Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Table of Contents 2 Chapter 14: International cooperation ........................................................................................... 14-1 3 Executive summary........................................................................................................................ 14-3 4 14.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 14-5 5 14.1.1 Key findings from AR5.............................................................................................. 14-5 6 14.1.2 Developments since AR5 ........................................................................................... 14-6 7 14.2 Evaluating international cooperation ................................................................................. 14-7 8 14.2.1 Framing concepts for assessment of the Paris Agreement ......................................... 14-7 9 14.2.2 Climate clubs and building blocks ........................................................................... 14-10 10 14.2.3 Assessment criteria .................................................................................................. 14-12 11 14.3 The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement .......................................................................... 14-14 12 14.3.1 The UN climate change regime................................................................................ 14-14 13 14.3.2 Elements of the Paris Agreement relevant to mitigation.......................................... 14-19 14 14.3.3 Effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement ................................ 14-37 15 Cross-Chapter Box 10: Policy Attribution - Methodologies for estimating the macro-level impact 16 of mitigation policies on indices of GHG mitigation ............................................................... 14-42 17 14.4 Supplementary means and mechanisms of implementation ............................................ 14-45 18 14.4.1 Finance ..................................................................................................................... 14-46 19 14.4.2 Science, technology and innovation......................................................................... 14-50 20 14.4.3 Capacity Building .................................................................................................... 14-53 21 14.4.4 Cooperative mechanisms and markets ..................................................................... 14-54 22 14.4.5 International Governance of SRM and CDR ........................................................... 14-55 23 Cross-Working Group Box 4: Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) ...................................... 14-56 24 14.5 Multi-level, multi-actor governance ................................................................................ 14-65 25 14.5.1 International cooperation at multiple governance levels.......................................... 14-66 26 14.5.2 International sectoral agreements and institutions ................................................... 14-76 27 14.5.3 Civil society and social movements ......................................................................... 14-84 28 14.5.4 Transnational business and public-private partnerships and initiatives ................... 14-87 29 14.5.5 International co-operation at the sub-national and city levels.................................. 14-91 30 14.6 Synthesis .......................................................................................................................... 14-92 31 14.6.1 Changing nature of international cooperation .......................................................... 14-92 32 14.6.2 Overall assessment of international cooperation...................................................... 14-93 33 14.7 Knowledge Gaps .............................................................................................................. 14-96 34 Frequently Asked Questions ........................................................................................................ 14-97 35 References .................................................................................................................................... 14-99 36 37 Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-2 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Executive summary 2 International cooperation is having positive and measurable results (high confidence). The Kyoto 3 Protocol led to measurable and substantial avoided emissions, including in 20 countries with Kyoto first 4 commitment period targets that have experienced a decade of declining absolute emissions. It also built 5 national capacity for GHG accounting, catalysed the creation of GHG markets, and increased 6 investments in low-carbon technologies (medium confidence). Other international agreements and 7 institutions have led to avoided CO2 emissions from land-use practices, as well as avoided emissions of 8 some non-CO2 greenhouse gases (medium confidence). {14.3, 14.5, 14.6} 9 New forms of international cooperation have emerged since AR5 in line with an evolving 10 understanding of effective mitigation policies, processes, and institutions. Both new and pre- 11 existing forms of co-operation are vital for achieving climate mitigation goals in the context of 12 sustainable development (high confidence). While previous IPCC assessments have noted important 13 synergies between the outcomes of climate mitigation and achieving sustainable development 14 objectives, there now appear to be synergies between the two processes themselves (medium 15 confidence). Since AR5, international cooperation has shifted towards facilitating national level 16 mitigation action through numerous channels. Now including both processes established under the 17 UNFCCC regime and through regional and sectoral agreements and organisations. {14.2, 14.3, 14.5, 18 14.6} 19 Participation in international agreements and transboundary networks is associated with the 20 adoption of climate policies at the national and sub-national levels, as well as by non-state actors 21 (high confidence). International cooperation helps countries achieve long-term mitigation targets when 22 it supports development and diffusion of low-carbon technologies, often at the level of individual 23 sectors, which can simultaneously lead to significant benefits in the areas of sustainable development 24 and equity (medium confidence). {14.2, 14.3, 14.5, 14.6} 25 International cooperation under the UN climate regime has taken an important new direction 26 with the entry into force of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which strengthened the objective of the UN 27 climate regime, including its long-term temperature goal, while adopting a different architecture 28 to that of the Kyoto Protocol to achieve it (high confidence). The core national commitments under 29 the Kyoto Protocol have been legally binding quantified emission targets for developed countries tied 30 to well-defined mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement. By contrast, the commitments under the 31 Paris Agreement are primarily procedural, extend to all parties, and are designed to trigger domestic 32 policies and measures, enhance transparency, and stimulate climate investments, particularly in 33 developing countries, and to lead iteratively to rising levels of ambition across all countries (high 34 confidence). Issues of equity remain of central importance in the UN climate regime, notwithstanding 35 shifts in the operationalisation of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective 36 capabilities’ from Kyoto to Paris (high confidence). {14.3} 37 There are conflicting views on whether the Paris Agreement’s commitments and mechanisms will 38 lead to the attainment of its stated goals. Arguments in support of the Paris Agreement are that the 39 processes it initiates and supports will in multiple ways lead, and indeed have already led, to rising 40 levels of ambition over time. The recent proliferation of national mid-century net-zero GHG targets can 41 be attributed in part to the Paris Agreement (medium confidence). Moreover, its processes and 42 commitments will enhance countries’ abilities to achieve their stated level of ambition, particularly 43 among developing countries (medium confidence). Arguments against the Paris Agreement are that it 44 lacks a mechanism to review the adequacy of individual Parties’ nationally determined contributions 45 (NDCs), that collectively current NDCs are inconsistent in their level of ambition with achieving the 46 Paris Agreement’s temperature goal, that its processes will not lead to sufficiently rising levels of 47 ambition in the NDCs, and that NDCs will not be achieved because the targets, policies and measures Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-3 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 they contain are not legally binding at the international level (medium confidence). To some extent, 2 arguments on both sides are aligned with different analytic frameworks, including assumptions about 3 the main barriers to mitigation that international cooperation can help overcome (medium confidence). 4 The extent to which countries increase the ambition of their NDCs and ensure they are effectively 5 implemented will depend in part on the successful implementation of the support mechanisms in the 6 Paris Agreement, and in turn will determine whether the goals of the Paris Agreement are met (high 7 confidence). {14.2, 14.3, 14.4} 8 International cooperation outside the UNFCCC processes and agreements provides critical 9 support for mitigation in particular regions, sectors and industries, for particular types of 10 emissions, and at the sub- and trans-national levels (high confidence). Agreements addressing ozone 11 depletion, transboundary air pollution, and release of mercury are all leading to reductions in the 12 emissions of specific greenhouse gases (high confidence). Cooperation is occurring at multiple 13 governance levels including cities. Transnational partnerships and alliances involving non-state and 14 sub-national actors are also playing a growing role in stimulating low-carbon technology diffusion and 15 emissions reductions (medium confidence). Such transnational efforts include those focused on climate 16 litigation; the impacts of these are unclear but promising. Climate change is being addressed in a 17 growing number of international agreements operating at sectoral levels, as well as within the practices 18 of many multilateral organisations and institutions (high confidence). Sub-global and regional 19 cooperation, often described as climate clubs, can play an important role in accelerating mitigation, 20 including the potential for reducing mitigation costs through linking national carbon markets, although 21 actual examples of these remain limited (high confidence). {14.2, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6} 22 International cooperation will need to be strengthened in several key respects in order to support 23 mitigation action consistent with limiting temperature rise to well below 2°C in the context of 24 sustainable development and equity (high confidence). Many developing countries’ NDCs have 25 components or additional actions that are conditional on receiving assistance with respect to finance, 26 technology development and transfer, and capacity building, greater than what has been provided to 27 date (high confidence). Sectoral and sub-global cooperation is providing critical support, and yet there 28 is room for further progress. In some cases, notably with respect to aviation and shipping, sectoral 29 agreements have adopted climate mitigation goals that fall far short of what would be required to 30 achieve the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement (high confidence). Moreover, there are cases where 31 international cooperation may be hindering mitigation efforts, namely evidence that trade and 32 investment agreements, as well as agreements within the energy sector, impede national mitigation 33 efforts (medium confidence). International cooperation is emerging but so far fails to fully address 34 transboundary issues associated with solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal (high 35 confidence) {14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6} 36 Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-4 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 14.1 Introduction 2 This chapter assesses the role and effectiveness of international cooperation in mitigating climate 3 change. Such cooperation includes multilateral global cooperative agreements among nation states such 4 as the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and its related 5 legal instruments, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement, but also plurilateral 6 agreements involving fewer states, as well as those focused on particular economic and policy sectors, 7 such as components of the energy system. Moreover, this chapter assesses the role of transnational 8 agreements and cooperative arrangements between non-state and sub-national actors, including 9 municipal governments, private-sector firms and industry consortia, and civil society organisations. 10 This chapter does not assess international cooperation within the European Union, as this is covered in 11 Chapter 13 of this report. 12 Past IPCC assessment reports have discussed the theoretical literature, providing insights into the 13 rationale for international cooperation, as well as guidance as to its structure and implementation. This 14 chapter limits such theoretical discussion primarily to the new developments since AR5. Important 15 developments in this respect include attention to climate clubs (groups of countries and potentially non- 16 state actors that can work together to achieve particular objectives), and the effects of framing the global 17 climate change mitigation challenge as one of accelerating a socio-technical transition or 18 transformation, shifting development pathways accordingly, in addition to (or rather than) solving a 19 global commons problem. This chapter draws from theory to identify a set of criteria by which to assess 20 the effectiveness of existing forms of international cooperation. 21 The rest of this chapter describes existing cooperative international agreements, institutions, and 22 initiatives with a view to clarifying how they operate, what effects they have, and ultimately, whether 23 they work. At the heart of this international institutional architecture lies the Paris Agreement, which 24 sets the overall approach for international cooperation under the UNFCCC at the global level. In many 25 ways, the Paris Agreement reshapes the structure of such cooperation, from one oriented primarily 26 towards target setting, monitoring, and enforcement, to one that is oriented towards supporting and 27 enabling nationally determined actions (including targets), monitoring as well as catalysing non-state 28 and sub-national actions at multiple levels of governance. In addition to the Paris Agreement, many 29 forms of cooperation have taken shape in parallel: those designed to address other environmental 30 problems that have a significant impact on climate mitigation; those operating at the sub-global or 31 sectoral level; and, those where the main participants are non-state actors. The chapter ends with an 32 overall assessment of the effectiveness of current international cooperation and identifies areas that 33 would benefit from improved and enhanced action. 34 35 14.1.1 Key findings from AR5 36 AR5 found that two characteristics of climate change make international cooperation essential: that it 37 is a global commons problem that needs to be addressed in a coordinated fashion at the global 38 scale; and that given the global diversity with respect to opportunities for and cost of mitigation, there 39 are economic efficiencies associated with cooperative solutions (13.2.1.1). Consequently, AR5 40 found evidence to suggest that climate policies that are implemented across geographical regions would 41 be more effective in terms of both their environmental consequences and their economic costs (13.13, 42 13.6, 14.4). AR5 also suggested that regional cooperation could offer opportunities beyond what 43 countries may be able to achieve by themselves. These opportunities are due to geographic proximity, 44 shared infrastructure and policy frameworks, trade, and cross-border investments, and examples 45 included renewable energy pools across borders, networks of energy infrastructure and coordinated 46 forestry policies (1.2, 6.6,15.2, 14.2). AR5 also suggested that policy linkages exist across regional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-5 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 national, and sub-national scales (13.3.1, 13.5.1.3). For these reasons, AR5 suggested that although the 2 UNFCCC remains the primary international forum for climate negotiations, many other institutions 3 engaged at the global, regional, and local levels do and should play an active role 4 (1.3.3.1,13.4.1.4,13.5). AR5 also noted that the inclusion of climate change issues across a variety of 5 forums often creates institutional linkages between mitigation and adaptation (13.3,13.4.13.5). In 6 addition to centralised cooperation and governance, with a primary focus on the UNFCCC and its 7 associated institutions, AR5 noted the emergence of new transnational climate-related institutions of 8 decentralised authority such as public-private sector partnerships, private sector governance initiatives, 9 transnational NGO programs, and city-led initiatives (13.2,13.3.1,13.12). It noted that these have 10 resulted in a multiplicity of cooperative efforts in the form of multilateral agreements, harmonised 11 national policies and decentralised but coordinated national and regional policies (13.4.1, 13.3.2, 14.4). 12 Finally, it suggested that international cooperation may also have a role in promoting active engagement 13 of the private sector in technological innovation and cooperative efforts leading to technology transfer 14 and the development of new technologies (13.3, 13.9, 13.12). 15 16 14.1.2 Developments since AR5 17 14.1.2.1 Negotiation of the Paris Agreement 18 The key development since AR5 has been the negotiation and adoption of the Paris Agreement, which, 19 building on the UNFCCC, introduces a new approach to global climate governance. This new approach, 20 as discussed below (Section 14.3.1.1), is driven by the need to engage developing countries in emissions 21 reductions beyond those they had taken on voluntarily under the Cancun Agreements, extend mitigation 22 commitments to those developed countries that had rejected or withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, and 23 to respond to the rapidly changing geopolitical context (Section 14.3.1.2). 24 14.1.2.2 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals 25 It has long been clear that a failure to mitigate climate change would exacerbate existing poverty, 26 accentuate vulnerability and worsen inequality (IPCC 2014), but there is an emerging attempt to 27 harmonise mitigation actions with those oriented towards social and economic development. A key 28 development since AR5 is the adoption in 2015 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 29 which contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This Agenda offers an aspirational 30 narrative, coherent framework and actionable agenda for addressing diverse issues of development 31 through goals that balance the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable 32 development as well as issues of governance and institutions (ICSU ISSC 2015). Scholars have noted 33 that these dimensions of sustainable development are inter-dependent (Nilsson et al. 2016), and, as such 34 it is difficult if not impossible to achieve economic and social gains while neglecting environmental 35 concerns, including climate change (Le Blanc 2015). The SDGs are closely linked to the Paris 36 Agreement, adopted a few weeks later. There is a growing body of literature that examines the 37 interlinkages between SDGs, including SDG 13 (taking urgent action to combat climate change) and 38 others, concluding that without a proper response to climate change, success in many of the other SDGs 39 would be difficult if not impossible (Weitz et al. 2018; ICSU ISSC 2015; Le Blanc 2015; Nilsson et al. 40 2016). Likewise, failure to achieve the SDGs will have a detrimental effect on the ability to limit climate 41 change to manageable levels. Initiatives such as The World in 2050 (TWI2050 2018), a large research 42 initiative by a global consortium of research and policy institutions, work on the premise that pursuing 43 climate action and sustainable development in an integrated and coherent way, based on a sound 44 understanding of development pathways and dynamics, is the strongest approach to enable countries to 45 achieve their objectives in both agreements. 