Lesson 11 Global climate governance.pptx

# Defining global climate governance and its historical development Global climate governance refers to the multifaceted mechanisms and initiatives designed to steer societal systems towards preventing, mitigating, and adapting to the risks associated with climate change. This study guide section outlines its definition, historical evolution, and the foundational elements of the UN climate change regime, including key agreements and protocols. ## 1. Defining global climate governance ### 1.1 The concept of global climate governance Global climate governance encompasses all purposeful mechanisms and measures aimed at guiding social systems to address the risks posed by climate change. This includes efforts to prevent its occurrence, reduce its severity, and adapt to its inevitable impacts. ### 1.2 The climate change regime complex The climate change regime can be understood as a complex system of rules, norms, and institutions that govern state and non-state actor behavior concerning climate change. This concept acknowledges that climate governance is not monolithic but rather a web of interconnected and sometimes overlapping international arrangements. ### 1.3 Three dimensions of climate governance Climate governance can be broadly categorized into three interconnected dimensions: #### 1.3.1 Mitigation * **Objective:** To limit climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. This has been a primary focus of the climate change regime since its inception. * **Focus:** Reducing emissions from human activities. #### 1.3.2 Adaptation * **Objective:** To reduce the risks and impacts of climate change by enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability. * **Focus:** Adjusting to current or expected future climate impacts. While recognized early on, adaptation received less attention and funding in the initial years of the regime, often being viewed as a local or national issue. #### 1.3.3 Loss and Damage * **Objective:** To compensate for climate change impacts that cannot be averted through mitigation or adaptation, involving principles of distributive or corrective justice. * **Focus:** Addressing climate-related harm through liability and compensation. This dimension has been a point of contention, with developing countries advocating for it as a distinct pillar and developed countries often viewing it as part of adaptation. Paris has elevated its significance, but it remains less prioritized in terms of funding. ### 1.4 The issue of fairness in climate governance A core challenge in climate governance is the unequal distribution of responsibility and impact: * **Mitigation:** Industrialized countries bear a larger historical responsibility for cumulative emissions driving the need for mitigation. * **Adaptation:** Developing countries, often more vulnerable to climate change impacts, have fewer resources to fund adaptation efforts. * **Loss and Damage:** Developing countries disproportionately experience the adverse effects of climate change, despite contributing less to its causes. ## 2. Historical development of global climate governance The evolution of global climate governance can be traced through key scientific discoveries, international conferences, and landmark agreements. ### 2.1 Early scientific understanding and conception * **Ancient Observations:** As early as 300 BC, Theophrastus noted that human activities like draining marshes could cool an area and clearing forests could warm it. * **17th Century:** Jan Baptista van Helmont discovered in the 1600s that burning charcoal releases carbon dioxide. * **19th Century:** * **1850s:** Eunice Foote and John Tyndall established the link between carbon dioxide and the greenhouse warming effect. * **1896:** Svante Arrhenius developed the greenhouse warming theory, proposing that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to higher global temperatures. ### 2.2 Growing scientific activity and international awareness (1960s-1970s) * **1962:** Publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," raising widespread awareness about environmental degradation. * **1972:** The Stockholm Declaration and the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) marked a significant step in international environmental law. * **1972:** The Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth," highlighting the potential consequences of unchecked resource consumption. ### 2.3 Climate change gains prominence (1980s) * **1987:** The Brundtland Report, "Our Common Future," introduced the widely accepted definition of sustainable development: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." * **1987:** The Montreal Protocol was established to protect the ozone layer, serving as a precursor for later international environmental agreements. * **1988:** The UN General Assembly formally recognized climate change. * **1988:** The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide regular assessments of climate change science. ### 2.4 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) #### 2.4.1 Adoption and Objective (1992) * **Adoption:** The UNFCCC was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. * **Objective:** To stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human-induced climate change. * **Framework:** It established a legally binding framework for international climate policy cooperation. * **Entry into Force:** The convention entered into force on March 21, 1994. * **Associated Outcomes:** The Rio Summit also produced the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention to Combat Desertification. #### 2.4.2 Key Principles * **Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR&RC):** Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC recognizes that all countries share a common responsibility for addressing climate change but have different capabilities and historical contributions. * **Support for Developing Nations:** The convention mandates scientific, technological, and financial support from developed to developing nations. #### 2.4.3 Institutional Structure * **Conference of the Parties (COP):** The supreme body of the UNFCCC, which meets