Suchergebnisse

By the end of 2015, the United Nations will adopt a new global development agenda as a follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). To this end, UN member states are now engaged in a debate on defining universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as decided by the 2012 Rio+20 Summit. According to the final declaration of that summit, these goals should "address and incorporate in a balanced way all three dimensions of sustainable development and their interlinkages" and should "be coherent with and integrated into the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015" (§ 246). This wording can be interpreted to mean that there is an agreed effort to build upon the MDGs in drafting the SDGs – that these are sequential and nested steps, not parallel processes, which will culminate in a global agenda for sustainable development by the end of 2015. But the SDGs have one key feature distinguishing them from the MDGs: they will be universal in nature, providing guidance for related domestic policies of all UN member states. This is an important departure from the MDGs, which set quantified and time-bound policy goals for developing countries, and included industrialised nations in a supporting role through development assistance. The SDG vision – with the potential to reduce barriers both among countries and among sectors – is a logical and needed step. Yet there are many political and institutional obstacles to ensuring an integrated set of goals: transitioning to SDGs will require a change of perspective by negotiators, who must bridge the gap between conventional approaches to economic development and poverty reduction on the one hand, and to environmental sustainability on the other. And it will require a whole-ofgovernment approach, instead of being the exclusive remit of ministries of environment and/or development cooperation. Several lines of thought favour an integrated set of goals. The idea that environmental concerns can be subordinated to economic growth disregards the fact that our society and economy are bound by a natural biophysical system that sustains life on earth. But human society and nature operate on different time scales: while solutions to human suffering are required now, environmental policies must address the long-term effects of today's economic actions. The welfare of people today is important, but the welfare of future generations matters too: their fates are intertwined. A universal set of SDGs can address the difficulties of global and intergenerational burden sharing. Negotiators should not shy away from the complexity this implies, as oversimplified goals will not be fit to the task at hand. The most challenging and important task will be to translate the adopted universal goals into quantified and timebound domestic goals at the country level. Rich countries will have to support developing countries in implementing domestic policies, while rising powers should volunteer to do so, too.

Ende 2015 werden die Vereinten Nationen eine neue globale Entwicklungsagenda als Nachfolge der Millenniumsziele (MDGs) verabschieden. Aus diesem Grund führen die UN-Mitgliedsstaaten, wie vom Rio+20-Gipfel 2012 beschlossen, derzeit eine Debatte über die Definition universeller Ziele nachhaltiger Entwicklung ( Sustainable Development Goals , SDGs). Nach der Schlusserklärung dieses Gipfels sollen die Ziele " alle drei Dimensionen der nachhaltigen Entwicklung und die zwischen ihnen bestehenden Verknüpfungen berücksichtigen und in ausgewogener Weise integrieren " und " mit der Entwicklungsagenda der Vereinten Nationen nach 2015 übereinstimmen " (§ 246). Diese Wortwahl kann bedeuten, dass man sich darüber verständigt hat, bei der Abfassung der SDGs auf den MDGs aufzubauen – dass es um fortlaufende und aufeinander aufbauende Schritte geht, nicht um parallele Prozesse, die bis Ende 2015 in einer globalen Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung kulminieren werden. Doch die SDGs haben ein Schlüsselmerkmal, das sie von den MDGs unterscheidet: Sie werden ihrer Natur nach universell sein und damit Orientierung für die entsprechenden nationalen Politiken aller UNMitgliedsstaaten geben. Die MDGs setzten quantifizierte und zeitgebundene Politikziele nur für Entwicklungsländer und wiesen den Industrienationen über ihre Entwicklungshilfe nur eine unterstützende Nebenrolle zu. Die SDGs haben das Potenzial, Barrieren zwischen Ländern und Sektoren abzubauen und sind ein logischer und notwendiger Schritt. Doch der Weg zu einem Satz derartiger Ziele birgt viele politische und institutionelle Hindernisse: der Übergang zu SDGs erfordert von den Verhandelnden einen Perspektivwechsel, der die Kluft zwischen konventionellen Ansätzen der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung und Armutsreduzierung auf der einen Seite und der ökologischen Nachhaltigkeit auf der anderen überbrücken muss. Und er erfordert einen ressortübergreifenden Ansatz anstelle der exklusiven Zuständigkeit der Ministerien für Umwelt und/oder Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Verschiedene Überlegungen sprechen für einen integrierten Satz von Zielen. Die Idee, dass Umweltbelange Wirtschaftswachstum untergeordnet werden können, ignoriert die Tatsache, dass unsere Gesellschaft und Ökonomie auf ein natürliches biophysikalisches System angewiesen sind, das das Leben auf der Erde erhält. Aber menschliche Gesellschaft und Natur operieren auf verschiedenen Zeitskalen: Während für menschliches Leid jetzt Lösungen erforderlich sind, müssen Umweltpolitiken die langfristigen Wirkungen heutiger Wirtschaftsaktivitäten angehen. Die Wohlfahrt heute lebender Menschen ist wichtig, doch die Wohlfahrt künftiger Generationen ist ebenfalls von Bedeutung: ihre Schicksale sind miteinander verflochten. Ein universeller Satz von SDGs kann mit den Schwierigkeiten globaler und generationenübergreifender Lastenverteilung umgehen. Die Verhandelnden sollten vor der damit verbundenen Komplexität nicht zurückschrecken, denn allzu vereinfachende Ziele werden der gestellten Aufgabe nicht gerecht. Die größte und wichtigste Herausforderung wird es sein, die vereinbarten universellen Ziele in quantitative und zeitgebundene nationale Ziele auf Länderebene zu übersetzen. Reiche Länder werden Entwicklungsländer bei der Umsetzung nationaler Politiken unterstützen müssen; aufstrebende Mächte sollten dies freiwillig ebenfalls tun.