46 14.1.2.3 IPCC Special Reports 47 Further key developments since AR5 include the release of three IPCC special reports. The first of these 48 assessed the differential impacts of limiting climate change to 1.5°C global average warming compared Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-6 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 to 2°C warming, indicated the emissions reductions necessary and enabling conditions to stay within 2 this limit (IPCC 2018a). While the events that have unfolded since the report are not yet 3 comprehensively documented in literature, arguably the report has led to a renewed perception of the 4 urgency of climate mitigation (Wolf et al. 2019). In particular, the report appears to have crystalised 5 media coverage in some parts of the world around a need to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 6 (whether of GHGs or CO2), rather than delaying such reductions until the latter half of the century, as 7 had been previously understood and indicated in the Paris Agreement. Its release is hence one factor 8 explaining the rise in transnational climate mobilisation efforts (Boykoff and Pearman 2019). It has also 9 played a role, in addition to the Paris Agreement (Geden 2016a), in the numerous announcements, 10 pledges and indications by governments, including by all G-7 countries, of their adoption of net zero 11 GHG targets for 2050. The other two special reports focused on ocean and the cryosphere (IPCC 2019), 12 and the potential of land-related responses to contribute to adaptation and mitigation (IPCC 2020). 13 There has been no literature directly tying the publication of these latter two reports to changes in 14 international cooperation. However, the 25th UNFCCC Conference of Parties in Madrid in 2019 15 convened a dialogue on ocean and climate change to consider how to strengthen mitigation and 16 adaptation action in this context (UNFCCC 2019a, para 31). 17 18 19 14.2 Evaluating international cooperation 20 This section describes recent insights from social-science theory that can shed light on the need for and 21 ideal structure of international cooperation. This section starts by describing developments in framing 22 the underlying problem, move towards a body of theory describing the benefits of multilateral sub- 23 global action, and ends with a theory-based articulation of criteria to assess the effectiveness of 24 international cooperation. 25 14.2.1 Framing concepts for assessment of the Paris Agreement 26 Previous IPCC reports have framed international climate cooperation, and indeed climate mitigation 27 more generally, primarily as addressing a global commons problem (Stavins et al. 2014). In this report, 28 by contrast, multiple framings are considered. Chapter 1 introduces four analytic frameworks: 29 aggregated economic approaches such as cost-benefit analysis, which maps onto the global commons 30 framing; ethical approaches; analysis of transitions and transformations; and psychology and politics of 31 changing course. Here, we highlight some of the findings that are of relevance to international 32 cooperation. 33 When applied to the international context, the public good (or global commons) framing stresses that 34 the incentives for mitigation at the global level are greater than they are for any single country, since 35 the latter does not enjoy the benefits of its own mitigation efforts that accrue outside its own borders 36 (Patt 2017; Stavins et al. 2014). This framing does not preclude countries engaging in mitigation, even 37 ambitious mitigation, but it suggests that these countries’ level of ambition and speed of abatement 38 would be greater if they were part of a cooperative agreement. 39 Theoretical economists have shown that reaching such a global agreement is difficult, due to countries’ 40 incentives to freeride, namely benefit from other countries’ abatement efforts while failing to abate 41 themselves (Barrett 1994; Gollier and Tirole 2015). Numerical models that integrate game theoretic 42 concepts, whether based on optimal control theory or on dynamic programming, consistently confirm 43 this insight, at least in the absence of transfers (Germain et al. 2003; Lessmann et al. 2015; Chander 44 2017). Recent contributions suggest that regional or sectoral agreements, or agreements focused on a 45 particular subset of GHGs, can be seen as building blocks towards a global approach (Asheim et al. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-7 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 2006; Froyn and Hovi 2008; Sabel and Victor 2017; Stewart et al. 2017). In a dynamic context, this 2 gradual approach through building blocks can alleviate the free-riding problem and ultimately lead to 3 global cooperation (Caparrós and Péreau 2017). Much of this literature is subsumed under the concept 4 of “climate clubs,” described in the next section. Other developments based on dynamic game theory 5 suggest that the free-riding problem can be mitigated if the treaties do not prescribe countries’ levels of 6 green investment and the duration of the agreement, as countries can credibly threaten potential free- 7 riders with a short-term agreement where green investments will be insufficient due to the hold-up 8 problem (Battaglini and Harstad 2016). Finally, thresholds and potential climate catastrophes have also 9 been shown, theoretically and numerically, to reduce free-riding incentives, especially for countries that 10 may become pivotal in failing to avoid the threshold (Barrett 2013; Emmerling et al. 2020). 11 In addition to mitigation in the form of emissions abatement, innovation in green technologies also has 12 public good features, leading for the same reasons to less innovation than would be globally ideal (Jaffe 13 et al. 2005). Here as well, theory suggests that there are benefits from cooperation on technology 14 development at the regional or sectoral levels, but also that cooperation on technology, especially for 15 breakthrough technologies, may prove to be easier than for abatement (El-Sayed and Rubio 2014; Rubio 16 2017). In a dynamic context, the combination of infrastructure lock-in, network effects with high 17 switching cost, and dynamic market failures suggests that deployment and adoption of clean 18 technologies is path dependent (Acemoglu et al. 2012; Aghion et al. 2014), with a multiplicity of 19 possible equilibria. This implies that no outcome is guaranteed, although the most likely pathway will 20 depend on economic expectations and initial conditions of the innovation process (Krugman 1991). 21 Therefore, the government has a role to play, either by shifting expectations (e.g. credibly committing 22 to climate policy), or by changing initial conditions (e.g. investing in green infrastructure or subsidising 23 clean energy research) (Acemoglu et al. 2012; Aghion et al. 2014). This result is exacerbated by the 24 irreversibility of energy investments and the extremely long periods of operation of the typical energy 25 investment (Caparrós et al. 2015; Baldwin et al. 2020). 26 While the public goods and global commons framing concentrates on free-riding incentives as the 27 primary barrier to mitigation taking place at a pace that would be globally optimal, other factors arise 28 across the four analytic frameworks. For example, within the political framework, Beiser-McGrath and 29 Bernauer (2021) highlight that not just the incentive to free-ride, but also the knowledge that another 30 major emitter is free-riding, could lessen a country’s political incentive to mitigate. Aklin and 31 Mildenberger (2020) present evidence to suggest that distributive conflict within countries, rather than 32 free riding across countries, is the primary barrier to ambitious national level action. Another barrier 33 could be a lack of understanding and experience with particular policy approaches; there is evidence 34 that participation in cooperative agreements could facilitate information exchange across borders and 35 lead to enhanced mitigation policy adoption (Rashidi and Patt 2018). 36 The analytic approach focusing on transitions and transformation focuses on path dependent processes 37 as an impediment to the shift to low-carbon technologies and systems. Cross-chapter box 12 on 38 Transition Dynamics (Chapter 16) summarizes the key points of this literature. This chapter describes 39 how the two framings focus on different indicators of progress, and potentially different types of 40 cooperative action within the international context. This chapter highlights in later sections conflicting 41 views on whether the Paris Agreement is likely to prove effective (section 14.3.3.2). To some extent, 42 the dichotomy of views aligns with the two framings: analysis implicitly aligned with the global 43 commons framing is negative about the Paris architecture, whereas that aligned with the transitions 44 framing is more positive (Kern and Rogge 2016; Roberts et al. 2018; Patt 2017). 45 Within the global commons framing, the primary indicator of progress is the actual level of GHG 46 emissions, and the effectiveness of policies can be measured in terms of whether such emissions rise or 47 fall (Patt 2017; Hanna and Victor 2021). The fact that the sum of all countries’ emissions has continued 48 to grow (IPCC 2018a), even as there has been a global recognition that they should decline, is seen as Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-8 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 being consistent with the absence of a strong global agreement. Within this framing, there is 2 traditionally an emphasis on treaties’ containing self-enforcing agreements (Olmstead and Stavins 3 2012), ideally through binding commitments, as a way of dealing with the overarching problem of free- 4 ridership (Barrett 1994; Finus and Caparrós 2015; Tulkens 2019). However, as discussed above, the 5 emphasis has now shifted to a gradual cooperation approach, either regional or sectoral, as an alternative 6 way of dealing with free-riding incentives (Caparrós and Péreau 2017; Sabel and Victor 2017; Stewart 7 et al. 2017). The gradual linkage of emission trading systems (discussed in Section 14.4.4), goes in the 8 same direction. There is also literature suggesting that the diversity of the countries involved may in 9 fact be an asset to reduce the free-rider incentive (Pavlova and De Zeeuw 2013; Finus and McGinty 10 2019), which argues in favour of a system where all countries, irrespectively of their income levels, are 11 fully involved in mitigation, unlike the Kyoto Protocol and in line with the Paris Agreement. Finally, 12 recent efforts have discussed potential synergies between mitigation and adaptation efforts in a strategic 13 context (Bayramoglu et al. 2018) (see Section 14.5.1.2) In general, current efforts go beyond 14 considering climate policy as a mitigation-only issue, much in line with the discussion about linkages 15 between climate change and sustainable development policies described in detail in Chapters 1 and 4 16 of this report. 17 In the transitions framing, by contrast, global emissions levels are viewed as the end (and often greatly 18 delayed) result of a large number of transformative processes. International cooperation may be 19 effective at stimulating such processes, even if a change in global emissions is not yet evident, implying 20 that short-term changes in emissions levels may be a misleading indicator of progress towards long- 21 term goals (Patt 2017). Hanna and Victor (2021) suggest a particular focus on technical advances and 22 deployment patterns in niche low carbon technologies, such as wind and solar power, and electric 23 vehicles. However, this is one among many suggestions: the literature does not identify a single clear 24 indicator to use, and there are many metrics of technological progress and transformation, described in 25 Chapter 16, Section 16.3.3 of this report. These can include national level emissions among countries 26 participating in particular forms of cooperation, as well as leading indicators of such emissions such as 27 changes in low-carbon technology deployment and cost. 28 Just as the transition framing highlights indicators of progress other than global emissions, it de- 29 emphasises the importance of achieving cost-effectiveness with respect to global emissions. Hence, this 30 strand of the literature does not generally support the use of international carbon markets, suggesting 31 that these can delay transformative processes within countries that are key drivers of technological 32 change (Cullenward and Victor 2020). For similar reasons, achieving cross-sectoral cost-effectiveness, 33 a goal of many carbon markets, is not seen as a high priority. Instead, within the transitions framing the 34 emphasis with respect to treaty design is often on providing mechanisms to support parties’ voluntary 35 actions, such as with financial and capacity-building support for new technologies and technology 36 regimes (Geels et al. 2019). The transitions literature also highlights impediments to transformation as 37 being sector specific, and hence the importance of international cooperation addressing sector-specific 38 issues (Geels et al. 2019). While such attention often starts with promoting innovation and diffusion of 39 low-carbon technologies that are critical to a sector’s functioning, it often ends with policies aimed at 40 phasing out the high-carbon technologies once they are no longer needed (Markard 2018). In line with 41 this, many scholars have suggested value in supply-side international agreements, aimed at phasing out 42 the production and use of fossil fuels (Collier and Venables 2014; Piggot et al. 2018; Asheim et al. 43 2019; Newell and Simms 2020). 44 Analytic approaches centred on equity and development figure prominently within this report, with 45 many of the key concepts addressed in Chapter 4. Primarily the focus is on aligning climate policy at 46 the international level with efforts to shift development pathways towards improved quality of life and 47 greater sustainability (see cross chapter box 5 on shifting sustainable development pathways, Chapter 48 4). There are also overlaps between the equity framework and the others. Within the global commons Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-9 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 framing, the emphasis is on international carbon markets to reduce the costs from climate policies, and 2 as way of generating financial flows to developing countries (Michaelowa et al. 2019a). The transitions 3 framing, while focused empirically primarily on industrialized countries, nevertheless aligns with an 4 understanding of climate mitigation taking place within a wider development agenda; in many cases it 5 is a lack of development that creates a barrier to rapid system transformation, which international 6 cooperation can address (Delina and Sovacool 2018)(see also Cross-chapter Box 12). 7 8 14.2.2 Climate clubs and building blocks 9 A recent development in the literature on international climate governance has been increased attention 10 to the potential for climate clubs (Victor 2011). Hovi et al. (2016) define these “as any international 11 actor group that (1) starts with fewer members than the UNFCCC has and (2) aims to cooperate on one 12 or more climate change-related activities, notably mitigation, adaptation, climate engineering or climate 13 compensation.” While providing public goods (such as mitigation), they also offer member-only 14 benefits (such as preferential tariff rates) to entice membership. In practice, climate clubs are sub-global 15 arrangements, and formal agreement by interstate treaty is not a prerequisite. Actors do not have to be 16 states, although in the literature on climate clubs states have hitherto dominated. The literature has an 17 essentially static dimension that focuses on the incentives for actors to join such a club, and a dynamic 18 one, which focuses on the “building blocks” for global cooperative agreements. 19 The literature focusing on the static aspects of clubs highlight that they represent “coalitions of the 20 willing” (Falkner 2016a; Gampfer 2016; Falkner et al. 2021), which offer a package of benefits, part of 21 which are pure public goods (available also to non-club members), and others are club benefits that are 22 only available to members (Hovi et al. 2016). The members-only or excludable part can be a system of 23 transfers within the club to compensate the countries with higher costs. For example, the benefit from 24 participating in the club can be to have access to a common emissions trading system, which in general 25 is more attractive the larger the diversity of the countries involved, although this is not a general result 26 as discussed in detail in Doda and Taschini (2017). However, as costs and effort sharing agreements 27 are unsuccessful in a static context (Barrett 1994), mainly due to free-rider incentives, several studies 28 have proposed using tariffs on trade or other forms of sanctions to reduce incentives for free-riding 29 (Helm and Sprinz 2000; Eyland and Zaccour 2012; Anouliès 2015; Nordhaus 2015; Al Khourdajie and 30 Finus 2020). For example, Nordhaus (2015) uses a coalition formation game model to show that a 31 uniform percentage tariff on the imports of nonparticipants into the club region (at a relatively low tariff 32 rate of about 2%) can induce high participation within a range of carbon price values. More recently, 33 Al Khourdajie and Finus (2020) show that border carbon adjustments and an open membership policy 34 can lead to a large stable climate agreement, including full participation. Table 14.1 presents a number 35 of key results related to climate clubs from a static context. 36 37 Table 14.1 Key climate club static modelling results Aakre et al. (2018) (Nordhaus 2015) (Hovi et al. 2017; (Sælen et al. 2020; Sprinz et al. 2018) Sælen 2020) Scope Transboundary black Global emissions Global emissions Global emissions carbon and methane in the Arctic Modelling method TM5-FASST model C-DICE (coalition Agent-based Agent-based (“reduced-form air formation game model model quality and impact based on a static evaluation tool”) version of the multiregional Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-10 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII DICE-RICE optimisation model) Border tax No Yes No No adjustment Key results Black carbon can be For non- Climate clubs The architecture more easily participants in can substantially of the Paris controlled than mitigation efforts, reduce GHG Agreement will methane, based on modest tariffs on emissions, achieve the 2°C self-interest; goal only under a trade are advised provided club inclusion of non- very fortunate Arctic Council major to stabilize goods are constellation of polluters desirable to coalition present. The parameters. control pollutants formation for (potential) Potential (e.g., emission departure of a US) withdrawal reductions single major further reduces actor (e.g., USA) these chances reduces considerably emissions coverage, yet is rarely fatal to the existence of the club 1 2 In a dynamic context, the literature on climate clubs highlights the co-called ‘building blocks’ approach 3 (Stewart et al. 2013a,b, 2017). This is a bottom-up strategy designed to create an array of smaller-scale, 4 specialised initiatives for transnational cooperation in particular sectors and/or geographic areas with a 5 wide range of participants. As part of this literature, Potoski and Prakash (2013) provide a conceptual 6 overview of voluntary environmental clubs, showing that many climate clubs do not require demanding 7 obligations for membership and that a substantial segment thereof are mostly informational (Weischer 8 et al. 2012; Andresen 2014). Also crafted onto the building blocks approach, Potoski (2017) 9 demonstrates the theoretical potential for green certification and green technology clubs. Green (2017) 10 further highlights the potential of “pseudo-clubs” with fluid membership and limited member benefits 11 to promote the diffusion and uptake of mitigation standards. Falkner et al. (2021) suggest a typology of 12 normative, bargaining, and transformational clubs. Before the adoption of the Paris Agreement, some 13 literature suggested that the emergence of climate clubs in parallel to the multilateral climate regime 14 would lead to “forum shopping”, with states choosing the governance arrangement that best suits their 15 interests (McGee and Taplin 2006; van Asselt 2007; Biermann et al. 2009; Oh and Matsuoka 2017). 16 However, more recent literature suggests that climate clubs complement rather than challenge the 17 international regime established by the UNFCCC (van Asselt and Zelli 2014; Draguljić 2019; Falkner 18 2016a). 