annually to review the implementation of the convention and make decisions to promote its effective implementation. * **UNFCCC Secretariat:** Facilitates the COP and its subsidiary bodies, compiles reports, and provides technical expertise. Initially located in Geneva, it has been based in Bonn since 1995. * **Subsidiary Bodies:** * **SBSTA (Scientific and Technological Advice):** Provides advice on scientific and technological matters. * **SBI (Implementation):** Assists in the implementation of the Convention. ### 2.5 The Kyoto Protocol (1997) #### 2.5.1 Conception and Logic * **Conception:** Conceived at COP3 in Kyoto in 1997, it was the first major addition to the UNFCCC framework. * **Logic:** It followed a regulatory logic similar to the Montreal Protocol, featuring legally binding reduction targets, strict monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms. #### 2.5.2 Targets and Differentiation * **Annex I Countries:** Industrialized nations and economies in transition were assigned binding emission reduction targets. * **Non-Annex I Countries:** Developing nations had no emission reduction targets. * **Average Reduction:** Annex I countries were collectively tasked with an average of a five percent GHG emissions reduction compared to 1990 levels. * **Criticism:** The protocol faced significant criticism for excluding major developing emitters like China, India, and Brazil. #### 2.5.3 Flexibility and Market-Based Mechanisms * **Differentiated Targets:** Targets varied significantly among Annex I countries (e.g., Germany's 8% reduction vs. Iceland's 10% increase). * **Market-Based Mechanisms:** * **Emissions Trading:** Allowed countries to trade emission allowances. * **Joint Implementation (JI):** Enabled Annex I countries to invest in emission reduction projects in other Annex I countries. * **Clean Development Mechanism (CDM):** Allowed developed countries to earn emission reduction credits by investing in emission-reduction projects in developing countries. This mechanism is a precursor to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. #### 2.5.4 Participation and Entry into Force * **Signing and Ratification:** Signed by 175 countries in 1997, but crucially, it was never ratified by the United States. * **US Withdrawal:** George W. Bush announced the US withdrawal in 2001. * **Entry into Force:** The protocol entered into force in 2005 after being ratified by a sufficient number of states. * **First Commitment Period:** 2005-2012. * **Second Commitment Period (Doha Amendment):** Introduced at COP18 in Doha (2012), covering 2013-2020, but had significantly reduced participation, covering only about 14% of global GHG emissions. Many major emitters withdrew or did not participate. ### 2.6 Towards a successor to Kyoto: Progress and challenges The limitations of the Kyoto Protocol spurred efforts to find a more inclusive and effective successor. * **2007 (COP13 Bali):** The Bali Action Plan launched a second negotiation track to include non-Annex I countries. * **2009 (COP15 Copenhagen):** No binding treaty was reached due to rising tensions between developed and developing nations and criticisms of negotiation management. The Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding outcome, established a long-term goal of limiting global warming to 2°C and introduced climate finance pledges. * **2010 (COP16 Cancun):** The Cancun Agreement largely incorporated and elaborated on the Copenhagen Accord. * **2012 (COP18 Doha):** Established the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. * **2014:** A significant bilateral climate deal between the US and China outlined their joint ambitions for a future agreement. * **2015 (COP21 Paris):** The landmark Paris Agreement was adopted. ## 3. The Paris Agreement (2015) #### 3.1 Overview and Approach * **Adoption and Entry into Force:** Signed in December 2015 by 195 countries at COP21 and entered into force on November 4, 2016. * **Hybrid Approach:** It adopted a "hybrid" approach, balancing global goals with country-specific commitments, acknowledging domestic realities and capabilities. * **Universal Participation:** It broke down the Annex I/non-Annex I divide, bringing all countries into the framework, including developing and vulnerable nations. * **Non-State Actors:** It also engaged non-state actors, such as cities, regions, and businesses, through mechanisms like the Non-state Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA) portal. #### 3.2 Targets * **Temperature Goal:** Article 2.1(a) aims to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. * **Net-Zero Emissions:** Article 4.1 aims to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, effectively targeting net-zero emissions. #### 3.3 Accountability Mechanisms The Paris Agreement incorporates several accountability elements: * **Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs):** Countries set their own emission reduction goals and plans for achieving them. * **Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF):** A system for countries to report on their emissions and progress towards their NDCs, promoting information sharing and monitoring. * **Global Stocktake:** A periodic review (every five years) of the collective progress towards the Agreement's long-term goals. The first stocktake was finalized in 2023. * **Implementation and Compliance Committee:** A non-punitive body of experts to evaluate and support parties in implementing the agreement. #### 3.4 Feedback Mechanisms The Agreement utilizes two primary feedback mechanisms: * **Political Pressure:** Through "naming and shaming," countries face international and domestic scrutiny over their climate actions. * **Market Message/Investment Signal:** The Agreement aims to signal long-term policy direction to markets, encouraging investment in low-carbon technologies and businesses. #### 3.5 Ratchet Mechanism and Ambition Cycle The Paris Agreement operates on a five-year cycle of ambition-raising, known as the ratchet mechanism: * **Pledge:** Countries submit NDCs. * **Review:** The Global Stocktake assesses collective progress. * **Revision:** Countries are expected to enhance their ambition in subsequent