantive mitigation obligations for developed and developing countries. However, an increasingly proceduralized variant of the CBDR principle, which facilitates regard for the interests of developing countries with respect to treaty implementation yet does not guarantee favourable substantive outcomes for these states, is evident in the emerging regime. The experience of the International Maritime Organization’s climate change regime provides a cautionary tale with respect to procedurally oriented differentiation that is not reinforced by effective processes to ensure that developed states honour their finance and technology transfer commitments. Accordingly, this article posits that strong accountability mechanisms are required to transform opportunities for procedural differentiation in the Paris Agreement into a robust framework for procedural regard for the interests of developing states.

scholarly journals Present at the Creation

2019 ◽  
pp. 142-156
Author(s):  
Chandrashekhar Dasgupta
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Kyoto Protocol ◽  
Emission Reduction ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Financial Resources ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
The Creation

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.

scholarly journals Financing Climate Action and the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of 17 Developing Countries

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Alayza ◽  
Molly Caldwell
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Natural Disasters ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Finance ◽  
Needs Assessments ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
Nationally Determined Contributions ◽  
Available Information

To meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals, it is crucial that developed countries support developing countries in achieving their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and mobilizing the required climate finance. For this paper, we analyzed the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on climate finance and climate action implementation in 17 developing countries, drawing on available information from climate-finance tracking tools, reports, and climate needs assessments. Our analysis shows a decrease in climate finance flowing to developing countries. Most of this funding took the form of loans, and developing countries have reallocated or decreased their domestic climate flows because of the high costs of responding to the pandemic. As a result, climate-related projects have been delayed. Compounding the challenge, some developing countries have had to deal with major natural disasters amid the pandemic. Improved transparency through climate-finance tracking tools could help countries more easily identify their conditional and unconditional climate needs and mobilize and deploy resources more effectively. Climate-finance availability continues to fall short of the required amount of resources to implement developing countries’ NDCs and meet the Paris Agreement goals. The COVID-19 pandemic is widening this gap. Developed countries need to strengthen their commitment to close it by increasing climate finance.

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
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
The Road ◽  
Loss And Damage ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of

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.

scholarly journals The Challenges and Opportunities for the Green Climate Fund

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 1875001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan CHEN
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Finance ◽  
Top Down ◽  
The Public ◽  
Green Climate Fund ◽  
Profound Implication ◽  
Public Resources ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
International Climate

The importance of the public finance in tackling climate change has been widely recognized by the global communities. As the operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, the $10.3 billion Green Climate Fund (GCF) holds a potential to be the champion in the international climate finance architecture. Within two and a half years, the GCF approved 76 projects worthy of $3.7 billion and has established partnership with 59 accredited entities. Integrating different concerns into its governance and operational modalities, the GCF maintains an inclusive participation and has profound implication for the international climate change cooperation. While with these achievements, the GCF still faces financial and policy challenges going forward. If the current pace of the project approval continues, the GCF will soon exhaust its resource. The existing policy gaps will also jeopardize GCF meeting its climate goals. To ensure a sustainable and bright future, the GCF needs to take advantage of its opportunities and address the challenges in a wise and strategic way. Given the real scarcity of the public resources available, a top-down combined with bottom-up replenishment modality may be worth exploring.

The Paris Agreement—China’s Kind of (International) Order?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Krahl
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
World Order ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Old Order ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
Emerging Powers ◽  
International Status

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.

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities: Did This Principle Ever Exist?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Armin Rosencranz ◽  
Kanika Jamwal
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Clean Development Mechanism ◽  
Clean Energy ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Historical Responsibility ◽  
Common But Differentiated Responsibilities ◽  
Self Differentiation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document