19 In this dynamic context, one question is whether to negotiate a single global agreement or to start with 20 smaller agreements in the hope that they will eventually evolve into a larger agreement. It has been 21 debated extensively in the context of free trade whether a multilateral (global) negotiating approach is 22 preferable to a regional approach, seen as a building block towards global free trade. Aghion et al. 23 (2007) analysed this issue formally for trade, showing that a leader would always choose to move 24 directly to a global agreement. In the case of climate change, it appears that even the mildest form of 25 club discussed above (an efforts and costs sharing agreement, as in the case of the linkage of emissions 26 trading systems) can yield global cooperation following a building-blocks approach, and that the 27 sequential path relying on building-blocks may be the only way to reach global cooperation over time 28 (Caparrós and Péreau 2017). While the existence of a nearly universal agreement such as the Paris Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-11 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Agreement may arguably have rendered this discussion less relevant, the Paris Agreement co-exists, 2 and will likely continue to do so, with a multitude of sectoral and regional agreements, meaning that 3 this discussion is still relevant for the evolution of these complementary regimes. 4 Results based on an agent-based model suggest that climate clubs results in major emission reductions 5 if there is a sufficiently high provision of the club good and if initial membership by several states with 6 sufficient emissions weight materializes. Such configurations allow the club to grow over time to enable 7 effective global action (Hovi et al. 2017). The departure of a major emitter (specifically the United 8 States) triggered a scientific discussion on the stability of the Paris Agreement. Sprinz et al. (2018) 9 explore whether climate clubs are stable against a leader willing to change its status, e.g., from leader 10 to follower or even completely leaving the climate club, finding in most cases such stability to exist. 11 Related studies on the macroeconomic incentives for climate clubs by Paroussos et al. (2019) show that 12 climate clubs are reasonably stable, both internally and externally (i.e., no member willing to leave and 13 no new member willing to join), and climate clubs that include obligations in line with the 2°C goal 14 combined with financial incentives can facilitate technology diffusion. The authors also show that 15 preferential trade arrangements for low-carbon goods can reduce the macroeconomic effects of 16 mitigation policies. Aakre et al. (2018) show numerically that small groups of countries can limit black 17 carbon in the Arctic, driven mainly for reasons of self-interest, yet reducing methane requires larger 18 coalitions due to its larger geographical dispersal and require stronger cooperation. 19 20 14.2.3 Assessment criteria 21 This section identifies a set of criteria for assessing the effectiveness of international cooperation, which 22 is applied later in the chapter. Lessons from the implementation of other multilateral environmental 23 agreements (MEAs) can provide some guidance. There is considerable literature on this topic, most of 24 which predates AR5, and which will therefore not be covered in detail. Issues include ways to enhance 25 compliance, and the fact that a low level of compliance with an MEA does not necessarily mean that 26 the MEA has no effect (Downs et al. 1996; Victor et al. 1998; Weiss and Jacobson 1998). Recent 27 research examines effectiveness from the viewpoint of the extent to which an MEA influences domestic 28 action, including the adoption of implementing legislation and policies (Brandi et al. 2019). 29 Many have pointed to the Montreal Protocol, addressing stratospheric ozone loss, as an example of a 30 successful treaty because of its ultimate environmental effectiveness, and relevance for solving climate 31 change. Scholarship emerging since AR5 emphasises that the Paris Agreement has a greater ‘bottom- 32 up’ character than many other MEAs, including the Montreal or Kyoto Protocols, allowing for more 33 decentralised ‘polycentric’ forms of governance that engage diverse actors at the regional, national and 34 sub-national levels (Ostrom 2010; Jordan et al. 2015; Falkner 2016b; Victor 2016). Given the 35 differences in architecture, lessons drawn from studies of MEA regimes need to be supplemented with 36 assessments of the effectiveness of cooperative efforts at other governance levels and in other forums. 37 Emerging research in this area proposes methodologies for this task (Hsu et al. 2019a). Findings 38 highlight the persistence of similar imbalances between developed and developing countries as at the 39 global level, as well as the need for more effective ways to incentivise private sector engagement in 40 transnational climate governance (Chan et al. 2018). 41 While environmental outcomes and economic performance have been long-standing criteria for 42 assessment of effectiveness, the other elements deserve some note. It is the case that the achievement 43 of climate objectives, such as limiting global average warming to 1.5 – 2°C, will require the transition 44 from high- to low-carbon technologies, and the transformation of the sectors and social environments 45 within which those technologies operate. Such transformations are not linear processes, and hence many 46 of the early steps taken – such as supporting early diffusion of new renewable energy technologies – 47 will have little immediate effect on GHG emissions (Patt 2015; Geels et al. 2017). Hence, activities that Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-12 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 contribute to transformative potential include technology transfer and financial support for low-carbon 2 infrastructure, especially where the latter is not tied to immediate emissions reductions. Assessing the 3 transformative potential of international cooperation takes these factors into account. Equity and 4 distributive outcomes are of central importance to the climate change debate, and hence for evaluating 5 the effects of policies. Equity encompasses the notion of distributive justice which refers to the 6 distribution of goods, burdens, costs and benefits, as well as procedural-related issues (Kverndokk 7 2018). 8 Finally, the literature on the performance of other MEAs highlights the importance of institutional 9 strength, which can include regulative quality, mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability, 10 and administrative capacity. Regulative quality includes guidance and signalling (Oberthür et al. 2017), 11 as well as clear rules and standards to facilitate collective action (Oberthür and Bodle 2016). The 12 literature is clear that legally binding obligations (which require the formal expression of state consent) 13 and non-binding recommendations can each be appropriate, depending on the particular circumstances 14 (Skjærseth et al. 2006), and indeed it has been argued that for climate change non-binding 15 recommendations may better fit the capacity of global governance organisations (Victor 2011). 16 Mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability are essential to collect, protect, and analyse 17 relevant data about parties’ implementation of their obligations, and to identify and address challenges 18 in implementation (Kramarz and Park 2016; Kinley et al. 2020). Administrative capacity refers to the 19 strength of the formal bodies established to serve the parties to the regime and help ensure compliance 20 and goal attainment (Andler and Behrle 2009; Bauer et al. 2017). 21 In addition to building on the social science theory just described, we recognise that it is also important 22 to strike a balance between applying the same standards developed and applied to international 23 cooperation in AR5, and maintaining consistency with other chapters of this report (primarily Chapters 24 1, 4, 13, and 15). Table 14.2 presents a set of criteria that do this, and which are then applied later in 25 the chapter. 26 27 Table 14.2 Criteria for assessing effectiveness of international cooperation Criterion Description Environmental outcomes To what extent does international cooperation lead to identifiable environmental benefits, namely the reduction of economy-wide and sectoral emissions of greenhouse gases from pre-existing levels or ‘business as usual’ scenarios? Transformative potential To what extent does international cooperation contribute to the enabling conditions for transitioning to a zero-carbon economy and sustainable development pathways at the global, national, or sectoral levels? Distributive outcomes To what extent does international cooperation lead to greater equity with respect to the costs, benefits, and burdens of mitigation actions, taking into account current and historical contributions and circumstances? Economic performance To what extent does international cooperation promote the achievement of economically efficient and cost-effective mitigation activities? Institutional strength To what extent does international cooperation create the institutional framework needed for the achievement of internationally agreed-upon goals, and contribute to national, sub-national, and sectoral institutions needed for decentralised and bottom-up mitigation governance? 28 Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-13 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 14.3 The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement 2 14.3.1 The UN climate change regime 3 14.3.1.1 Instruments & Milestones 4 The international climate change regime, in evolution for three decades, comprises the 1992 UNFCCC, 5 the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC is a ‘framework’ convention, 6 capturing broad convergence among states on an objective, a set of principles, and general obligations 7 relating to mitigation, adaptation, reporting and support. The UNFCCC categorises parties into Annex 8 I and Annex II. Annex I parties, comprising developed country parties, have a goal to return, 9 individually or jointly, their GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Annex II parties, comprising 10 developed country parties except for those with economies in transition, have additional obligations 11 relating to the provision of financial and technology support. All parties, including developing country 12 parties, characterised as non-Annex-I parties, have reporting obligations, as well as obligations to take 13 policies and measures on mitigation and adaptation. The UNFCCC also establishes the institutional 14 building blocks for global climate governance. Both the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris 15 Agreement are distinct but ‘related legal instruments’ in that only parties to the UNFCCC can be parties 16 to these later instruments. 17 The Kyoto Protocol specifies GHG emissions reduction targets for the 2008-2012 commitment period 18 for countries listed in its Annex B (which broadly corresponds to Annex I to the UNFCCC) (UNFCCC 19 1997, Art. 3 and Annex B). The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005. Shortly thereafter, states 20 began negotiating a second commitment period under the Protocol for Annex B parties, as well as 21 initiated a process under the UNFCCC to consider long-term cooperation among all parties. 22 At COP 13 in Bali in 2007, parties adopted the Bali Action Plan that launched negotiations aimed at an 23 agreed outcome enhancing the UNFCCC’s ‘full, effective and sustained implementation’. The agreed 24 outcome was to be adopted at COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009, but negotiations failed to deliver a 25 consensus document. The result instead was the Copenhagen Accord, which was taken note of by the 26 COP. While it was a political agreement with no formal legal status under the UNFCCC, it reflected 27 significant progress on several fronts and set in place the building blocks for the Paris Agreement, 28 namely: setting a goal of limiting global temperature increase to below 2°C; calling on all countries to 29 put forward mitigation pledges; establishing broad new terms for the reporting and verification of 30 countries’ actions; setting a goal of mobilising USD100 billion a year by 2020 from a wide variety of 31 sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance; and, 32 calling for the establishment of a new Green Climate Fund and Technology Mechanism (Rogelj et al. 33 2010; Rajamani 2010; UNFCCC 2010a). One hundred and forty states endorsed the Copenhagen 34 Accord, with 85 countries entering pledges to reduce their emissions or constrain their growth by 2020 35 (Christensen and Olhoff 2019). 36 At COP 16 in Cancun in 2010, parties adopted a set of decisions termed the Cancun Agreements that 37 effectively formalised the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord, and the pledges states made, under 38 the UNFCCC. The Cancun Agreements were regarded as an interim arrangement through to 2020, and 39 parties left the door open to further negotiations, in line with negotiations launched in 2005, toward a 40 legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol (Freestone 2010; Liu 2011a). Collectively the G-20 41 states are on track to meeting the mid-level of their Cancun pledges, although there is uncertainty about 42 some individual pledges. However, there is significant gap between annual emissions expected under 43 full implementation of pledges and the level consistent with the 2°C goal (Christensen and Olhoff 2019). 44 At the 2011 Durban climate conference, parties launched negotiations for ‘a Protocol, another legal 45 instrument or agreed outcome with legal force’ with a scheduled end to the negotiations in 2015 46 (UNFCCC 2012, Dec. 1, para. 2). At the 2012 Doha climate conference, parties adopted a second Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-14 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, running from 2013-2020. The Doha amendment entered 2 into force in 31 December 2020. Given the subsequent adoption of the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto 3 Protocol is unlikely to continue beyond 2020 (Bodansky et al. 2017a). At the end of the compliance 4 assessment period under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B parties were in full compliance with their targets 5 for the first commitment period; in some cases through the use of the Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms 6 (Shishlov et al. 2016). 7 Although both the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are under the UNFCCC, they are generally seen 8 as representing fundamentally different approaches to international cooperation on climate change 9 (Held and Roger 2018; Falkner 2016b). The Paris Agreement has been characterised as a ‘decisive 10 break’ from the Kyoto Protocol (Keohane and Oppenheimer 2016). Some note that the mitigation 11 efforts under the Kyoto Protocol take the form of targets that, albeit based on national self-selection, 12 were part of the multilateral negotiation process, whereas under the Paris Agreement parties make 13 nationally determined contributions. The different approaches have been characterised by some as a 14 distinction between a ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ approach (Bodansky and Rajamani 2016; Bodansky 15 et al. 2016; Chan et al. 2016; Doelle 2016) but others disagree with such a characterisation pointing to 16 continuities within the regime, for example, in terms of rules for reporting and review, and crossover 17 and use of common institutional arrangements (Depledge 2017; Allan 2019). Some note, in any case, 18 that the Kyoto Protocol’s core obligations are substantive obligations of result, while many of the Paris 19 Agreement’s core obligations are procedural obligations, complemented by obligations of conduct 20 (Rajamani 2016a; Mayer 2018a). 21 The differences between and continuities in the three treaties that comprise the UN climate regime are 22 summarised in Table 14.3 below. The Kyoto targets apply only to Annex I parties, but the procedural 23 obligations relating to NDCs in the Paris Agreement apply to all parties, with flexibilities in relation to 24 some obligations for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and 25 developing countries that need it in light of their capacities. The Kyoto targets are housed in its Annex 26 B, therefore requiring a formal process of amendment for revision, whereas the Paris NDCs are located 27 in an online registry that is maintained by the Secretariat, but to which parties can upload their own 28 NDCs. The Kyoto Protocol allows Annex B parties to use three market-based mechanisms – the Clean 29 Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation and International Emissions Trading – to fulfil 30 a part of their GHG targets. The Paris Agreement recognizes that parties may choose to cooperate 31 voluntarily on markets, in the form of cooperative approaches under Article 6.2, and a mechanism with 32 international oversight under Article 6.4, subject to guidance and rules that are yet to be adopted. These 33 rules relate to integrity and accounting (La Hoz Theuer et al. 2019). Article 5 also provides explicit 34 endorsement of REDD+. The Kyoto Protocol contains an extensive reporting and review process, 35 backed by a compliance mechanism. This mechanism includes an enforcement branch, to ensure 36 compliance, and sanction non-compliance (through the withdrawal of benefits such as participation in 37 market-based mechanisms), with its national system requirements, and GHG targets. By contrast, the 38 Paris Agreement relies on informational requirements and flows to enhance the clarity of NDCs, and to 39 track progress in the implementation and achievement of NDCs. 40 41 Table 14.3 Continuities in and differences between the UNFCCC, Paris Agreement and the Kyoto 42 Protocol Feature UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol Paris Agreement Objective To stabilize Primarily Mitigation in line with GHGs in the mitigation- a long-term atmosphere at a focused (although temperature goal, level that would in pursuit of the adaptation and finance prevent goals, as well as Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-15 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII dangerous UNFCCC sustainable anthropogenic objective) development and interference equity (also, in pursuit with the climate of the UNFCCC system, in a objective) time frame to protect food security, enable natural ecosystem adaptability and permit economic development in a sustainable manner Architecture ‘Framework’ Differentiated Nationally determined agreement with targets, based on contributions subject to agreement on national offers transparency, principles such submitted to the multilateral as CBDRRC, multilateral consideration of division of negotiation progress, common countries into process, and metrics in inventories Annexes, with multilaterally and accounting. different groups negotiated of countries common metrics with differentiated commitments. Coverage of mitigation- Annex I Parties UNFCCC Annex All parties related commitments with a GHG I/Kyoto Annex B stabilization parties only goal, all Parties to take policies and measures Targets GHG Legally binding, Non-binding (in terms stabilization differentiated of results) contributions goal for Annex I mitigation targets incorporated in parties’ parties (‘quasi inscribed in treaty NDCs, and provisions target’) including those relating to highest possible ambition, progression and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances Timetable Aim to return Two commitment Initial NDCs for to 1990 levels periods (2008- timeframes from 2020 of GHGs by 2012; 2013-2020) running through 2025 2000 or 2030 with new or updated NDCs every five years, and Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-16 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII encouragement to submit long-term low GHG emission development strategies Adaptation Parties to Parties to Qualitative global goal cooperate in formulate and on adaptation to preparing for implement enhance adaptative adaptation to national capacity and resilience, adaptation and reduce the impacts measures, share vulnerability, parties to of climate of proceeds from undertake national change CDM to fund adaptation planning adaptation and implementation Loss and Damage Not covered Not covered Cooperation and facilitation to enhance understanding, action and support for loss and damage, including through the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage under the UNFCCC Transparency National Reporting and Enhanced transparency communications review – Annex framework and five- from parties, B parties only yearly global stocktake with differing for a collective content and set assessment of progress to differing towards goals – all timeframes for parties different categories of parties Support Annex II Advances Enhances reporting in commitments UNFCCC Annex relation to support, relating to II commitments expands the base of provision of relating to donors, and tailors finance, provision of support to the needs development finance, and capacities of and transfer of development and developing countries technology to transfer of developing technology to countries developing countries Implementation National Market Voluntary cooperation implementation, mechanisms on mitigation (through communication (international market-based and non- on emissions market approaches); implementation trading, joint encouragement of implementation, REDD+ (guidance and CDM) rules under negotiation) Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-17 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII Compliance Multilateral Compliance Committee to promote consultative committee with compliance and process, never facilitative and facilitate adopted enforcement implementation; no branches; sanctions sanctions for non- compliance 1 2 14.3.1.2 Negotiating Context and Dynamics 3 The 2015 Paris Agreement was negotiated in a starkly different geopolitical context to that of the 1992 4 UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (Streck and Terhalle 2013; Ciplet et al. 2015). The ‘rupturing 5 binary balance of superpowers’ of the 1980s had given way to a multipolar world with several 6 distinctive trends: emerging economies began challenging US dominance (Ciplet et al. 2015); 7 industrialised countries' emissions peaked in the 2010s and started declining, while emissions from 8 emerging economies began to grow (Falkner 2019); the EU stretched eastwards and became 9 increasingly supra-national (Kinley et al. 2020); disparities within the group of developing countries 10 increased (Ciplet et al. 2015); and the role of non-state actors in mitigation efforts has grown more 11 salient (Bäckstrand et al. 2017; Kuyper et al. 2018b; Falkner 2019). The rise of emerging powers, many 12 of whom now have ‘veto power’, however, some noted, did not detract from the unequal development 13 and inequality at the heart of global environmental politics (Hurrell and Sengupta 2012). 