We estimate and map the impacts that alternative national and subnational economic incentive structures for reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD+) in Indonesia would have had on greenhouse gas emissions and national and local revenue if they had been in place from 2000 to 2005. The impact of carbon payments on deforestation is calibrated econometrically from the pattern of observed deforestation and spatial variation in the benefits and costs of converting land to agriculture over that time period. We estimate that at an international carbon price of $10/tCO2e, a "mandatory incentive structure," such as a cap-and-trade or symmetric tax-and-subsidy program, would have reduced emissions by 163–247 MtCO2e/y (20–31% below the without-REDD+ reference scenario), while generating a programmatic budget surplus. In contrast, a "basic voluntary incentive structure" modeled after a standard payment-for-environmental-services program would have reduced emissions nationally by only 45–76 MtCO2e/y (6–9%), while generating a programmatic budget shortfall. By making four policy improvements—paying for net emission reductions at the scale of an entire district rather than site-by-site; paying for reductions relative to reference levels that match business-as-usual levels; sharing a portion of district-level revenues with the national government; and sharing a portion of the national government's responsibility for costs with districts—an "improved voluntary incentive structure" would have been nearly as effective as a mandatory incentive structure, reducing emissions by 136–207 MtCO2e/y (17–26%) and generating a programmatic budget surplus.

With the combined knowledge of more than 30 scientists and some of the most stunning climate images every captured, "A Climate for Life: Meeting the Global Challenge", is one of the most comprehensive volumes on climate change ever published. The book features more than 175 images from world famous photographers including Frans Lanting, James Balog, and Joel Sartore, as well as expansive and accessible science on climate change and how the world can transform an unprecedented environmental challenge into opportunity for the future. "A Climate for Life" draws connections between seemingly unrelated events involving climate change to demonstrate the concerted and momentous effort required to combat it. The book explores how rising temperatures on land and in the oceans around the globe affect nature, and therefore all living things, including people. 'The science on climate change is clear and the threat is urgent. We must use this crisis as an opportunity to revolutionize economies, create jobs, and protect critical ecosystems that can stabilize our climate right now', says Russell A. Mittermeier, lead author and president of Conservation International. 'The emerging perception of climate change is fragmented at best, and this book demonstrates plainly the strong linkages between our modern society, the natural world, and climate change. There is hope for the future, but only if we act now'. To bolster the blueprint for success offered by the book, "A Climate for Life" features stunning images provided by the International League of Conservation Photographers. The photos are coupled with moving eyewitness accounts of climate change by the photographers themselves. International League of Conservation Photographers Cristina Mittermeier talks about the Kayapo tribe of Brazil and how they are desperately fighting to protect their corner of the planet against encroaching logging that makes Brazil the world's fourth largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Photographer James Balog shares how he witnessed climate change in the form of melting glaciers. "A Climate for Life" will soon be an indispensible part of our shared understanding of climate change. Above all, it is a clear roadmap on how to revolutionize global economies and spark innovation through a concerted effort to tackle all the aspects of climate change. The book's foreword by actor-environmentalist Harrison Ford and Harvard biologist and eminent author E.O. Wilson presents the case for hope in the face of challenge: 'The good news is that this nest of problems is soluble. The science is growing ever stronger. The technology exists or is at least imaginable and in practical terms. The economic benefits of a global turnaround are potentially enormous. What is needed now is the popular will to undertake what will be one of the great turnabouts of history'.