NDCs. This cycle was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ## 4. Effectiveness of the Paris Agreement The effectiveness of international environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement, is often assessed using three key dimensions: ### 4.1 Types of effectiveness * **Legal Effectiveness:** The extent to which the obligations within an agreement are met. * **Behavioural Effectiveness:** The degree to which behavior is modified in the desired direction by the agreement. * **Problem-Solving Effectiveness:** The extent to which the agreement actually solves the environmental problem it addresses. ### 4.2 The effectiveness trilemma Scott Barrett proposed an "effectiveness trilemma" concerning international agreements, suggesting that a strong focus on two elements can make achieving the third more difficult: * **Compliance:** The adherence of parties to the agreement's obligations. * **Participation:** The number of countries that sign and ratify the agreement. * **Ambition:** The stringency and effectiveness of the goals and targets set by the agreement. The Montreal Protocol is often cited as an ideal-type example that scored well on all three. The Kyoto Protocol struggled with participation and ambition for some. The Paris Agreement achieved high participation and aims for high ambition, but its compliance and effectiveness are still being evaluated, relying heavily on its pledge-and-review system. ### 4.3 Collective action and the Paris Agreement #### 4.3.1 Traditional collective action problem * **Prisoner's Dilemma:** Climate change action is often framed as a collective action problem where individual states have an incentive to "free-ride" on the efforts of others, as climate mitigation is a public good. * **Formula:** The benefit of action for actor 'i' can be represented as $g_i(a_i: A) = v_i[P(A)] - c_i(a_i)$, where $v_i[P(A)]$ is the value derived from collective action, and $c_i(a_i)$ is the individual cost of action. States may choose not to act if their individual costs outweigh their perceived benefit from their own contribution to the collective good. #### 4.3.2 Overlooked dynamics in climate action The classical model of collective action overlooks several crucial dynamics prevalent in climate governance: * **Joint Products:** Domestic actions taken for climate mitigation can yield additional private benefits unrelated to climate change (e.g., improved air quality, energy security). This can be represented as $g_i(a_i: A) = v_i[P(A)] - c_i(a_i) + b_i(a_i)$, where $b_i(a_i)$ represents these private benefits. * **Preference Heterogeneity:** Not all actors prioritize climate action equally; some value it more highly than others. * **Increasing Returns:** The costs of climate action can decrease over time due to technological advancements, learning effects, and network externalities. This means the value derived from collective action can change dynamically. #### 4.3.3 Catalytic Cooperation Model This model suggests that cooperation can be stimulated even with unilateral action, particularly when: * Mitigation is highly valued ($v_i$ is high). * Private benefits outweigh costs ($b_i$ is high). * Increasing returns and tipping points make action self-reinforcing over time. * Early movers can create benefits for followers, making action preferable to inaction. #### 4.3.4 Paris as a catalytic institution The Paris Agreement's flexibility, iterative commitments, and feedback mechanisms aim to act as a catalytic institution, encouraging gradual progress and stimulating increasing returns through: * **Flexibility:** Allowing countries to set their own NDCs. * **Iterating Commitments:** Creating a cycle of ambition-raising. * **Stimulating Increasing Returns:** Facilitating material and information transfers, norm-setting, and benchmarking. ## 5. Looking ahead: Recent developments and future directions Recent COPs have focused on implementing the Paris Agreement and addressing critical issues. ### 5.1 Key COP outcomes * **COP22 (Marrakech):** Focused on "Making Paris work" and initiated a three-year process for the Paris Rulebook. * **COP23 (Bonn):** Reviewed the Paris Rulebook and addressed the US withdrawal. * **COP24 (Katowice):** Agreed on most of the Paris Rulebook. * **COP25 (Madrid):** Decided on Article 6 (market mechanisms). * **COP26 (Glasgow):** Finalized the Paris Rulebook, addressed deforestation, and mentioned phasing down coal. * **COP27 (Sharm El Sheikh):** Established a Loss and Damage fund. * **COP28 (Dubai):** Operationalized the Loss and Damage fund and mentioned fossil fuels, hosting the first Global Stocktake. * **COP29 (Baku):** Focused on a New Quantified Financial Goal, establishing a target of USD 1.3 trillion (encompassing public and private finance). * **COP30 (Belém):** Expected to focus on implementation, adaptation finance, and the "Belém Mission to 1.5" and "Global Implementation Accelerator." ### 5.2 The Global Stocktake The Global Stocktake is a crucial process under the Paris Agreement to assess collective progress. It involves information collection, technical assessment, and consideration of outputs. The next stocktake will be finalized in 2028 at COP33. ### 5.3 Future hostings Future COPs are scheduled with various countries, indicating ongoing international commitment to climate negotiations. For example, COP31 will be jointly hosted by Türkiye and Australia. > **Tip:** Understanding the evolution from top-down, binding targets (like Kyoto) to the more flexible, bottom-up "pledge and review" system of the Paris Agreement is crucial for grasping contemporary global climate governance. Pay attention to the interplay between state commitments and the role of non-state actors. > **Tip:** When analyzing the effectiveness of climate agreements, consider the "effectiveness trilemma" and the limitations of classical collective action models. The concept of "catalytic cooperation" offers a more nuanced perspective on how progress can be achieved in complex global challenges like climate change. --- # The Kyoto Protocol and the path towards the Paris Agreement This section outlines the development of global climate governance, focusing on the Kyoto Protocol's