14 In this altered context, unlike in the 1990s when the main cleavages were between the EU and the US 15 (Hurrell and Sengupta 2012), US-China ‘great power politics’ came to be seen as determinative of 16 outcomes in the climate change negotiations (Terhalle and Depledge 2013). The US-China joint 17 announcement (Whitehouse 2014), for instance, before the 2014 Lima climate conference, brokered the 18 deal on differentiation that came to be embodied in the Paris Agreement (Ciplet and Roberts 2017; 19 Rajamani 2016a). Others have identified, on the basis of economic standing, political influence, and 20 emissions levels, three influential groups - the first comprising the US with Japan, Canada, and Russia, 21 the second comprising the EU and the third comprising China, India and Brazil (Brenton 2013). The 22 emergence of the Major Economies Fora (MEF), among other climate clubs (discussed in Section 23 14.2.2) reflects this development (Brenton 2013). It also represents a ‘minilateral’ forum, built on a 24 recognition of power asymmetries, in which negotiating compromises are politically tested and fed into 25 multilateral processes (Falkner 2016a). 26 Beyond these countries, in the decade leading up to the Paris climate negotiations, increasing 27 differences within the group of developing countries divided the 134-strong developing country alliance 28 of the G-77/China into several interest-based coalitions (Vihma et al. 2011; Bodansky et al. 2017b). A 29 division emerged between the vulnerable least developed and small island states on the one side and 30 rapidly developing economies, the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) on the other, as the 31 latter are ‘decidedly not developed but not wholly developing’ (Hochstetler and Milkoreit 2013). This 32 ‘fissure’ in part led to the High Ambition Coalition in Paris between vulnerable countries and the more 33 progressive industrialised countries (Ciplet and Roberts 2017). A division also emerged between the 34 BASIC countries (Hurrell and Sengupta 2012), that each have distinctive identities and positions 35 (Hochstetler and Milkoreit 2013). In the lead up to the Paris negotiations, China and India formed the 36 Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) with OPEC and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples 37 of our Americas (ALBA) countries, to resist the erosion of differentiation in the regime. Yet, the 38 ‘complex and competing’ identities of India and China, with differing capacities, challenges and self- 39 images, have also influenced the negotiations (Rajamani 2017; Ciplet and Roberts 2017). Other 40 developing countries’ coalitions also played an important role in striking the final deal in Paris. The Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-18 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), despite their lack of structural power, played a leading role, 2 in particular in relation to the inclusion of the 1.5°C long term temperature goal in the UN climate 3 regime (Agueda Corneloup and Mol 2014; Ourbak and Magnan 2018). The Association of the Latin 4 American and Caribbean Countries (AILAC) that emerged in 2012 also played a decisive role in 5 fostering ambition (Edwards et al. 2017; Watts and Depledge 2018). 6 Leadership is essential to reaching international agreements and overcoming collective action problems 7 (Parker et al. 2015). The Paris negotiations were faced, as a reflection of the multipolarity that had 8 emerged, with a ‘fragmented leadership landscape’ with the US, EU, and China being perceived as 9 leaders at different points in time and to varying degrees (Parker et al. 2014; Karlsson et al. 2012). Small 10 island states are also credited with demonstrating ‘moral leadership’(Agueda Corneloup and Mol 2014), 11 and non-state and sub-national actors are beginning to be recognised as pioneers and leaders (Wurzel 12 et al. 2019). There is also a burgeoning literature on the emergence of diffused leadership and the 13 salience of followers (Busby and Urpelainen 2020; Parker et al. 2014). 14 It is in the context of this complex, multipolar and highly differentiated world - with a heterogeneity of 15 interests, constraints and capacities, increased contestations over shares of the carbon and development 16 space, as well as diffused leadership - that the Paris Agreement was negotiated. This context 17 fundamentally influenced the shape of the Paris Agreement in particular on issues relating to its 18 architecture, ‘legalisation’ (Karlas 2017) and differentiation (Bodansky et al. 2017b; Kinley et al. 2020), 19 all of which are discussed below. 20 21 14.3.2 Elements of the Paris Agreement relevant to mitigation 22 The 2015 Paris Agreement to the UNFCCC, which entered into force on 4 November 2016, and has 23 192 Parties as of date, is at the centre of international cooperative efforts for climate change mitigation 24 and adaptation in the post-2020 period. Although its legal form was heavily disputed, especially in the 25 initial part of its four-year negotiating process (Rajamani 2015; Maljean-Dubois and Wemaëre 2016; 26 Klein et al. 2017; Bodansky et al. 2017b), the Paris Agreement is a treaty containing provisions of 27 differing levels of “bindingness” (Bodansky 2016; Rajamani 2016b; Oberthür and Bodle 2016). The 28 legal character of provisions within a treaty, and the extent to which particular provisions lend 29 themselves to assessments of compliance or non-compliance, depends on factors such as the normative 30 content of the provision, the precision of its terms, the language used, and the oversight mechanisms in 31 place (Werksman 2010; Bodansky 2015; Oberthür and Bodle 2016; Rajamani 2016b). Assessed on 32 these criteria, the Paris Agreement contains the full spectrum of provisions, from hard to soft law 33 (Pickering et al. 2019; Rajamani 2016b) and even ‘non-law’, provisions that do not have standard- 34 setting or normative content, but which play a narrative-building and context-setting role (Rajamani 35 2016b). The Paris Agreement, along with the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, can be interpreted in 36 light of the customary international law principle of harm prevention according to which states must 37 exercise due diligence in seeking to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing 38 extraterritorial environmental harm (Mayer 2016a; Maljean-Dubois 2019).The key features of the Paris 39 Agreement are set out in Box 14.1. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-19 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 2 Figure 14.1 Key features of the Paris Agreement. Arrows illustrate the interrelationship between the 3 different features of the Paris Agreement, in particular between the Agreement’s goals, required actions 4 (through NDCs, support (finance, technology and capacity-building), transparency framework and global 5 stocktake process. The figure also represents points of interconnection with domestic mitigation 6 measures, whether taken by state parties or by non-state actors (NSAs). This figure is illustrative rather 7 than exhaustive of the features and interconnections. 8 Figure 14.1 illustrates graphically the key features of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is 9 based on a set of binding procedural obligations requiring parties to ‘prepare, communicate, and 10 maintain’ ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 4.2) every five years 11 (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 4.9). These obligations are complemented by: (1) an ‘ambition cycle’ that 12 expects parties, informed by five-yearly global stocktakes (Art 14), to submit successive NDCs 13 representing a progression on their previous NDCs (UNFCCC 2015a; Bodansky et al. 2017b), and (2) 14 an ‘enhanced transparency framework’ that places extensive informational demands on parties, tailored 15 to capacities, and establishes review processes to enable tracking of progress towards achievement of 16 NDCs (Oberthür and Bodle 2016). In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol with its internationally inscribed 17 targets and timetable for emissions reduction for developed countries, the Paris Agreement contains 18 nationally determined contributions embedded in an international system of transparency and 19 accountability for all countries (Doelle 2016; Maljean-Dubois and Wemaëre 2016) accompanied by a 20 shared global goal, in particular in relation to a temperature limit. 21 14.3.2.1 Context and purpose 22 The preamble of the Paris Agreement lists several factors that provide the interpretative context for the 23 Agreement (Carazo 2017; Bodansky et al. 2017b), including a reference to human rights. The human 24 rights implications of climate impacts garnered particular attention in the lead up to Paris (Duyck 2015; 25 Mayer 2016b). In particular, the Human Rights Council, its special procedures mechanisms, and the 26 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, through a series of resolutions, reports, and 27 activities, advocated a rights-based approach to climate impacts, and sought to integrate this approach 28 in the climate change regime. The Paris Agreement’s preambular recital on human rights recommends 29 that parties, ‘when taking action to address human rights’, take into account ‘their respective obligations 30 on human rights’ (UNFCCC 2015a, preambular recital 14), a first for an environmental treaty (Knox 31 2016). The ‘respective obligations’ referred to in the Paris Agreement could potentially include those Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-20 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 relating to the right to life (UNGA 1948, Art. 3, 1966, Art. 6), right to health (UNGA 1966b, Art. 12), 2 right to development, right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food (UNGA 1966b, 3 Art. 11), which has been read to include the right to water and sanitation (CESCR 2002, 2010), the right 4 to housing (CESCR 1991), and the right to self-determination, including as applied in the context of 5 indigenous peoples (UNGA 1966a,b, Art. 1). In addition, climate impacts contribute to displacement 6 and migration (Mayer and Crépeau 2016; McAdam 2016), and have disproportionate effects on women 7 (Pearse 2017). There are differing views on the value and operational impact of the human rights recital 8 in the Paris Agreement (Adelman 2018; Boyle 2018; Duyck et al. 2018; Rajamani 2018; Savaresi 2018; 9 Knox 2019). Notwithstanding proposals from some parties and stakeholders to mainstream and 10 operationalise human rights in the climate regime post-Paris (Duyck et al. 2018), and references to 11 human rights in COP decisions, the 2018 Paris Rulebook contains limited and guarded references to 12 human rights (Duyck 2019; Rajamani 2019) (see Section 14.5.1.2). In addition to the reference to human 13 rights, the preamble also notes the importance of ‘ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including 14 oceans and the protection of biodiversity’ which provides opportunities for integrating and 15 mainstreaming other environmental protections. 16 The overall purpose of international cooperation through the Paris Agreement is to enhance the 17 implementation of the UNFCCC, including its objective of stabilising atmospheric GHG concentrations 18 ‘at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ (UNFCCC 19 1992, Art. 2). The Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate 20 change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, by inter alia 21 ‘[h]olding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels 22 and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’ (UNFCCC 23 2015a, Art. 2(1)(a)). There is an ongoing structured expert dialogue under the UNFCCC in the context 24 of the second periodic review of the long-term global goal (the first was held between 2013-2015) aimed 25 at enhancing understanding of the long-term global goal, pathways to achieving it, and assessing the 26 aggregate effect of steps taken by parties to achieve the goal. 27 Some authors interpret the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal as a single goal with two inseparable 28 elements, the well below 2°C goal pressing towards 1.5°C (Rajamani and Werksman 2018), but others 29 interpret the goal as a unitary one of 1.5°C with minimal overshoot (Mace 2016). Yet others interpret 30 1.5° C as the limit within the long-term temperature goal, and that it 'signals an increase in both the 31 margin and likelihood by which warming is to be kept below 2°C (Schleussner et al. 2016). Although 32 having a long-term goal has clear advantages, the literature highlights the issue of credibility, given the 33 lengthy timeframe involved (Urpelainen 2011), and stresses that future regulators may have incentives 34 to relax current climate plans, which could have a significant effect on the achieved GHG stabilisation 35 level (Gerlagh and Michielsen 2015). 36 As the risks of adverse climate impacts, even with a ‘well below’ 2°C increase, are substantial, the 37 purpose of the Paris Agreement extends to increasing adaptive capacity and fostering climate resilience 38 (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 2(1)(b)), as well as redirecting investment and finance flows (UNFCCC 2015a, 39 Art (2)(1)(c); Thorgeirsson 2017). The finance and adaptation goals are not quantified in the Paris 40 Agreement itself but the temperature goal and the pathways they generate may, some argue, enable a 41 quantitative assessment of the resources necessary to reach these goals, and the nature of the impacts 42 requiring adaptation (Rajamani and Werksman 2018). The decision accompanying the Paris Agreement 43 resolves to set a new collective quantified finance goal prior to 2025 (not explicitly limited to developed 44 countries), with USD100 billion yr-1 as a floor (UNFCCC 2016a, para. 53; Bodansky et al. 2017b). 45 Article 2 also references sustainable development and poverty eradication, and thus implicitly 46 underscores the need to integrate the SDGs in the implementation of the Paris Agreement (Sindico 47 2016). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-21 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 The Paris Agreement’s purpose is accompanied by an expectation that the Agreement ‘will be’ 2 implemented to ‘reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and 3 respective capabilities (CBDRRC), in the light of different national circumstances’ (UNFCCC 2015a, 4 Art. 2.2). This provision generates an expectation that parties will implement the agreement to reflect 5 CBDRRC, and is not an obligation to do so (Rajamani 2016a). Further, the inclusion of the term ‘in 6 light of different national circumstances’ introduces a dynamic element into the interpretation of the 7 CBDRRC principle. As national circumstances evolve, the application of the principle will also evolve 8 (Rajamani 2016a). This change in the articulation of the CBDRRC principle is reflected in the shifts in 9 the nature and extent of differentiation in the climate change regime (Maljean-Dubois 2016; Rajamani 10 2016a; Voigt and Ferreira 2016a), including through a shift towards ‘procedurally-oriented 11 differentiation’ for developing countries (Huggins and Karim 2016). 12 Although NDCs are developed by individual state parties, the Paris Agreement requires that these are 13 undertaken by parties ‘with a view’ to achieving the Agreement’s purpose and collectively ‘represent a 14 progression over time’ (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 3). The Paris Agreement also encourages parties to align 15 the ambition of their NDCs with the temperature goal through the Agreement’s ‘ambition cycle’, thus 16 imparting operational relevance to the temperature goal (Rajamani and Werksman 2018). 17 Article 4.1 contains a further non-binding requirement that parties ‘aim’ to reach global peaking of 18 GHG ‘as soon as possible’ and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter to achieve net zero GHG 19 emissions ‘in the second half of the century’. Some argue this implies a need to reach net zero GHG 20 emissions in the third quarter of the 21st century (Rogelj et al. 2015; IPCC 2018b; ch2, table 2.4; cross- 21 chapter box 3 on net zero targets). To reach net zero CO2 around 2050, in the short-term global net 22 human-caused CO2 emissions would need to fall by about 45% - 60% from 2010 levels by 2030 (IPCC 23 2018b). Achieving the Paris Agreement's Article 4.1 aim potentially implies imply that global warming 24 will peak and then follow a gradually declining path, potentially to below 1.5°C warming (Rogelj et al. 25 2021). 26 Albeit non-binding, Article 4.1 has acted as a catalyst for several national net-zero GHG targets, as well 27 net zero CO2 and GHG targets across local governments, sectors, businesses, and other actors (Day et 28 al. 2020). There is a wide variation in the targets that have been adopted – in terms of their legal 29 character (policy statement, executive order or national legislation), scope (GHGs or CO2) and coverage 30 (sectors or economy-wide). National net-zero targets could be reflected in the long-term strategies that 31 states are urged to submit under Article 4.19, but only a few states have submitted such strategies thus 32 far. The Paris Rulebook, agreed at the Agreement’s first meeting of the parties in 2018, further 33 strengthens the operational relevance of the temperature goal by requiring parties to provide information 34 when submitting their NDCs on how these contribute towards achieving the objective identified in 35 UNFCCC Article 2, and Paris Agreement Articles 2.1 (a) and 4.1 (UNFCCC 2019b, Annex I, para. 7), 36 Parties could in this context include information on how their short-term actions align with their long- 37 tern net zero GHG or CO2 targets thereby enhancing the credibility of their long-term goals. 38 At last count 131 countries had adopted or had net zero targets (whether of carbon or GHG) in the 39 pipeline, covering 72% of global emissions. If these targets are fully implemented some estimate that 40 this could bring temperature increase down to 2-2.4°C by 2100 as compared to current policies which 41 are estimated to lead to a temperature increase of 2.9–3.2 °C, and NDCs submitted to the Paris 42 Agreement which are estimated to lead to a temperature increase of 2.4-2.9°C (Höhne et al. 2021). 