Suchergebnisse

Die Ergebnisse des Klimagipfels von Kopenhagen sind eine bittere Enttäuschung für die EU. Ihr ist es nicht gelungen, ihren Führungsambitionen beim globalen Klimaschutz gerecht zu werden und die Konferenz zur Weichenstellung für ein rechtsverbindliches Klimaabkommen nach 2012 zu nutzen. Damit steht die Union vor grundlegenden strategischen Fragen zum Kurs ihrer Klimapolitik.

"Die Ergebnisse des Klimagipfels von Kopenhagen sind eine bittere Enttäuschung für die EU. Ihr ist es nicht gelungen, ihren Führungsambitionen beim globalen Klimaschutz gerecht zu werden und die Konferenz zur Weichenstellung für ein rechtsverbindliches Klimaabkommen nach 2012 zu nutzen. Damit steht die Union vor grundlegenden strategischen Fragen zum Kurs ihrer Klimapolitik." (Verlagsangabe)

Abstract The 'Copenhagen Accord' fails to deliver the political framework for a fair, ambitious and legally-binding international climate agreement beyond 2012. The current climate policy regime dynamics are insufficient to reflect the realities of topical complexity, actor coalitions, as well as financial, legal and institutional challenges in the light of extreme time constraints to avoid 'dangerous' climate change of more than 2°C. In this paper we analyze these stumbling blocks for international climate policy and discuss alternatives in order to regain momentum for future negotiations.

The 'Copenhagen Accord' fails to deliver the political framework for a fair, ambitious and legally-binding international climate agreement beyond 2012. The current climate policy regime dynamics are insufficient to reflect the realities of topical complexity, actor coalitions, as well as financial, legal and institutional challenges in the light of extreme time constraints to avoid 'dangerous' climate change of more than 2°C. In this paper we analyze these stumbling blocks for international climate policy and discuss alternatives in order to regain momentum for future negotiations.

Carbon pricing at appropriate levels is critical in the response to climate change, but currently only a fifth of global emissions are priced. Successful carbon pricing in Asia can help jurisdictions in the region achieve their climate targets cost-effectively, spur investments into low-carbon alternatives, and catalyse regional climate action. This report presents in-depth case studies of carbon pricing potential and readiness in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Pakistan. It begins with a synthesis of common issues across the case studies identified through the application of the analytical framework developed in Doda et al. (2021). Although there is strong political will to pursue carbon pricing in all three jurisdictions, the influence of and opposition from vested public and private fossil fuel interests pose a challenge. From a legal perspective, all three jurisdictions have flagship climate laws and key energy policy frameworks in place that are conducive to carbon pricing. Challenges arise in the context of policy coordination in the jurisdictions' fragmented institutional environments and the risk of international investment arbitration. Jurisdictions' economic and trade structure and power market characteristics are also critical, as carbon pricing is a market-based instrument that relies on economic incentives to change behaviour. All three jurisdictions have a high share of and rising power sector emissions. Government and private sector technical knowledge and capacity are also essential to operate the infrastructure for and comply with carbon pricing. Though the three case study jurisdictions are at different stages of progress towards carbon pricing, MRV was identified as the main outstanding technical challenge. Finally, multilateral frameworks provide external incentives for carbon pricing, facilitating cross-border cooperation including on international carbon markets. All three jurisdictions have - in one way or another - been able to draw on carbon pricing support from various organizations and/or other jurisdictions. The report's policy recommendations include: to align carbon pricing with ongoing power market reforms; to remove fossil fuel subsidies and provide targeted support instead; to engage early with relevant stakeholders to understand and alleviate opposition; to further leverage multilateral cooperation and dialogue with jurisdictions which already have experience with carbon pricing implementation, and - in this context - to assess needs and draw support from dedicated multilateral capacity building programs.

Climate change is widely recognised as a 'wicked' policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term.

This chapter examines the evolution of REDD+ governance and identifies policy options to increase synergies among REDD+, the sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. REDD+ emerged at the international level as a point of convergemnce acorss the 'institutional complexes' of forests, climate and biodiversity. This convergence attracted the engagement of a wide range of institutions in REDD+ activities, which together have drawn on three primary sources of authority to influence REDD+ rule-making: government sovereignty, contingent finance and voluntary carbon markets. Intergovernmental processes, which represent the primary articulation of governmental authority at the global level, have generated few binding commitments to the sustainable management of forests or biodiversity due to conflicting country interests. These efforts instead have favoured normative guidance, monitoring and reporting, and legality verification initiatives that reinforce sovereign authority. Bilateral and multi-lateral finance initiatives have exerted 'fund-based' authority through the application of operational safeguards protecting indigenous and local communities and biodiversity, but limited funding and low capacity of REDD+ countries to absorb those funds have constrained their influence. Finally, non-state actors have developed voluntary certification schemes for forest and carbon as a 'fast track' approach to elaborating more substantive international standards for environmentally- and socially-responsible forest practices. While the small size and voluntary nature of markets for forest carbon have greatly constrained the impact of these approaches, this could change if a significant regulatory market for REDD+ develops.Furthermore, the governance of REDD+, forest management and biodiversity is pluralistic, involving multiple institutions and actors. Efforts to promote REDD+ safeguarding at the international level exist in tension with national sovereignty and local autonomy. This complexity is taken into consideration in the suite of policy options provided in this chapter, which suggest the need to draw on a range of institutions and approaches and to consider how together they influence the balance of power and incentives across actors and scales.