achievements and limitations, and tracing the negotiations that culminated in the Paris Agreement. ## 2. The Kyoto Protocol and the path towards the Paris Agreement ### 2.1 The Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol, adopted at the third Conference of the Parties (COP3) in Kyoto in 1997, represented the first legally binding addition to the UNFCCC framework. It adopted a regulatory logic similar to the successful Montreal Protocol, establishing binding, top-down reduction targets with strict monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. #### 2.1.1 Targets and Differentiation The Protocol introduced differentiation between parties: * **Annex I countries:** These were the industrialized nations, including post-communist countries, which were assigned emission reduction targets. * **Non-Annex I countries:** These were developing nations, which had no emission reduction targets under the Protocol. The overarching target for Annex I countries was an average of **five percent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction** compared to 1990 levels. This differentiation, particularly the exclusion of major developing economies like China, India, and Brazil, drew significant criticism. #### 2.1.2 Flexibility Mechanisms To provide flexibility in achieving these targets, the Kyoto Protocol introduced three market-based mechanisms: * **Emissions Trading:** Allowed Annex I countries to trade emission allowances. * **Joint Implementation (JI):** Enabled Annex I countries to support and invest in emission reduction projects in other Annex I countries and earn emission reduction credits. * **Clean Development Mechanism (CDM):** Allowed developed countries to earn emission reduction credits by supporting emission reduction projects in developing countries. This mechanism is seen as a precursor to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. > **Tip:** Understanding the differentiation in targets and the rationale behind the flexibility mechanisms is crucial for grasping the Protocol's strengths and weaknesses. #### 2.1.3 Participation and Entry into Force The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 175 countries in 1997. However, a major setback occurred when the United States, despite signing the protocol, never ratified it. President George W. Bush formally withdrew the US signature in 2001, citing concerns over the lack of emissions caps for developing nations. The Protocol officially entered into force in **2005**, eight years after its adoption, after being ratified by 55 states covering at least 55 percent of global emissions. The first commitment period for emission reductions was from **2005 to 2012**. By 2012, additional countries, including Japan, Canada, Russia, and Australia, had withdrawn or opted out of further commitment periods, leading to a significant reduction in the global emissions covered by the Protocol. The second commitment period (2013-2020) ultimately covered only about 14 percent of global GHG emissions. ### 2.2 The path towards a successor: Towards the Paris Agreement The limitations of the Kyoto Protocol, particularly its participation issues and the eventual withdrawal of key players, spurred a search for a more inclusive and effective climate agreement. This led to a series of COPs and negotiations: * **COP13 in Bali (2007):** The Bali Action Plan was launched, initiating a second negotiation track aimed at including non-Annex I countries in emission reduction commitments. This created tension between those advocating for a "bigger, better Kyoto" and those favoring a schedule-based or bottom-up approach. * **COP15 in Copenhagen (2009):** This COP failed to reach a legally binding treaty due to rising tensions between developed and developing nations, economic uncertainty, and perceived mismanagement of negotiations. A key outcome was the "Copenhagen Accord," a non-binding agreement that included voluntary pledges from major emitters and a long-term goal of limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. It also established new financial instruments like the Green Climate Fund, with a pledge of 100 billion USD per year by 2020 for climate support to developing countries. * **COP16 in Cancun (2010):** The Cancun Agreement largely incorporated and elaborated on the Copenhagen Accord. * **COP18 in Doha (2012):** The Doha Amendment established the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period (2012-2020), but it was ratified by a limited number of countries representing less than 15 percent of global emissions. * **US-China Climate Deal (November 2014):** A significant bilateral agreement between the United States and China outlined their joint ambitions and vision for a future climate agreement, signaling a shift in the negotiating landscape. * **COP21 in Paris (2015):** This conference is considered a breakthrough, leading to the adoption of the Paris Agreement. ### 2.3 The Paris Agreement The Paris Agreement, signed in December 2015 at COP21 and entered into force on November 4, 2016, marked a new era in global climate governance. It represents a hybrid approach, aiming to be both universal and flexible. #### 2.3.1 Key Features: Target and Approach * **Target:** The primary objective is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to **well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels** and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to **1.5°C**. It also aims to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removals by sinks in the second half of the century, signifying a goal of **net-zero emissions**. * **Approach:** The Agreement utilizes a "hybrid approach," characterized by: * **Bottom-up:** Countries set their own emission reduction targets through **Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)**. This acknowledges domestic realities and capabilities, moving away from the top-down, per-country targets of Kyoto. * **Universal:** It breaks down the Annex I/non-Annex I barrier, including all countries in the commitment to reduce emissions. * **Global Review Mechanism:** A crucial element involves a global review of progress every five years (the Global