43 It is worth noting that Article 4.1 recognizes that 'peaking will take longer for developing countries’ 44 and that the balance between emissions and removals needs to be on the ‘basis of equity, and in the 45 context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.' This suggests that not all countries 46 are expected to reach net zero GHG emissions at the same time, or in the same manner. If global cost- 47 effective 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios from integrated assessment models are taken, without applying an 48 equity principle, the results suggest that domestic net zero GHG and CO2 emissions would be reached Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-22 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 a decade earlier than the global average in Brazil and the USA and later in India and Indonesia (van 2 Soest et al. 2021). By contrast if equity principles are taken into account, countries like Canada and the 3 EU would be expected to phase-out earlier than the cost-optimal scenarios indicate, and countries like 4 China and Brazil could phase out emissions later, as well as other countries with lower per-capita 5 emissions (van Soest et al. 2021). Some suggest that the application of such fairness considerations 6 could bring forward the net zero GHG date for big emitting countries by up to 15 to 35 years as 7 compared to the global least-cost scenarios (Lee et al. 2021b). In any case, reaching net-zero GHG 8 emissions requires to some extent the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods as there are 9 important sources of non-CO2 GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide, that cannot be fully eliminated 10 resorting to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods (IPCC 2018b). However, there are divergent views 11 on different CDR methods, policy choices determine the degree to which and the type of CDR methods 12 that are considered and there is a patchwork of applicable regulatory instruments. There are also 13 uncertainties and governance challenges associated with CDR methods which render tracking progress 14 against net zero GHG emissions challenging (Mace et al. 2021). Researchers have noted that given the 15 key role of CDR in net-zero targets and 1.5 °C compatible pathways, and the fact that it presents 16 ‘significant costs to current and future generations,’ it is important to consider what an equitable 17 distribution of CDR might look like (UNFCCC 2019c; Day et al. 2020; Lee et al. 2021b). 18 14.3.2.2 NDCs, progression and ambition 19 Each party to the Paris Agreement has a procedural obligation to ‘prepare, communicate and maintain’ 20 successive NDCs ‘that it intends to achieve.’ Parties have a further procedural obligation to ‘pursue 21 domestic mitigation measures’ (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 4.2). These procedural obligations are coupled 22 with an obligation of conduct to make best efforts to achieve the objectives of NDCs (Rajamani 2016a; 23 Mayer 2018b). Many states have adopted climate policies and laws, discussed in Chapter 13, and 24 captured in databases (LSE 2020). 25 The framing and content of NDCs is thus largely left up to parties, although certain normative 26 expectations apply. These include developed country leadership through these parties undertaking 27 economy-wide absolute emissions reduction targets (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 4.4), as well as 28 ‘progression’ and ‘highest possible ambition’ reflecting ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and 29 respective capabilities in light of different national circumstances’ (Art 4.3). There is ‘a firm 30 expectation’ that for every five-year cycle a party puts forward a new or updated NDC that is ‘more 31 ambitious than their last’ (Rajamani 2016a). While what represents a party’s highest possible ambition 32 and progression is not prescribed by the Agreement or elaborated in the Paris Rulebook (Rajamani and 33 Bodansky 2019), these obligations could be read to imply a due diligence standard (Voigt and Ferreira 34 2016b). 35 In communicating their NDCs every five years (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 4.9), all parties have an 36 obligation to ‘provide the information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding’ (UNFCCC 37 2015a, Art. 4.8). These requirements are further elaborated in the Paris Rulebook (Doelle 2019; 38 UNFCCC 2019b). This includes requirements — for parties’ second and subsequent NDCs — to 39 provide quantifiable information on the reference point e.g. base year, reference indicators and target 40 relative to the reference indicator (UNFCCC 2019b, Annex I, para 1). It also requires parties to provide 41 information on how they consider their contribution ‘fair and ambitious in light of different national 42 circumstances’, and how they address the normative expectations of developed country leadership, 43 progression and highest possible ambition (UNFCCC 2019b, Annex I, para 6). However, parties are 44 required to provide the enumerated information only ‘as applicable’ to their NDC (UNFCCC 2019b, 45 Annex I, para 7). This allows parties to determine the informational requirements placed on them 46 through their choice of NDC. In respect of parties’ first NDCs or NDCs updated by 2020, such 47 quantifiable information ‘may’ be included, ‘as appropriate’, signalling a softer requirement, although 48 parties are ‘strongly encouraged’ to provide this information (UNFCCC 2019b, Annex I, para 9). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-23 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Parties’ first NDCs submitted to the provisional registry maintained by the UNFCCC Secretariat vary 2 in terms of target type, reference year or points, time frames, and scope and coverage of GHGs. A 3 significant number of NDCs include adaptation, and several NDCs have conditional components, for 4 instance, being conditional on the use of market mechanisms or on the availability of support (UNFCCC 5 2016b). There are wide variations across NDCs. Uncertainties are generated through interpretative 6 ambiguities in the assumptions underlying NDCs, (Rogelj et al. 2017). According to the assessment in 7 this report, current policies lead to median global GHG emissions of 63 GtCO2-eq with a full range of 8 57-70 by 2030 and unconditional and conditional NDCs to 59 (55-65) and 56 (52-61) GtCO2-eq, 9 respectively (Chapter 4, Table 4.1). Many omit important mitigation sectors, provide little detail on 10 financing implementation, and are not effective in meeting assessment and review needs (Pauw et al. 11 2018). Although, it is estimated that the land-use sector could contribute as much as 20% of the full 12 mitigation potential of all the intended NDC targets (Forsell et al. 2016) , there are variations in how 13 the land-use component is included, and the related information provided, leading to large uncertainties 14 on whether and how these will contribute to the achievement of the NDCs (Grassi et al. 2017; 15 Obergassel et al. 2017a; Benveniste et al. 2018; Fyson and Jeffery 2019; Forsell et al. 2016). All these 16 variations make it challenging to aggregate the efforts of countries and compare them to each other 17 (Carraro 2016). Although parties attempted to discipline the variation in NDCs, including whether they 18 could be conditional, through elaborating the ‘features’ of NDCs in the Rulebook, no agreement was 19 possible on this. Thus, parties continue to enjoy considerable discretion in the formulation of NDCs 20 (Rajamani and Bodansky 2019; Weikmans et al. 2020). 21 There are several approaches to evaluating NDCs incorporating indicators such as CO2 emissions, GDP, 22 energy intensity of GDP, CO2 per energy unit, CO2 intensity of fossil fuels, and share of fossil fuels in 23 total energy use (Peters et al. 2017). However, some favour approaches that use metrics beyond 24 emissions such as infrastructure investment, energy demand, or installed power capacity (Iyer et al. 25 2017; Jeffery et al. 2018). One approach is to combine the comparison of aggregate NDC emissions 26 using Integrated Assessment Model scenarios with modelling of NDC scenarios directly, and carbon 27 budget analyses (Jeffery et al. 2018). Another approach is to engage in a comprehensive assessment of 28 multiple indicators that reflect the different viewpoints of the parties under the UNFCCC (Aldy et al. 29 2017; Höhne et al. 2018). These different approaches are described in greater depth in Chapter 4, section 30 4.2.2. 31 It is clear, however, that the NDCs communicated by parties for the 2020-2030 period are insufficient 32 to achieve the temperature goal (den Elzen et al. 2016; Rogelj et al. 2016; Schleussner et al. 2016; 33 Robiou du Pont and Meinshausen 2018; UNEP 2018a; Alcaraz et al. 2019; UNEP 2019, 2020), and the 34 emissions gap is larger than ever (Christensen and Olhoff 2019) (see Chapter 4). The IPCC 1.5ºC Report 35 notes that pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot show up to 40-50% 36 reduction of total GHG emissions from 2010 levels by 2030, and that current pathways reflected in the 37 NDCs are consistent with cost-effective pathways that result in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100 38 ((IPCC 2018b) SPM, D.1.1). Analysis by the UNFCCC Secretariat of the second round of those NDCs 39 submitted until into October 2021 suggests that ‘total global GHG emission level, taking into account 40 full implementation of all the latest NDCs (including their conditional elements), implies possibility of 41 global emissions peaking before 2030’. However, such total global GHG emission level in 2030 is still 42 expected to be 15.9% above the 2010 level. This ‘implies an urgent need for either a significant increase 43 in the level of ambition of NDCs between now and 2030 or a significant overachievement of the latest 44 NDCs, or a combination of both.’ (UNFCCC 2021a). 45 Many NDCs with conditional elements may not be feasible as the conditions are not clearly defined and 46 existing promises of support are insufficient (Pauw et al. 2020). Moreover, ‘leadership by conditional 47 commitments’ (when some states promise to take stronger commitments if others do so as well), and 48 the system of pledge-and-review, may lead to decreasing rather than deeper contributions over time Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-24 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 (Helland et al. 2017). Some note, however, that many of the NDCs are conservative and may be 2 overachieved, that NDCs may be strengthened over time as expected under the Paris Agreement, and 3 there are significant non-state actions that have not been adequately captured in the NDCs (Höhne et 4 al. 2017). Further, if all NDCs with and without conditional elements are implemented, net land use, 5 land use change and forestry emissions will decrease in 2030 compared to 2010 levels, but large 6 uncertainties remain on how Parties estimate, project and account for emissions and removals from this 7 sector (Forsell et al. 2016; Fyson and Jeffery 2019). According to the estimates in Table 4.3 (Chapter 8 4), communicated unconditional commitments imply about a 7% reduction of world emissions by 2030, 9 in terms of Kyoto GHGs, compared to a scenario where only current policies are in place. If conditional 10 commitments are also included, the reduction in world emissions by 2030 would be about 12%. 11 In this context, it should be noted that many NDCs have been formulated with conditional elements, 12 and such NDCs require international cooperation on finance, technology and capacity-building 13 (Kissinger et al. 2019), potentially including through Article 6 in the form of bilateral agreements and 14 market mechanisms (UNFCCC 2016b). More broadly, some argue that there is a ‘policy inconsistency’ 15 between the facilitative, ‘bottom up’ architecture of the Paris Agreement, and both the setting of the 16 long-term temperature goal, as well as expectations that it will be delivered (Geden 2016b). As Figure 17 14.2 shows, there is a large share of additional effort needed to reach a 1.5ºC compatible path by 2030 18 (and even a 2ºC compatible path). International coordination and cooperation are crucial in enhancing 19 the ambition of current pledges, as countries will be more willing to increase their ambition if matched 20 by other countries (coordination) and if cost-minimising agreements between developed and developing 21 countries, through Article 6 and other means, are fully developed (cooperation) (Sælen 2020). 22 23 24 Figure 14.2 The role of international cooperation in the reductions in annual emissions by 2030 needed to 25 follow a 1.5°C (respectively < 2°C) cost-effective path from 2020 onwards. The figure represents the 26 additional contribution of pledges included in the NDCs over current policies at the global level, and the 27 remaining gap in emission reductions needed to move from current policies to cost-effective long-term 28 mitigation pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C with low (<0.1°C) overshoot (50% chance), 29 respectively for limiting warming to 2°C (66% chance). Median values are used, showing the confidence 30 interval for the total effort. See Figure 1 in Cross-Chapter Box 4, and Tables 4.2 and 4.3 for details. (1) 31 The grey share represents NDCs with abatement efforts pledged without any conditions (called 32 “unconditional” in the literature). They are based mainly on domestic abatement actions, although 33 countries can use international cooperation to meet their targets. (2) The blue share represents NDCS 34 with conditional components. They require international cooperation, for example bilateral agreements 35 under article 6, financing or monetary and/or technological transfers. (3) The remaining gap in emission 36 reductions – the orange share – can potentially be achieved through national and international actions. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-25 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 International coordination of more ambitious efforts promotes global ambition and international 2 cooperation provides the cost-saving basis for more ambitious NDCs. 3 4 14.3.2.3 NDCs, fairness and equity 5 The Paris Agreement encourages Parties, while submitting their NDCs, to explain how these are ‘fair 6 and ambitious’ (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 4.8 read with UNFCCC 2016a, para. 27). The Rulebook obliges 7 Parties to provide information on ‘fairness considerations, including reflecting on equity’ as applicable 8 to their NDC (Rajamani and Bodansky 2019; UNFCCC 2019b paras 7a and 9, Annex, paras 6(a) and 9 (b)). Although equity within nations and between communities is also important, much of the literature 10 on fairness and equity in the context of NDCs focuses on equity between nations. 11 In the first round of NDCs, most Parties declared their NDCs as fair (Robiou du Pont et al. 2017). Their 12 claims, however, were largely unsubstantiated or drawn from analysis by in-country experts (Winkler 13 et al. 2018). At least some of the indicators Parties have identified in their NDCs as justifying the 14 ‘fairness’ of their contributions, such as a ‘small share of global emissions’, ‘cost-effectiveness’ and 15 assumptions that privilege current emissions levels (‘grandfathering’) are not, according to one group 16 of scholars, in accordance with principles of international environmental law (Rajamani et al. 2021) . 17 Moreover, the NDCs reveal long-standing institutional divisions and divergent climate priorities 18 between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties, suggesting that equity and fairness concerns remain salient 19 (Stephenson et al. 2019). Fairness concerns also affect the share of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) 20 responsibilities for major emitters if they delay near-term mitigation action (Fyson et al. 2020). 21 It is challenging, however, to determine ‘fair shares’, and address fairness and equity in a world of 22 voluntary climate contributions (Chan 2016a), in particular, since these contributions are insufficient 23 (see above Section 14.3.2.2.). Self-differentiation in contributions has also led to fairness and equity 24 being discussed in terms of individual nationally determined contributions rather than between 25 categories of countries (Chan 2016a). In the climate change regime, one option is for Parties to provide 26 more rigorous information under the Paris Agreement to assess fair shares (Winkler et al. 2018), and 27 another is for Parties to articulate what equity principles they have adopted in determining their NDCs, 28 how they have operationalised these principles, and explain their mitigation targets in terms of the 29 portion of the appropriated global budget (Hales and Mackey 2018). 30 Equity is critical to addressing climate change, including through the Paris Agreement (Klinsky et al. 31 2017), however, since the political feasibility of developing equity principles within the climate change 32 regime is low, the onus is on mechanisms and actors outside the regime to develop these (Lawrence and 33 Reder 2019). Equity and fairness concerns are being raised in national and regional courts that are 34 increasingly being asked to determine if the climate actions pledged by states are adequate in relation 35 to their fair share (The Supreme Court of the Netherlands 2019; European Court of Human Rights 2020; 36 German Constitutional Court 2021), as it is only in relation to such a ‘fair share’ that the adequacy of a 37 state’s contribution can be assessed in the context of a global collective action problem (see chapter 38 13.5.5 for a discussion of national climate litigation). Some domestic courts have stressed that as climate 39 change is a global problem of cumulative impact, all emissions contribute to the problem regardless of 40 their relative size and there is a clear articulation under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement for 41 developed countries to ‘take the lead’ in addressing GHG emissions (Preston 2020). Given the limited 42 avenues for multilateral determination of fairness, several researchers have argued that the onus is on 43 the scientific community to generate methods to assess fairness (Herrala and Goel 2016; Lawrence and 44 Reder 2019). Peer-to-peer comparisons also potentially create pressure for ambitious NDCs (Aldy et 45 al. 2017). 46 There are a range of options to assess or introduce fairness. These include: adopting differentiation in 47 financing rather than in mitigation (Gajevic Sayegh 2017); adopting a carbon budget approach (Hales Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-26 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 and Mackey 2018; Alcaraz et al. 2019), which may occur through the transparency processes (Hales 2 and Mackey 2018); quantifying national emissions allocations using different equity approaches, 3 including those reconciling finance and emissions rights distributions (Robiou du Pont et al. 2017); 4 combining equity concepts in a bottom-up manner using different sovereign approaches (Robiou du 5 Pont and Meinshausen 2018), using data on adopted emissions targets to find an ethical framework 6 consistent with the observed distribution (Sheriff 2019); adopting common metrics for policy 7 assessment (Bretschger 2017); and developing a template for organising metrics on mitigation effort - 8 emission reductions, implicit prices, and costs - for both ex ante and ex post review (Aldy et al. 2017). 9 The burden of agricultural mitigation can also be distributed using different approaches to effort sharing 10 (responsibility, capability, need, equal cumulative per-capita emissions) (Richards et al. 2018). Further, 11 there are temporal (inter-generational) and spatial (inter-regional) dimensions to the distribution of the 12 mitigation burden, with additional emissions reductions in 2030 improving both inter-generational and 13 inter-regional equity (Liu et al. 2016). Some of the equity approaches rely on ‘grandfathering’ as an 14 allocation principle, which some argue has led to ‘cascading biases’ against developing countries 15 (Kartha et al. 2018), and is morally ‘perverse’ (Caney 2011). While no country's NDC explicitly 16 supports the grandfathering approach, many countries describe as 'fair and ambitious' NDCs that assume 17 grandfathering as the starting point (Robiou du Pont et al. 2017). It is worth noting that the existence of 18 multiple metrics associated with a range of equity approaches, has implications for how the ambition 19 and 'fair’ share of each state is arrived at, some average out multiple approaches and indicators (Hof et 20 al. 2012; Meinshausen et al. 2015; Robiou du Pont and Meinshausen 2018), others exclude indicators 21 and approaches that do not, in their interpretation, accord with principles of international environmental 22 law (Rajamani et al. 2021). One group of scholars have suggested that utilitarianism offers a 'ethically 23 minimal and conceptually parsimonious' benchmark that promotes equity, climate and development 24 (Budolfson et al. 2021). 25 14.3.2.4 Transparency and accountability 26 Although NDCs reflect a ‘bottom-up’, self-differentiated approach to climate mitigation actions, the 27 Paris Agreement couples this to an international transparency framework designed, among other things, 28 to track progress in implementing and achieving mitigation contributions (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 13). 