Stocktake). * **Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF):** A standardized reporting and review process to track progress. * **Implementation and Compliance Committee:** A non-punitive body to evaluate and support parties' adherence to the agreement. > **Tip:** The Paris Agreement's success relies on its "ratchet-up" mechanism, where countries are expected to progressively increase their ambition in subsequent NDCs, encouraged by regular reviews and political pressure. #### 2.3.2 Feedback Mechanisms The Paris Agreement employs two primary feedback mechanisms to drive ambition: * **Political Pressure (Naming and Shaming):** International and domestic scrutiny of a country's climate actions and pledges. * **Market Message/Investment Signal:** The agreement aims to signal long-term political objectives to markets, encouraging low-carbon business decisions and investment. The agreement also supports the development of carbon markets and the creation of "internationally transferred mitigation outcomes." It positions itself as an "orchestrator" of climate action, encouraging greater participation from non-state actors. #### 2.3.3 The Effectiveness Trilemma and Collective Action The effectiveness of international agreements can be viewed through a trilemma of **compliance, participation, and ambition**. The Montreal Protocol is often cited as an ideal type, balancing all three. The Kyoto Protocol struggled with participation and ultimately ambition due to key withdrawals. The Paris Agreement prioritizes high participation and ambition through its universal and flexible design, with compliance driven by a "pledge and review" system. The traditional view of climate action as a collective action problem (akin to a Prisoner's Dilemma) suggests states have incentives to free-ride. However, the Paris Agreement incorporates concepts that acknowledge more dynamic cooperation: * **Joint Products:** Domestic climate actions can yield co-benefits unrelated to climate change. * **Preference Heterogeneity:** States have varying priorities and values for climate action. * **Increasing Returns:** Early action can lead to technological learning, scale effects, and shifts in norms, making future action easier and more beneficial. This leads to a "catalytic cooperation model" where unilateral action can be beneficial if private benefits outweigh costs or if action is highly valued, and increasing returns can make collective action self-reinforcing. The Paris Agreement, with its flexibility and iterative commitments, acts as a catalytic institution, encouraging incremental progress and fostering this dynamic. #### 2.3.4 Progress and Looking Ahead The Global Stocktake, conducted every five years, is a critical process for assessing collective progress towards the Agreement's goals. The first Global Stocktake was completed at COP28 in Dubai, with subsequent stocktakes scheduled for COP33 in 2028. This iterative process, alongside the regular submission and review of NDCs, forms the core of the Paris Agreement's "ratchet-up" mechanism, aiming to continually increase global climate ambition. Various COPs have focused on finalizing the Paris Rulebook, implementing mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund, and establishing new quantified financial goals for climate finance. --- # Effectiveness and mechanisms of the Paris Agreement The Paris Agreement represents a pivotal, hybrid approach to global climate governance, employing a pledge and review mechanism to drive collective action through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and a global stocktake process. ### 3.1 Overview of the Paris Agreement The Paris Agreement, signed in December 2015 at COP21 and entered into force on November 4, 2016, established a universal framework for climate action, breaking down the previous Annex I and non-Annex I country divide. It aims to limit global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. A core objective is to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions and greenhouse gas removals by the second half of the century, signifying a goal of net-zero emissions. #### 3.1.1 Targets and Goals The primary target of the Paris Agreement is explicitly stated in Article 2.1a: holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Article 4.1 further elaborates on this by aiming "to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century," essentially defining the net-zero target. #### 3.1.2 Hybrid Approach The Paris Agreement adopts a "hybrid approach," which is often described as a more realistic strategy grounded in the domestic realities and capabilities of participating countries. This approach is characterized by: * **Bottom-up contribution setting:** Countries set their own goals, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and define their own approaches to achieve these goals. This acknowledges that major emitters may not desire legally binding reduction targets and helps avoid the distributional conflicts inherent in previous burden-sharing models. * **Top-down global review mechanism:** A global review process, including the Global Stocktake every five years, provides a top-down element. This is complemented by enhanced transparency, monitoring, reporting, and subsequent revision of commitments. #### 3.1.3 Key Components of the Agreement The agreement is built upon several interconnected elements designed to foster accountability and ambition: * **Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs):** Countries submit their own climate action plans, outlining their emission reduction targets and adaptation measures. These are the foundation of the bottom-up approach. * **Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF):** This serves as an information-sharing tool, requiring countries to regularly report on their emissions, progress in implementing their NDCs, and efforts in adaptation and finance. * **Global Stocktake:** Conducted every five years, this process assesses collective progress towards the Paris Agreement's long-term goals. The first stocktake was completed in 2023. * **Implementation and Compliance Committee:** A non-punitive group of experts tasked with evaluating and supporting Parties in their efforts to meet their commitments. * **Feedback mechanisms:** The agreement incorporates two key feedback mechanisms to drive ambition: * **Political pressure (naming and shaming):** International scrutiny and public reporting can create reputational incentives for countries to meet their pledges. * **Market message/investment signal:** The long-term policy signal from the agreement is intended to influence market behavior, encouraging investment in low-carbon technologies and solutions. #### 3.1.4 Timeline and Ratchet Mechanism The Paris Agreement operates on a five-year cycle, incorporating a "ratchet-up mechanism" designed to progressively increase ambition over time. This cycle involves: * **Ambition formulation:** Countries submit their NDCs. * **Pledge submissions:** NDCs are submitted by a specified deadline (e.g., December 3, 2025, for the next round). * **Review:** The Global Stocktake occurs, assessing collective progress. * **Iteration:** Countries are expected to submit more ambitious NDCs in subsequent cycles, building on previous commitments and the outcomes of the stocktake. ### 3.2 Effectiveness of the Paris Agreement The effectiveness of the Paris Agreement is a complex issue, often analyzed through different lenses of international environmental law and governance. #### 3.2.1 Defining Effectiveness Three main types of effectiveness are considered: * **Legal effectiveness:** The extent to which the obligations stipulated in an agreement are met by the parties. * **Behavioral effectiveness:** The degree to which an agreement modifies behavior in the desired direction. * **Problem-solving effectiveness:** The extent to which an agreement actually solves the problem it aims to address. #### 3.2.2 The Effectiveness Trilemma: Compliance, Participation, Ambition An agreement's success can be viewed through the "effectiveness trilemma" of compliance, participation, and ambition. Ideally, a strong international agreement performs well across all three, but focusing on two can sometimes make achieving the third more challenging. * **Montreal Protocol:** Often cited as an ideal-type, it achieved high participation, ambitious targets (driven by scientific consensus), and effective compliance through a robust implementation committee and a clear compliance mechanism. * **Kyoto Protocol:** While it had institutionalized compliance, its participation was limited by non-ratification from key emitters like the US, and its ambition was seen as insufficient to address the scale of the problem by some. * **Paris Agreement:** * **Ambition:** The Agreement's threefold goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C, aiming for 1.5°C, and balancing emissions and removals represents a more materialized goal than previous agreements. * **Participation:** It achieved very high and rapid ratification, with only a few signatories yet to ratify. * **Compliance:** This is where the Paris Agreement's effectiveness is most debated, primarily resting on its "pledge and review" mechanism. #### 3.2.3 Compliance and the Pledge and Review Mechanism Compliance with the Paris Agreement is primarily based on a single binding obligation: submitting pledges (NDCs) and other required reports. The actual implementation of these pledges is subject to review. * **Limited Binding Obligations:** The agreement's primary binding obligation is the submission of NDCs, which are largely unregulated, leading to significant heterogeneity. * **Emissions Gap:** Despite the commitments, the first round of NDCs (submitted in 2015) were projected to lead to approximately 3 degrees Celsius of global warming. Current policies are estimated to result in around 2.8 degrees Celsius of warming, and even the full implementation of current NDCs points towards 2.3-2.5 degrees Celsius, indicating an ongoing "emissions gap." * **Importance of the Ratcheting-up Mechanism:** The pledge and review system, and particularly the five-yearly Global Stocktake, are crucial for bridging this gap by encouraging increased ambition over time. #### 3.2.4 Collective Action Theory and the Paris Agreement Traditional collective action theory, often framed as a Prisoner's Dilemma, suggests that states have an incentive to "free-ride" on the contributions of others when dealing with public goods like climate mitigation, as individual costs may outweigh immediate benefits. This logic implies a need for strong compliance mechanisms to ensure collective action. * **Classical Model Formula:** The benefit of action for actor 'i' can be represented as: $$g_i(a_i : A) = v_i[P(A)] - c_i(a_i)$$ where $v_i$ is the value for actor 'i' derived from collective action $P(A)$, and $c_i(a_i)$ is the cost for actor 'i' from their individual contribution $a_i$. * **Limitations of the Classical Model:** This model overlooks several factors relevant to climate action: * **Joint Products:** Domestic climate actions can yield co-benefits unrelated to climate change (e.g., improved air quality, energy security), making individual action more attractive. * **Preference Heterogeneity:** Not all actors prioritize the same outcomes or have the same valuation of climate action. * **Increasing Returns:** Preferences and costs can change over time due to technological advancements, learning effects, and norm shifts, potentially making cooperation more dynamic and self-reinforcing. #### 3.2.5 Catalytic Cooperation Model A "catalytic cooperation" model offers a more nuanced view of how cooperation can emerge and be sustained: * **Modified Formula:** The benefit of action for actor 'i' can be expanded to include private benefits: $$g_i(a_i : A) = v_i[P(A)] - c_i(a_i) + b_i(a_i)$$ where $b_i(a_i)$ represents the benefit of individual action. * **Key Assumptions:** * Private benefits exist ($b_i$ is high). * Costs decline over time ($c_i$ declines). * The value of collective action increases over time ($v_i$ increases). * **Implications:** Unilateral cooperation is possible if private benefits outweigh costs or if an actor highly values the global mitigation effort. Increasing returns can lead to tipping points where action becomes self-reinforcing. Early movers can create benefits for followers, and