29 This transparency framework builds on the processes that already exist under the UNFCCC. The 30 transparency framework under the Paris Agreement s applicable to all Parties, although with flexibilities 31 for developing country Parties that need it in light of their capacities (Mayer 2019). Each Party is 32 required to submit a national inventory report, as well as ‘the information necessary to track progress 33 in implementing and achieving’ its NDC, (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 13.7) biennially (UNFCCC 2016a, 34 para. 90). The Paris Rulebook requires all Parties to submit their national inventory reports using the 35 2006 IPCC Guidelines (UNFCCC 2019b, Annex, para. 20). 36 In relation to the provision of information necessary to track progress towards implementation and 37 achievement of NDCs, the Paris Rulebook allows each party to choose its own qualitative or 38 quantitative indicators (UNFCCC 2019k, Annex, para 65), a significant concession to national 39 sovereignty (Rajamani and Bodansky 2019). The Rulebook phases in common reporting requirements 40 for developed and developing countries (except LDCs and SIDS) at the latest by 2024 (UNFCCC 41 2019k, para. 3), but offers flexibilities in ‘scope, frequency, and level of detail of reporting, and in the 42 scope of the review’ for those developing countries that need it in light of their capacities (UNFCCC 43 2019k, Annex, para. 5). Some differentiation also remains for information on support provided to 44 developing countries (Winkler et al. 2017), with developed country parties required to report such 45 information biennially, while others are only ‘encouraged’ to do so (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 9.7). 46 The information provided by Parties in biennial transparency reports and GHG inventories will undergo 47 technical expert review, which must include assistance in identifying capacity-building needs for 48 developing country parties that need it in light of their capacities. Each Party is also required to Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-27 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 participate in a ‘facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress’ of implementation and achievement 2 of its NDC. Although the aim of these processes is to expose each Party’s actions on mitigation to 3 international review, thus establishing a weak form of accountability for NDCs at the international level, 4 the Rulebook circumscribes the reach of these processes (Rajamani and Bodansky 2019). The technical 5 expert review teams are prohibited in mandatory terms from making ‘political judgments’ or reviewing 6 the ‘adequacy or appropriateness’ of a party’s NDC, domestic actions, or support provided (UNFCCC 7 2019k, Annex, para. 149). This, among other such provisions, has led some to argue that the scope and 8 practice of existing transparency arrangements reflects rather than mediates ongoing disputes around 9 responsibility, differentiation and burden sharing, and thus there is limited answerability through 10 transparency (Gupta and van Asselt 2019). There are also limits to the extent that the enhanced 11 transparency framework will reduce ambiguities, and associated uncertainties, for instance, in how 12 LULUCF is incorporated into the NDCs (Fyson and Jeffery 2019) and lead to increased ambition 13 (Weikmans et al. 2020). More broadly, there has been ‘weak’ translation of transparency norms into 14 accountability (Ciplet et al. 2018). Hence, the Paris Agreement’s effectiveness in ensuring NDCs are 15 achieved will depend on additional accountability pathways at the domestic level involving political 16 processes and civil society engagement (Jacquet and Jamieson 2016; van Asselt 2016; Campbell- 17 Duruflé 2018a; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al. 2018). 18 14.3.2.5 Global stocktake 19 The Paris Agreement’s transparency framework is complemented by the global stocktake, which will 20 take place every five years (starting in 2023) and assess the collective progress towards achieving the 21 Agreement’s purpose and long-term goals (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 14). The scope of the global stocktake 22 is comprehensive – covering mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation and support – and the 23 process is to be facilitative and consultative. The Paris Rulebook outlines the scope of the global 24 stocktake to include social and economic consequences and impacts of response measures, and loss and 25 damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change (UNFCCC 2019f, paras. 8-10). 26 The global stocktake is to occur ‘in the light of equity and the best available science.’ While the focus 27 of the global stocktake is on collective and not individual progress towards the goals of the Agreement, 28 the inclusion of equity in the global stocktake enables a discussion on equitable burden sharing 29 (Rajamani 2016a; Winkler 2020), and for equity metrics to be factored in (Robiou du Pont and 30 Meinshausen 2018). The Paris Rulebook includes consideration of the modalities and sources of inputs 31 for the global stocktake (UNFCCC 2019f, paras 1, 2, 13, 27, 31, 36h and 37g), which arguably will 32 result in equity being factored into the outcome of the stocktake (Winkler 2020). The Rulebook does 33 not, however, some argue, resolve the tension between the collective nature of the assessment that is 34 authorised by the stocktake and the individual assessments required to determine relative ‘fair share’ 35 (Rajamani and Bodansky 2019; Zahar 2019). 36 The global stocktake is seen as crucial to encouraging parties to increase the ambition of their NDCs 37 (Huang 2018; Hermwille et al. 2019; Milkoreit and Haapala 2019) as its outcome ‘shall inform Parties 38 in updating and enhancing, in a nationally determined manner, their actions and support’ (Art 14.3) 39 (Rajamani 2016a; Friedrich 2017; Zahar 2019). The Rulebook provides for the stocktake to draw on a 40 wide variety of inputs sourced from a full range of actors, including ‘non-Party stakeholders’ (UNFCCC 41 2019f, para. 37). However, the Rulebook specifies that the global stocktake will be ‘a Party-driven 42 process’ (UNFCCC 2019f, para. 10), will not have an ‘individual Party focus’, and will include only 43 ‘non-policy prescriptive consideration of collective progress’ (UNFCCC 2019f, para. 14). 44 14.3.2.6 Conservation of sinks and reservoirs, including forests 45 Article 5 of the Paris Agreement calls for parties to take action to conserve and enhance sinks and 46 reservoirs of greenhouse gases, including biomass in terrestrial, coastal, and marine ecosystems, and 47 encourages countries to take action to support the REDD+ framework under the Convention. The 48 explicit inclusion of land use sector activities, including forest conservation, is potentially, while Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-28 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 cautiously, a ‘game changer’ as it encourages countries to safeguard ecosystems for climate mitigation 2 purposes (Grassi et al. 2017). Analyses of parties’ NDCs shows pledged mitigation from land use, and 3 forests in particular, provides a quarter of the emission reductions planned by parties and, if fully 4 implemented, would result in forests becoming a net sink of carbon by 2030 (Forsell et al. 2016; Grassi 5 et al. 2017). 6 A key action endorsed by Article 5 is REDD+, which refers to initiatives established under the 7 UNFCCC for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of 8 conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing 9 countries. It remains an evolving concept and some identified weaknesses are being addressed, 10 including the issues of scale (project-based vs sub-national jurisdictional approach), problems with 11 leakage, reversal, benefit sharing, as well as safeguards against potential impacts on local and 12 indigenous communities. Nevertheless, REDD+ shows several innovations under the climate regime 13 with regard to international cooperation. The legal system for REDD+ manages to reconcile flexibility 14 (creating consensus) and legal security. It shows a high standard of effectiveness (Dellaux 2017). 15 Article 5.2 encourages parties to implement and support the existing framework for REDD+, including 16 through ‘results-based payments’ i.e. provision of financial payments for verified avoided or reduced 17 forest carbon emissions (Turnhout et al. 2017). The existing REDD+ framework set up under decisions 18 of the UNFCCC COP includes the Warsaw Framework for REDD+, which specifies modalities for 19 measuring, reporting and verifying (MRV) greenhouse gas emissions and removals. This provides an 20 essential tool for linking REDD+ activities to results-based finance (Voigt and Ferreira 2015). 21 Appropriate finance support for REDD+ is also considered critical to move from its inclusion in many 22 countries’ NDCs to implementation on the ground (Hein et al. 2018). Since public finance for REDD+ 23 is limited, private sector participation is expected by some to leverage REDD+ (Streck and Parker 2012; 24 Henderson et al. 2013; Pistorius and Kiff 2015; Seymour and Busch 2016; Ehara et al. 2019). Article 25 5.2 also encourages parties’ support for ‘alternative policy approaches’ to forest conservation and 26 sustainable management such as ‘joint mitigation and adaptation approaches.’ It reaffirms the 27 importance of incentivising, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches (e.g. 28 improvements in the livelihoods of forest‐dependent communities, facilitating poverty reduction and 29 sustainable development). This provision, along with the support for non-market mechanisms in Article 30 6 (discussed below), is seen as an avenue for cooperative joint mitigation-adaptation and non-market 31 REDD+ activities with co-benefits for biodiversity conservation (Gupta and Dube 2018). 32 14.3.2.7 Cooperative approaches 33 Article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides for voluntary cooperative approaches. Its potential 34 importance in terms of project-based cooperation should be viewed against the background of key 35 lessons from the market-based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, particularly the Clean 36 Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM has been used for implementing bilateral strategies and 37 unilateral (non-market) actions for instance in India (Phillips and Newell 2013), hence arguably 38 covering all the mechanisms now included in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. As we describe in 39 section 14.3.3.1, below, ex-post evaluation of the Kyoto market mechanisms, in particular the CDM, 40 have been at-best mixed. However, Article 6 goes beyond the project-based approach followed by the 41 CDM, as hinted by the emerging landscape of activities based on Article 6 (Greiner et al. 2020), such 42 as the bilateral treaty signed under the framework of Article 6 in October 2020 by Switzerland and Peru 43 (see section 14.4.4). 44 This experience from the CDM is relevant to the implementation of Article 6 (4) of the Paris Agreement. 45 It addresses a number of specific types of cooperative approaches, including those involving the use of 46 internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) towards NDCs, a ‘mechanism to contribute to 47 mitigation and support sustainable development’, and a framework for non-market approaches such as 48 many aspects of REDD+. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-29 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Article 6.1 recognises the role that cooperative approaches can play, on a voluntary basis, in 2 implementing parties’ NDCs ‘in order to allow for higher ambition’ in their mitigation actions and to 3 promote sustainable development and environmental integrity. Article 6.2 indicates that ITMOs can 4 originate from a variety of sources, and that parties using ITMOs to achieve their NDCs shall promote 5 sustainable development, ensure environmental integrity, ensure transparency, including in governance, 6 and apply ‘robust accounting’ in accordance with CMA guidance to prevent double counting. While 7 this provision, unlike Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, does not create an international carbon market, 8 it enables parties to pursue this option should they choose to do so, for example, through the linking of 9 domestic or regional carbon markets (Marcu 2016; Müller and Michaelowa 2019). Article 6.2 could 10 also be implemented in other ways, including direct transfers between governments, linkage of 11 mitigation policies across two or more parties, sectoral or activity crediting mechanisms, and other 12 forms of cooperation involving public or private entities, or both (Howard 2017). 13 Assessments of the potential of Article 6.2 generally find that ITMOs are likely to result in cost 14 reductions in achieving mitigation outcomes, with the potential for such reductions to enhance ambition 15 and accelerate parties’ progression of mitigation pledges across NDC cycles (Fujimori et al. 2016; Gao 16 et al. 2016; Mehling 2019). However, studies applying insights from the CDM highlight environmental 17 integrity risks associated with using ITMOs under the Paris Agreement given the challenges that the 18 diverse scope, metrics, types and timeframes of NDC targets pose for robust accounting (Schneider and 19 La Hoz Theuer 2019) and the potential for transfers of ‘hot air’ as occurred under the Kyoto Protocol 20 (La Hoz Theuer et al. 2019). These studies collectively affirm that robust governance on accounting for 21 ITMOs, and for reporting and review, will be critical to ensuring the environmental integrity of NDCs 22 making use of them (Mehling 2019; Müller and Michaelowa 2019). 23 Article 6.4 concerns the mitigation mechanism, with some similarities to the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM. 24 Unlike the CDM, there is no restriction on which parties can host mitigation projects and which parties 25 can use the resulting emissions reductions towards their NDCs (Marcu 2016). This central mechanism 26 will operate under the authority and guidance of the CMA, and is to be supervised by a body designated 27 by the CMA (Marcu 2016). 28 The Article 6.4 central mechanism is intended to promote mitigation while fostering sustainable 29 development. The decision adopting the Paris Agreement specifies experience with Kyoto market 30 mechanisms as a basis for the new mitigation mechanism (UNFCCC 2016a, para. 37(f)). Compared 31 with the CDM under the Kyoto Protocol, the central mechanism has a more balanced focus on both 32 climate and development objectives, and a stronger political mandate to measure sustainable 33 development impact and to verify that the impacts are ‘real, measurable, and long-term’ (Olsen et al. 34 2018). There are also opportunities to integrate human rights into the central mechanism (Obergassel et 35 al. 2017b; Calzadilla 2018). It is further subject to the requirement that it must deliver ‘an overall 36 mitigation in global emissions,’ which is framed by the general objectives of Article 6 for cooperation 37 to enhance ambition (Kreibich 2018). 38 Negotiations over rules to operationalise Article 6 have thus far proven intractable, failing to deliver 39 both at COP-24 in Katowice in 2018, where the rest of the Paris Rulebook was agreed, and in COP-25 40 in Madrid in 2019. Ongoing points of negotiation have included: whether to permit the carryover and 41 use of Kyoto CDM credits and AAUs into the Article 6.4 mechanism, whether to impose a mandatory 42 share of proceeds on Article 6.2 mechanism to fund adaptation, like for Article 6.4; and whether and 43 how credits generated under Article 6.4 should be subject to accounting rules under Article 6.2 44 (Michaelowa et al. 2020a). 45 14.3.2.8 Finance flows 46 Finance is the first of three means of support specified under the Paris Agreement to accomplish its 47 objectives relating to mitigation (and adaptation) (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 14.1). This sub-section 48 discusses the provision made in the Paris Agreement for international cooperation on finance. Section Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-30 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 14.4.1 below considers broader cooperative efforts on public and private finance flows for climate 2 mitigation, including by multilateral development banks and through instruments such as green bonds. 3 As highlighted above, the objective of the Paris Agreement includes the goal of ‘[m]aking finance flows 4 consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’ 5 (UNFCCC 2015a, Art 2.1(c)). Alignment of financial flows, and in some cases provision of finance 6 will be critical to the achievement of many parties’ NDCs, particularly those that are framed in 7 conditional terms (Zhang and Pan 2016; Kissinger et al. 2019) (see further Chapter 15 on investment 8 and finance). 9 International cooperation on climate finance represents ‘a complex and fragmented landscape’ with a 10 range of different mechanisms and forums involved (Pickering et al. 2017; Roberts and Weikmans 11 2017). These include entities set up under the international climate change regime, such as the UNFCCC 12 financial mechanism, with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) as 13 operating entities; special funds, such as the Special Climate Change Fund, the Least Developed 14 Countries Fund (both managed by the GEF), and the Adaptation Fund established under the Kyoto 15 Protocol; the Standing Committee on Finance, a constituted body which assists the COP in exercising 16 its functions with respect to the UNFCCC financial mechanism; and other bodies outside of the 17 international climate change regime, such as the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) administered through 18 multilateral development banks (the role of these banks in climate finance is discussed further in Section 19 14.4.1 below). 20 Pursuant to decisions adopted at the Paris and Katowice conferences, parties agreed that the operating 21 entities of the financial mechanism – GEF and GCF – as well as the Special Climate Change Fund, the 22 Least Developed Countries Fund, the Adaptation Fund and the Standing Committee on Finance, all 23 serve the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2016a, paras 58 and 63, 2019e,g). The GCF, which became 24 operational in 2015, is the largest dedicated international climate change fund and plays a key role in 25 channelling financial resources to developing countries (Antimiani et al. 2017; Brechin and Espinoza 26 2017). 27 Much of the current literature on climate finance and the Paris Agreement focuses on the obligations of 28 developed countries to provide climate finance to assist the implementation of mitigation and adaptation 29 actions by developing countries. The principal provision on finance in the Paris Agreement is the 30 binding obligation on developed country parties to provide financial resources to assist developing 31 country parties (UNFCCC 2015a, Art 9.1). This provision applies to both mitigation and adaptation and 32 is in continuation of existing developed country parties’ obligations under the UNFCCC. This signals 33 that the Paris Agreement finance requirements must be interpreted in light of the UNFCCC (Yamineva 34 2016). The novelty introduced by the Paris Agreement is a further expansion in the potential pool of 35 donor countries as Article 9.2 encourages ‘other parties’ to provide or continue to provide such support 36 on a voluntary basis. However, ‘as part of the global effort, developed countries should continue to take 37 the lead in mobilising climate finance’, with a ‘significant role’ for public funds, and an expectation 38 that such mobilisation of finance ‘should represent a progression beyond previous efforts’ Beyond this 39 there are no new recognised promises (Ciplet et al. 2018). In the Paris Agreement parties formalized 40 the continuation of the existing collective mobilization goal to raise 100 billion a year through 2025 in 41 the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. The Paris Agreement 42 decision also provided for the CMA by 2025 to set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of 43 USD100 billion yr-, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries (UNFCCC 44 2016a, para. 53). This new collective goal on finance is not explicitly limited to developed countries 45 and could therefore encompass finance flows from developing countries’ donors (Bodansky et al. 46 2017b). Deliberations on setting a new collective quantified goal on finance is expected to be initiated 47 at COP26 in 2021 (UNFCCC 2019g,e; Zhang 2019). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-31 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 It is widely recognised that the USD100 billion yr-1 figure is a fraction of the broader finance and 2 investment needs of mitigation and adaptation embodied in the Paris Agreement (Peake and Ekins 3 2017). One estimate, based on a review of 160 (I)NDCs, suggests the financial demand for both 4 mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries could reach USD474 billion yr-1 by 2030 5 (Zhang and Pan 2016). The OECD reports that climate finance provided and mobilised by developed 6 countries was USD79.6 billion in 2019. This finance included four components: bilateral public, 7 multilateral public (attributed to developed countries), officially supported export credits and mobilised 8 private finance (OECD 2021) (See also Chapter 15.3.2, and Box 15.4). 9 More broadly, there is recognition of the need for better accounting, transparency and reporting rules 10 to allow evaluation of the fulfilment of finance pledges and the effectiveness of how funding is used 11 (Xu et al. 2016; Roberts et al. 2017; Jachnik et al. 2019; Roberts et al. 2021; Gupta and van Asselt 12 2019). There is also a concern about climate finance being new and additional though the Paris 13 Agreement does not make an explicit reference to it, nor is there a clear understanding of what 14 constitutes new and additional (UNFCCC 2018; Carty et al. 2020; Mitchell et al. 2021). Some authors 15 see the ‘enhanced transparency framework’ of the Paris Agreement (see Section 14.3.2.4 above), and 16 the specific requirements for developed countries to provide, biennially, indicative quantitative and 17 qualitative information as well as report on financial support and mobilisation efforts (Articles 9.5 and 18 9.7), as promising marked improvements (Weikmans and Roberts 2019), including for the fairness of 19 effort-sharing on climate finance provision (Pickering et al. 2015). Others offer a more circumspect 20 view of the transformative capability of these transparency systems (Ciplet et al. 2018). 21 The more limited literature focusing on the specific finance needs of developing countries, particularly 22 those expressed in NDCs conditional on international climate finance, suggests that once all countries 23 have fully costed their NDCs, the demand for (public and private) finance to support NDC 24 implementation is likely to be orders of magnitude larger than funds available from bilateral and 25 multilateral sources. For some sectors, such as forestry and land-use, this could leave ‘NDC ambitions 26 ... in a precarious position, unless more diversified options are pursued to reach climate goals’ 27 (Kissinger et al. 2019). In addition, there is a need for fiscal policy reform in developing countries to 28 ensure international climate finance flows are not undercut by public and private finance supporting 29 unsustainable activities (Kissinger et al. 2019). During the 2018 Katowice conference, UNFCCC Parties 30 requested the Standing Committee on Finance to prepare, every four years, a report on the determination 31 of the needs of developing country Parties related to implementing the Convention and the Paris 32 Agreement, for consideration by parties at COP26 (UNFCCC 2019c). 33 14.3.2.9 Technology development and transfer 34 Technology development and transfer is the second of three ‘means of implementation and support’ 35 specified under the Paris Agreement to accomplish its objectives relating to mitigation (and adaptation) 36 (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 14.1). This sub-section discusses the provision made in the Paris Agreement for 37 international cooperation on technology development and transfer. Section 14.4.2 below considers 38 broader cooperative efforts on technology development and transfer under the UNFCCC. Both sections 39 complement the discussion in Chapter 16.6 on the role of international cooperation in fostering 40 transformative change. 41 The importance of technology as a means of implementation for climate mitigation obligations under 42 the Paris Agreement is evident from parties’ NDCs. Of the 168 NDCs submitted as of June 2019, 109 43 were expressed as conditional upon support for technology development and transfer, with 70 parties 44 requesting technological support for both mitigation and adaptation, and 37 parties for mitigation only 45 (Pauw et al. 2020). Thirty-eight LDCs (79%) and 29 SIDS made their NDCs conditional on technology 46 transfer, as did 50 middle-income countries (Pauw et al. 2020). 47 While technology is seen as a key means of implementation and support for Paris Agreement 48 commitments, the issue of technology development and the transfer of environmentally sound Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-32 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 technologies for climate mitigation was heavily contested between developed and developing countries 2 in the Paris negotiations, and these differences are likely to persist as the Paris Agreement is 3 implemented (Oh 2019). Contestations continued in negotiations for the Paris Rulebook, particularly 4 regarding the meaning of technological innovation, which actors should be supported, and how support 5 should be provided by the UNFCCC (Oh 2020a). 6 Article 10 of the Paris Agreement articulates a shared ‘long-term vision on the importance of fully 7 realising technology development and transfer in order to improve resilience to climate change and to 8 reduce greenhouse gas emissions’ (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.1). All parties are required ‘to strengthen 9 cooperative action on technology development and transfer’ (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.2). In addition, 10 support, including financial support, ‘shall be provided’ to developing country parties for the 11 implementation of Article 10, ‘including for strengthening cooperative action on technology 12 development and transfer at different stages of the technology cycle, with a view to achieving a balance 13 between support for mitigation and adaptation’ (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.6). Available information on 14 efforts related to support on technology development and transfer for developing country parties is also 15 one of the matters to be taken into account in the global stocktake (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.6) (see 16 Section 14.3.2.5 above). 17 The Paris Agreement emphasises that efforts to accelerate, encourage and enable innovation are ‘critical 18 for an effective long-term global response to climate change and promoting economic growth and 19 sustainable development’ and urges that they be supported, as appropriate, by the Technology 20 Mechanism and Financial Mechanism of the UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.5). This support 21 should be directed to developing country parties ‘for collaborative approaches to research and 22 development, and facilitating access to technology, in particular for early stages of the technology cycle’ 23 (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.5). Inadequate support for R&D, particularly in developing countries, has 24 been identified in previous studies of technology interventions by international institutions as a key 25 technology innovation gap that might be addressed by the Technology Mechanism (Coninck and Puig 26 2015). 27 To support parties’ cooperative action, the Technology Mechanism, established in 2010 under the 28 UNFCCC (see further Section 14.4.2 below), will serve the Paris Agreement, subject to guidance of a 29 new ‘technology framework’ (UNFCCC, 2015, Art. 10.4). The latter was strongly advocated by the 30 African group in the negotiations for the Paris Agreement (Oh 2020a), and was adopted in 2018 as part 31 of the Paris Rulebook, with implementation entrusted to the component bodies of the Technology 32 Mechanism. The guiding principles of the framework are coherence, inclusiveness, a results-oriented 33 approach, a transformational approach and transparency. Its ‘key themes’ include innovation, 34 implementation, enabling environment and capacity-building, collaboration and stakeholder 35 engagement, and support (UNFCCC 2019e, Annex). A number of ‘actions and activities’ are elaborated 36 for each thematic area. These include: enhancing engagement and collaboration with relevant 37 stakeholders, including local communities and authorities, national planners, the private sector and civil 38 society organisations, in the planning and implementation of Technology Mechanism activities; 39 facilitating parties undertaking, updating and implementing technology needs assessments (TNAs) and 40 aligning these with NDCs; and enhancing the collaboration of the Technology Mechanism with the 41 Financial Mechanism for enhanced support for technology development and transfer. As regards TNAs, 42 while some developing countries have already used the results of their TNA process in NDC 43 development, other countries might benefit from following the TNA process, including its stakeholder 44 involvement, and multi-criteria decision analysis methodology, to strengthen their NDCs (Hofman and 45 van der Gaast 2019). 46 14.3.2.10 Capacity-building 47 Together with finance, and technology development and transfer, capacity-building is the third of ‘the 48 means of implementation and support’ specified under the Paris Agreement (see UNFCCC 2015a, Art. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-33 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 14.1). Capacity-building has primarily been implemented through partnerships, collaboration and 2 different cooperative activities, inside and outside the UNFCCC. This sub-section discusses the 3 provision made in the Paris Agreement for international cooperation on capacity-building. Section 4 14.4.3 below considers broader cooperative efforts on capacity-building within the UNFCCC. 5 In its annual synthesis report for 2018, the UNFCCC secretariat stressed the importance of capacity- 6 building for the implementation of the Paris Agreement and NDCs, with a focus on measures already 7 in place, regional and cooperative activities, and capacity-building needs for strengthening NDCs 8 (UNFCCC 2019h). Of the 168 NDCs submitted as of June 2019, capacity-building was the most 9 frequently requested type of support (113 of 136 conditional NDCs) (Pauw et al. 2020). The focus of 10 capacity-building activities is on enabling developing countries to take effective climate change action, 11 given that many developing countries continue to face significant capacity challenges, undermining 12 their ability to effectively or fully carry out the climate actions they intend to pursue (Dagnet et al. 13 2016). Content analysis of NDCs shows that capacity-building for adaptation is prioritised over 14 mitigation for developing countries, with the element of capacity-building most indicated in NDCs 15 being research and technology (Khan et al. 2020). In addition, developing countries’ needs for 16 education, training and awareness-raising for climate change mitigation and adaptation feature 17 prominently in NDCs, particularly those of LDCs (Khan et al. 2020). Differences are evident though 18 between capacity-building needs expressed in the NDCs of LDCs (noting that Khan et al’s review was 19 limited to NDCs in English) compared with those of upper-middle income developing countries as 20 categorised by the World Bank (World Bank 2021); the latter have more focus on mitigation with an 21 emphasis on technology development and transfer (Khan et al. 2020). 22 The Paris Agreement urges all parties to cooperate to enhance the capacity of developing countries to 23 implement the Agreement (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.3), with a particular focus on LDCs and SIDS 24 (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.1). Developed country parties are specifically urged to enhance support for 25 capacity-building actions in developing country Parties (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.3). Article 12 of the 26 Paris Agreement addresses cooperative measures to enhance climate change education, training, public 27 awareness, public participation and public access to information, which can also be seen as elements of 28 capacity-building (Khan et al. 2020). Under the Paris Rulebook, efforts related to the implementation 29 of Article 12 are referred to as ‘Action for Climate Empowerment’ and parties are invited to develop 30 and implement national strategies on this topic, taking into account their national circumstances 31 (UNFCCC 2019i, para. 6). Actions to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, 32 public participation, public access to information, and regional and international cooperation may also 33 be taken into account by parties in the global stocktake process under Article 14 of the Paris Agreement 34 (UNFCCC 2019i, para. 9). 35 Under the Paris Agreement, capacity-building can take a range of forms, including: facilitating 36 technology development, dissemination and deployment; access to climate finance; education, training 37 and public awareness; and the transparent, timely and accurate communication of information 38 (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.1; see also 14.3.2.4 on ‘Transparency’ above). Principles guiding capacity- 39 building support are that it should be: country-driven; based on and responsive to national needs; 40 fostering country ownership of parties at multiple levels; guided by lessons learned; and an effective, 41 iterative process that is participatory, cross-cutting and gender-responsive (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.2). 42 Parties undertaking capacity-building for developing country parties must ‘regularly communicate on 43 these actions or measures.’ Developing countries parties have a soft requirement (‘should’) to 44 communicate progress made on implementing capacity-building plans, policies, actions or measures to 45 implement the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.4). 46 Article 11.5 provides that capacity-building activities ‘shall be enhanced through appropriate 47 institutional arrangements to support the implementation of this Agreement, including the appropriate 48 institutional arrangements established under the Convention that serve this Agreement’. The COP Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-34 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 decision accompanying the Paris Agreement established the Paris Committee on Capacity-building, 2 with the aim to ‘address gaps and needs, both current and emerging, in implementing capacity-building 3 in developing country Parties and further enhancing capacity-building efforts, including with regard to 4 coherence and coordination in capacity-building activities under the Convention’ (UNFCCC 2016a, 5 para. 71). The activities of the Committee are discussed further in Section 14.4.3 below. The relevant 6 COP decision also established the Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (UNFCCC 2016a, 7 para. 84), which is managed by the GEF and designed to support developing country parties in meeting 8 the reporting and transparency requirements under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement (Robinson 2018). 9 Studies on past capacity-building support for climate mitigation offer some lessons for ensuring 10 effectiveness of arrangements under the Paris Agreement. For example, Umemiya et al. (2020) suggest 11 the need for a common monitoring system at the global level, and evaluation research at the project 12 level to achieve more effective capacity building support. Khan et al. (2020) articulate ‘four key pillars’ 13 of a sustainable capacity-building system for implementation of NDCs in developing countries: 14 universities in developing countries as institutional hubs; strengthened civil society networks and 15 partnerships; long-term programmatic finance support; and consideration of a capacity-building 16 mechanism under the UNFCCC – paralleling the Technology Mechanism – to marshal, coordinate and 17 monitor capacity-building activities and resources. 18 14.3.2.11 Implementation and compliance 19 The Paris Agreement establishes a mechanism to facilitate implementation and promote compliance 20 under Article 15. This mechanism is to operate in a transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive 21 manner (Voigt 2016; Campbell-Duruflé 2018b; Oberthür and Northrop 2018) that distinguishes it from 22 the more stringent compliance procedures of the Kyoto Protocol’s Enforcement branch. The Paris 23 Rulebook elaborated the modalities and procedures for the implementation and compliance mechanism, 24 specifying the nature and composition of the compliance committee, the situations triggering its 25 procedures, and the facilitative measures it can apply, which include a ‘finding of fact’ in limited 26 situations, dialogue, assistance and recommendations (UNFCCC 2019e). The compliance committee is 27 focused on ensuring compliance with a core set of binding procedural obligations (UNFCCC 2019j, 28 Annex, Para. 22). This compliance committee, characterised as ‘one of its kind’ and an ‘an important 29 cornerstone’ of the Agreement’s legitimacy, effectiveness and longevity (Zihua et al. 2019), is designed 30 to facilitate compliance rather than penalise non-compliance. 31 32 START BOX 4.1 HERE 33 Box 14.1 Key features of the Paris Agreement relevant to mitigation. 34 The Paris Agreement’s overall aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, 35 in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. This aim is explicitly linked 36 to enhancing implementation of the UNFCCC, including its objective in Article 2 of stabilising 37 greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would ‘prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the 38 climate system’. The Agreement sets three goals: 39 1. Temperature: holding the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre- 40 industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial 41 levels. 42 2. Adaptation and climate resilience: increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate 43 change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner 44 that does not threaten food production. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-35 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 3. Finance: making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions 2 and climate-resilient development. 3 In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal, parties aim to reach global peaking of emissions as 4 soon as possible, recognising that peaking will take longer for developing countries, and then to 5 undertake rapid reductions in accordance with the best available science. This is designed to reach 6 global net zero GHG emissions in the second half of the century, with the emissions reductions effort 7 to be determined on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to 8 eradicate poverty. In addition, implementation of the Agreement as a whole is expected to reflect equity 9 and parties’ common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different 10 national circumstances. 11 The core mitigation commitments of parties under the Paris Agreement centre on preparing, 12 communicating and maintaining successive ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs), the contents 13 of which countries determine for themselves. All parties must have NDCs and pursue domestic 14 mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of their NDCs, but parties NDCs are 15 neither subject to a review of adequacy (at an individual level) nor to legally binding obligations of 16 result. The compliance mechanism is correspondingly facilitative. 17 The Paris Agreement establishes a global goal on adaptation, and recognises the importance of averting, 18 minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. 19 The efficacy of the Paris Agreement in achieving its goals is therefore dependent upon at least three 20 additional elements: 21 1. Ratcheting of NDCs: Parties must submit a new or updated NDC every 5 years that is in line with 22 the Paris Agreement’s expectations of progression over time and the party’s highest possible 23 ambition, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in light 24 of different national circumstances. 