growing actions can change norms. #### 3.2.6 Paris Agreement as a Catalytic Institution From the perspective of catalytic cooperation, the Paris Agreement functions as an institution that keeps the process moving forward: * **Flexibility:** Allows for unilateral action and incremental commitments, stimulating first-movers. * **Iterating Commitments:** The five-year cycles and the ratchet mechanism encourage ongoing engagement and increasing ambition, rather than fixed, long-term targets that may become obsolete. * **Stimulating Increasing Returns:** The agreement implicitly supports technological development, market signals, and normative shifts that can lead to increasing returns in climate action. #### 3.2.7 Feedback Mechanisms in Practice The feedback mechanisms are crucial for translating pledges into tangible action: * **Political Pressure (Naming and Shaming):** Effectiveness depends on a state's sensitivity to reputational loss and the scrutiny from civil society, media, and international bodies. While some states have shown resistance to international pressure, the increasing global focus on climate change can amplify this mechanism. * **Market Influence:** The agreement signals long-term political objectives, aiming to incentivize low-carbon business decisions and encourage private sector involvement, including the development of carbon markets and "internationally transferred mitigation outcomes." The agreement acts as an "orchestrator" of climate action, increasing the role of non-state actors. #### 3.2.8 Global Diffusion of Net-Zero Pledges A significant observable outcome, potentially influenced by the Paris Agreement's signalling, is the global diffusion of net-zero emission pledges. This indicates a shift in long-term policy objectives and a growing consensus among various actors on the need for deep decarbonization. > **Tip:** When evaluating the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, consider both the traditional collective action challenges and the more dynamic catalytic cooperation model. The agreement's success hinges on its ability to create a virtuous cycle of ambition, action, and review. > **Example:** The mechanism of "joint products" means that a country investing in renewable energy might not only contribute to global emissions reduction but also gain energy independence, create green jobs, and improve air quality, making the action domestically beneficial beyond its climate impact. This strengthens the incentive for individual action, aligning with the catalytic cooperation model. --- # Current status and future outlook of climate governance This section details the recent trajectory of global climate governance, focusing on the evolution of COPs, the significant global stocktake process, and emerging future initiatives. ### 4.1 Recent COPs and the global stocktake process The series of Conferences of the Parties (COPs) has progressively shaped the landscape of global climate governance, building towards the crucial global stocktake. #### 4.1.1 Evolution of COP meetings and key outcomes * **COP22 (Marrakech):** Focused on "Making Paris work," initiating a three-year process to operationalize the Paris Agreement. * **COP23 (Bonn):** Held under the Fijian presidency, this COP served as a review moment for the Paris Rulebook and occurred in the context of the US announcing its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. * **COP24 (Katowice):** The Katowice climate package was largely decided, detailing most of the Paris Rulebook. * **COP25 (Madrid):** Article 6, concerning market mechanisms, saw progress in its decision-making. * **COP26 (Glasgow):** The Paris Rulebook was finalized. Key outcomes included a pledge on deforestation and a mention of phasing down coal. * **COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh):** A significant decision was made to establish a loss and damage fund. * **COP28 (Dubai):** This COP focused on the implementation of the loss and damage fund and notably included a mention of fossil fuels. It also marked the first global stocktake. * **COP29 (Baku):** The primary objective was to establish a new quantified financial goal for climate finance, building on the previous commitment of 100 billion USD annually from 2020-2025. A decision was reached to aim for 1.3 trillion dollars, though this included broader financing avenues beyond just public funds. * **COP30 (Belém):** This COP is anticipated to be an "implementation COP," with an indication (though not a commitment) to triple adaptation finance. It is also expected to feature ambition-raising initiatives like the "Belém Mission to 1.5" and the "Global Implementation Accelerator," aimed at supporting countries. The Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) will facilitate just transition indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation. Acknowledgment of the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap towards USD 1.3 trillion is also expected, alongside the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF). #### 4.1.2 The Global Stocktake The Global Stocktake is a critical process designed to assess collective progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement. It consists of three phases: 1. **Information collection and preparation:** Gathering relevant data and reports. 2. **Technical assessment:** Analyzing the collected information from a scientific and technical standpoint. 3. **Consideration of outputs:** Deliberating on the findings and their implications for future action. The first global stocktake was completed at COP28. The next stocktake is scheduled to be finalized in 2028, at COP33. ### 4.2 Future developments and initiatives in global climate governance The future of climate governance will be shaped by ongoing negotiations, new initiatives, and the continued refinement of existing mechanisms. #### 4.2.1 Upcoming COPs and hosting arrangements * **COP31 (2025):** Will be jointly hosted by Türkiye and Australia. The primary hosting will be in Antalya, Türkiye, with Australia playing a significant role, including hosting a pre-COP in the Pacific and appointing a "COP31 President-Designate." * **COP32 (2027):** Scheduled to be held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as decided by the African Group of Negotiators. * **COP33 (2028):** India has submitted a bid to host this COP, representing the Asia-Pacific Group. #### 4.2.2 Emerging initiatives and proposals * **Brazilian Proposal (G20 2024, Rio de Janeiro):** A proposal to establish a Climate Change Council. * **Global Fossil-Fuel Phase-Out Conference (2026):** To be hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands. * **Climate Change Regime Complex:** The concept of a "regime complex," as described by Keohane and Victor, remains relevant, suggesting that climate governance operates through a multitude of overlapping institutions and agreements rather than a single, overarching framework. #### 4.2.3 The role of finance and ambition-raising Future climate governance will heavily rely on mobilizing finance and fostering increased ambition. The Baku-to-Belém Roadmap aims to secure a new quantified financial target of 1.3 trillion dollars. Ambition-raising initiatives like the "Belém Mission to 1.5" and the "Global Implementation Accelerator" are designed to provide concrete support to countries in meeting their climate goals. The indication to triple adaptation finance at COP30 underscores the growing importance of adaptation alongside mitigation. > **Tip:** Understanding the evolution of COPs and the outcomes of key meetings is crucial for grasping the incremental yet significant progress in climate governance. Pay attention to how financial commitments and the operationalization of agreements like the Paris Rulebook evolve. > **Example:** The establishment of the loss and damage fund at COP27, and its subsequent focus on implementation at COP28, exemplifies how specific, critical issues gain traction and move from negotiation to concrete action within the COP process. > **Tip:** The "regime complex" perspective highlights that climate governance is not monolithic. Different treaties, protocols, and initiatives interact, creating a dynamic and sometimes fragmented landscape. --- ## Common mistakes to avoid - Review all topics thoroughly before exams - Pay attention to formulas and key definitions - Practice with examples provided in each section - Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts

| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Global climate governance | Refers to all purposeful mechanisms and measures aimed at steering social systems toward preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the risks posed by climate change. | | UNFCCC | The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a legally binding international treaty that provides the framework for international cooperation to address climate change. | | COP | Conference of the Parties, the supreme body of the UNFCCC, which meets annually to review the implementation of the convention. | | CMA | Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, the governing body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Paris Agreement. | | CMP | Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, the governing body for the Kyoto Protocol. | | SB (SBI and SBSTA) | Subsidiary Bodies, which provide scientific and technological advice (SBSTA) and support implementation (SBI) of the UNFCCC and its related agreements. | | CBDR&RC | Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, a principle in international environmental law acknowledging that states have common responsibilities but varying capabilities and contributions to environmental problems. | | IPCC | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body established to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications, and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options. | | NDC | Nationally Determined Contribution, a climate action plan submitted by each country under the Paris Agreement, outlining their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. | | Mitigation | Actions taken to limit or prevent the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thereby reducing the extent of climate change. | | Adaptation | Efforts to adjust to actual or expected future climate conditions, aiming to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change. | | Loss and Damage | Refers to the impacts of climate change that go beyond adaptation, including irreversible losses and damages from slow-onset events like sea-level rise and extreme weather events. | | Greenhouse Warming Theory | The scientific theory proposing that certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere trap heat, leading to an increase in global temperatures, similar to how a greenhouse traps heat. | | Kyoto Protocol | An international treaty that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring and that industrial nations are largely responsible for the current high levels of greenhouse gas concentrations. | | Paris Agreement | An international treaty adopted in 2015, aiming to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, through a hybrid approach of nationally determined contributions and global stocktakes. | | Net-zero | A state where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is balanced by the amount removed, effectively halting the net increase of these gases. | | Global Stocktake | A process established under the Paris Agreement to periodically assess the collective progress towards achieving the agreement's long-term goals, conducted every five years. | | Prisoner's Dilemma | A concept in game theory illustrating a situation where two rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interest to do so, often applied to collective action problems like climate change. | | Collective Action Theory | A theoretical framework that examines how groups of individuals or states can cooperate to achieve a common goal, especially when individual actions might be insufficient or counterproductive. | | Catalytic Cooperation Model | An enhanced model of cooperation that accounts for private benefits, decreasing costs over time, and increasing returns, suggesting that cooperation can be initiated and sustained through various incentives beyond pure collective benefit. |