25 2. Enhanced transparency framework: Parties’ actions to implement their NDCs are subject to 26 international transparency and review requirements, which will generate information that may also 27 be used by domestic constituencies and peers to pressure governments to increase the ambition of 28 their NDCs. 29 3. Collective global stocktake: The global stocktake undertaken every 5 years, starting in 2023, will 30 review the collective progress of countries in achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals, in light of 31 equity and best available science. The outcome of the global stocktake informs parties in updating 32 and enhancing their subsequent NDCs. 33 These international processes establish an iterative ambition cycle for the preparation, communication, 34 implementation and review of NDCs. 35 For developing countries, the Paris Agreement recognises that increasing mitigation ambition and 36 realising long-term low-emissions development pathways can be bolstered by the provision of financial 37 resources, capacity building, and technology development and transfer. In continuation of existing 38 obligations under the Convention, developed countries are obliged to provide financial assistance to 39 developing countries with respect to mitigation and adaptation. The Paris Agreement also recognizes 40 that Parties may choose to voluntarily cooperate in the implementation of their NDCs to allow for higher 41 ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and 42 environmental integrity. 43 END BOX 4.1 HERE Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-36 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 2 14.3.3 Effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement 3 14.3.3.1 Ex-post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol’s effects 4 Previous assessment reports have assessed the Kyoto Protocol with respect to each of the criteria 5 identified in this chapter. However, at the time of AR5, it was premature to assess the impact of Kyoto 6 on emissions, as this data had not been entirely compiled yet. Since AR5, a number of studies have 7 done so. Chapter 2 of this report lists 24 countries that have sustained absolute emissions reductions for 8 at least a decade, of which 20 are countries that had Kyoto targets for the first commitment period. Most 9 studies have concluded that Kyoto did cause emissions reductions. Such studies find a positive, 10 statistically significant impact on emission reductions in Annex I countries (Kim et al. 2020), Annex B 11 countries (Grunewald and Martínez-Zarzoso 2012; Kumazawa and Callaghan 2012; Grunewald and 12 Martínez-Zarzoso 2016; Maamoun 2019), or all countries respectively (Aichele and Felbermayr 2013; 13 Iwata and Okada 2014). Overall, countries with emission reduction obligations emit on average less 14 CO2 than similar countries without emission reduction obligations – with estimates ranging from 3-50% 15 (Grunewald and Martínez-Zarzoso 2012, 2016). Maamoun (2019) estimates that the Kyoto Protocol 16 reduced GHG emissions of Annex B countries by 7% on average below a no-Kyoto scenario over 2005 17 - 2012. Aichele and Felbermayr (2013) conclude that Kyoto reduced CO2 and GHG emissions by 10% 18 compared to the counterfactual. By contrast, Almer and Winkler (2017) find no evidence for binding 19 emission targets under Kyoto inducing significant and lasting emission reductions for any of the Annex 20 B or non-Annex B countries. The authors identify both negative and positive associations between 21 Kyoto and emissions for several countries in several years, but no coherent picture emerges. Hartl 22 (2019) calculates a Kyoto leakage share in global carbon dioxide trade of 4.3% for 2002-2009. 23 In terms of transformative potential, the Kyoto Protocol has been found to increase international patent 24 applications for renewable energy technologies, especially in the case of solar energy technologies and 25 especially in countries with more stringent emission reduction targets, and has even led to an increase 26 in patent applications in developing countries not obliged to reduce emissions under Kyoto (Miyamoto 27 and Takeuchi 2019). Kyoto also had a positive and statistically significant impact on the cost- 28 effectiveness of renewable energy projects, as well as renewable energy capacity development as it 29 stimulated the introduction of domestic renewable energy policies (Liu et al. 2019). 30 The issue of institutional strength of Kyoto has been analysed by many authors, and much of this has 31 been assessed in previous assessment reports. Since AR5, several papers question the environmental 32 efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol based on its institutional design (Rosen 2015; Kuriyama and Abe 2018). 33 Particular attention has focused on Kyoto’s market mechanisms (Erickson et al. 2014; Kollmuss et al. 34 2015). 35 As described in previous IPCC reports and above, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol included three international 36 market-based mechanisms. These operated among Annex I Parties (i.e. International Emissions Trading 37 and Joint Implementation) and between Annex I Parties and non-Annex I countries (i.e. the CDM) 38 (Grubb et al. 2014; World Bank 2018). Joint Implementation led to limited volumes of emissions credit 39 transactions, mostly from economies in transition but also some Western European countries; 40 International Emissions Trading also led only to limited transaction volumes (Shishlov et al. 2016). 41 Of the Kyoto Protocol’s mechanisms, the CDM market has led to a greater amount of activity, with a 42 ‘gold rush’ period between 2005 and 2012. The main buyer of CDM credits were private companies 43 surrendering them within the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (ETS). Once the EU 44 tightened its rules and restricted the use of CDM credits in 2011, there was a sharp drop in the price of 45 CDM credits in 2012. This price never recovered, as the demand for CDM was very weak after 2012, 46 in part because of the difficulties encountered in securing the entry into force of the Doha Amendment 47 (Michaelowa et al. 2019b). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-37 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Assessing the effectiveness of Kyoto’s market mechanisms is challenging, and the results have been 2 mixed. (Aichele and Felbermayr 2013; Iwata and Okada 2014; Kuriyama and Abe 2018). Kuriyama 3 and Abe (2018) assessed emission reduction quantities taking into account heightened criteria for 4 additionality. They identified annual energy-related emissions reductions of 49 MtCO2e y-1 flowing 5 from the CDM, and non-energy related emissions reductions of 177 MtCO2e y-1. Others have pointed 6 to issues associated with non-energy related emission reductions that suggest the latter estimate may be 7 of questionable reliability, while also noting that regulatory tightening led later CDM projects to 8 perform better with respect to the additionality criterion (Michaelowa et al. 2019b). The CDM’s 9 contribution to capacity building in some developing countries has been identified as possibly its most 10 important achievement (Spalding-Fecher et al. 2012; Gandenberger et al. 2015; Murata et al. 2016; 11 Dong and Holm Olsen 2017; Lindberg et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2016). There is evidence that the CDM 12 lowered compliance costs for Annex 1 countries by at least USD3.6 billion (Spalding-Fecher et al. 13 2012). In host countries, the CDM led to the establishment of national approval bodies and the 14 development of an ecosystem of consultants and auditors (Michaelowa et al. 2019b) . 15 On the negative side, there are numerous findings that the CDM, especially at first, failed to lead to 16 additional emissions cuts in host countries, meaning that the overall effect of CDM projects was to raise 17 global emissions. Cames et al. (2016) concluded that over 70% of CDM projects led to emissions 18 reductions that were likely less than projected, including the absence of additional reductions, while 19 only 7% of projects led to actual additional emissions reductions that had a high likelihood of meeting 20 or exceeding the ex-ante estimates. The primary reason the authors gave was the associated with the 21 low price for CDM credits; this meant that the contribution of the CDM to project finance was 22 negligible, suggesting that most CDM projects would have been built anyway. A meta-analysis of ex- 23 post studies of global carbon markets, which include the CDM, found net combined effects on emission 24 to be negligible (Green 2021). Across, the board, CDM projects have been criticised for lack of 25 ‘additionality’, problems of baseline determination, uneven geographic coverage (Michaelowa and 26 Michaelowa 2011a; Cames et al. 2016; Michaelowa et al. 2019b), as well as failing to address human 27 rights concerns (Schade and Obergassel 2014). 28 14.3.3.2 Effectiveness of the Paris Agreement 29 Given the comparatively recent conclusion of the Paris Agreement, evidence is still being gathered to 30 assess the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement in practice, in particular, since its long-term 31 effectiveness hinges on states communicating more ambitious nationally determined contributions in 32 successive cycles over time. Assessments of the Paris Agreement on paper are necessarily speculative 33 and limited by the lack of credible counterfactuals. Despite these limitations, numerous assessments 34 exist of the potential for international cooperation under the Paris Agreement to advance climate change 35 mitigation. 36 These assessments are mixed and reflect uncertainty over the outcomes the Paris Agreement will 37 achieve (Christoff 2016; Clémençon 2016; Young 2016; Dimitrov et al. 2019; Raiser et al. 2020; 38 Keohane and Oppenheimer 2016). There is a divide between studies that do not expect a positive 39 outcome from the Paris Agreement and those that do. The former base this assessment on factors such 40 as: a lack of clarity in the expression of obligations and objectives; a lack of concrete plans collectively 41 to achieve the temperature goal; extensive use of soft law (i.e. non legally-binding) provisions; limited 42 incentives to avoid free-riding; and the Agreement’s weak enforcement provisions (Allan 2019), as well 43 as US non-cooperation under the Trump administration and the resulting gap in mitigation, finance and 44 governance (Bang et al. 2016; Spash 2016; Tulkens 2016; Chai et al. 2017; Lawrence and Wong 2017; 45 Thompson 2017; Barrett 2018; Kemp 2018). Studies expecting a positive outcome emphasise factors 46 such as: the breadth of participation enabled by self-differentiated NDCs; the ‘logic’ of domestic climate 47 policies driving greater national ambition; the multiplicity of actors engaged by the Paris Agreement’s 48 facilitative architecture; the falling cost of low-carbon technologies; provision for financial, technology Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-38 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 and capacity-building support to developing country parties; possibilities for voluntary cooperation on 2 mitigation under Article 6; and the potential for progressive ratcheting up of parties’ pledges over time 3 fostered by transparency of reporting and international scrutiny of national justifications of the 4 ‘fairness’ of contributions (Caparrós 2016; Morgan and Northrop 2017; Urpelainen and Van de Graaf 5 2018; Hale 2020; Tørstad 2020; Chan 2016a; Falkner 2016b; Victor 2016). Turning to the assessment 6 criteria articulated in this chapter, the following preliminary assessments of the Paris Agreement can be 7 made. 8 In relation to the criterion of environmental effectiveness, the Paris Agreement exceeds the Kyoto 9 Protocol in terms of coverage of GHGs and participation of states in mitigation actions. In terms of 10 coverage of GHGs, the Kyoto Protocol limits its coverage to a defined basket of gases identified in its 11 Annex A (Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 12 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), as well as nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)). The Paris 13 Agreement does not specify the coverage of gases, thus parties may cover the full spectrum of GHGs 14 in their NDCs as encouraged by the accounting provisions in Annex II to Decision 18/CMA.1 (or 15 conversely choose to exclude important mitigation sectors) and there is also the possibility to include 16 other pollutants such as short-lived climate forcers like black carbon. Article 4.4 calls on developed 17 countries to undertake economy-wide emissions reduction targets with the expectation that developing 18 country parties will also move to introduce these over time. Moreover, the Paris Agreement makes 19 express reference to Parties taking action to conserve and enhance ‘sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse 20 gases’ (Article 5). As under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, this allows for coverage of AFOLU 21 emissions, both CO2 and emissions of other Kyoto Annex A gases, as well as other forms of carbon 22 dioxide removal, including methane (Pekkarinen 2020). A few countries, particularly LDCs, include 23 quantified non-CO2 emissions reductions from the agricultural sector in their NDCs, and many others 24 include agriculture in their economy-wide targets (Richards et al. 2018). Some studies find that 25 agricultural development pathways with mitigation co-benefits can deliver 21–40% of needed 26 mitigation for the ‘well below 2°C’ limit, thus necessitating ‘transformative technical and policy 27 options’ (Wollenberg et al. 2016). Other studies indicate that broader ‘natural climate solutions, 28 including forests, can provide 37% of the cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a more 29 than 66% chance of holding warming to below 2°C’ (Griscom et al. 2017). 30 As the estimates in Table 4.3 (Chapter 4) demonstrate, communicated unconditional NDCs, if achieved, 31 lead to a reduction of about 7% of world emissions by 2030 in relation to the Kyoto GHGs, and NDCs 32 with conditional elements increase this reduction to about 12% (den Elzen et al. 2016). Although there 33 are uncertainties in the extent to which countries will meet the conditional elements of their NDCs, the 34 experience with the Cancun pledges has been positive, as countries will collectively meet their pledges 35 by 2020, and even individual pledges will be met in most cases, although arguably helped by the 36 COVID-19 pandemic (UNEP 2020). In any case, the main challenge that remains is to close the 37 emissions gap, the difference between what has been pledged and what is needed to achieve by 2030 to 38 reach a 1.5º C compatible path (respectively 2º C) (Roelfsema et al. 2020; UNEP 2020, see also Cross- 39 chapter Box 4 in Chapter 4). In terms of participation of states in mitigation actions, the Paris 40 Agreement performs better than the Kyoto Protocol. The latter contains mitigation targets only for 41 developed countries listed in its Annex B, while the Paris Agreement extends binding procedural 42 obligations in relation to mitigation contributions to all states. It is noted, however, that the Paris 43 Agreement represented a weakening of commitments for those industrialised countries that were parties 44 to the Kyoto Protocol, although a strengthening for those that were not, and for developing countries 45 (Oberthür and Groen 2020). Finally, some analysts have suggested that the recent proliferation of 46 national mid-century net-zero targets – currently 127 countries have considered or adopted such targets 47 – can be attributed, at least in part, to participation in the Paris Agreement and having agreed to its 48 Article 4 (Climate Action Tracker 2020a; Day et al. 2020). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-39 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 In relation to the criterion of transformative potential, there is, as yet, limited empirical data or 2 theoretical analysis on which to assess the Paris Agreement’s transformative potential. The IPCC’s 3 1.5°C report concluded that pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require systems 4 transitions that are ‘unprecedented in terms of scale’ (IPCC 2018b). There is limited evidence to suggest 5 that this is underway, although there are arguments made that Paris has the right structure to achieve 6 this. The linking of the UNFCCC financial apparatus, including the GCF, to the Paris Agreement, and 7 the provisions on technology support and capacity-building, provide potential avenues for promoting 8 increased investment flows into low-carbon technologies and development pathways, as (Labordena et 9 al. 2017) show in the case of solar energy development in Africa. Similarly, Kern and Rogge (2016) 10 argue that the Paris Agreement’s global commitment towards complete decarbonisation may play a 11 critical role in accelerating underlying system transitions, by sending a strong signal as to the actions 12 needed by national governments and other international support. Victor et al. (2019) argue that 13 international cooperation that enhances transformative potential needs to operate at the sectoral level, 14 as the barriers to transformation are highly specific to each sector; the Paris Agreement’s broad 15 consensus around a clear level of ambition sends a strong signal on what is needed in each sector, but 16 on its own will do little unless bolstered with sectoral-specific action (Geels et al. 2019). On the less 17 optimistic side, it is noted that the extent of the ‘investment signal’ sent by the Agreement to business 18 is unclear (Kemp 2018), and it is also unclear to what extent the Paris Agreement is fostering investment 19 in break-through technologies. United States non-cooperation from 2017 to 2020 posed a significant 20 threat to adequate investment flows through the GCF (Chai et al. 2017; Urpelainen and Van de Graaf 21 2018). 22 In relation to the criterion of distributive outcomes, the Paris Agreement performs well in some respects 23 but less well in others, and its performance relative to the Kyoto Protocol is arguably lower in respect 24 of some indicators such as industrialised country leadership, and differentiation in favour of developing 25 countries. While the Kyoto Protocol implemented a multilaterally agreed burden sharing arrangement 26 set out in the UNFCCC and reflected in Annex-based differentiation in mitigation obligations, the Paris 27 Agreement relies on NDCs, accompanied by self-assessments of the fairness of these contributions; 28 some of these do not accord with equity principles of international environmental law, although it is 29 worth noting that the Kyoto Protocol was also not fully consistent with such principles. At present, 30 mechanisms in the Paris Agreement for promoting equitable burden-sharing and evaluating the fairness 31 of parties’ contributions are undefined, although numerous proposals have been developed in the 32 literature (Ritchie and Reay 2017; Herrala and Goel 2016; Robiou du Pont et al. 2017; Alcaraz et al. 33 2019; Sheriff 2019) (discussed in Section 14.3.2.3, above). Zimm and Nakicenovic (2020) analysed the 34 first set of NDCs, and concluded that they would result in a decrease in the inequality of per capita 35 emissions across countries. In relation to other indicators such as the provision of support, the 36 distributive outcomes of the Paris Agreement are dependent on the availability of support through 37 mechanisms such as the GCF to meet the mitigation and adaptation financing needs of developing 38 countries (Antimiani et al. 2017; Chan et al. 2018). One study suggests that the implementation of the 39 emissions reduction objectives stated in the NDCs implies trade-offs with poverty reduction efforts 40 needed to achieve SDGs (Campagnolo and Davide 2019), while other studies offer evidence that the 41 immediate economic, environmental, and social benefits of mitigation in line with developing countries’ 42 NDCs exceed those NDCs’ costs, and ultimately align the the SDGs (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; Vandyck 43 et al. 2018; Caetano et al. 2020) (see Chapter 17). In relation to the promotion of co-benefits the Paris 44 Agreement has enhanced mechanisms for promoting co-benefits (e.g. in some cases for biodiversity 45 conservation through the endorsement of REDD+ initiatives and activities) and linkages to sustainable 46 development (e.g. through the Article 6.4 mechanism). Finally, in its preambular text the Paris 47 Agreement endorses both a human rights perspective and the concept of just transitions, creating 48 potential hooks for further elaboration and expansion of these principles in mitigation actions. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-40 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 On the criterion of economic performance, the Paris Agreement’s performance is potentially enhanced 2 by the capacity for parties to link mitigation policies, therefore improving aggregate cost-effectiveness. 3 Voluntary cooperation under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement could facilitate such linkage of mitigation 4 policies (Chan et al. 2018). A combination of common accounting rules and the absence of restrictive 5 criteria and conditions on the use of ITMOs could accelerate linkage and increase the latitude of parties 6 to scale up the ambition of their NDCs. However, significant question marks remain over how the 7 environmental integrity of traded emissions reductions can be ensured (Mehling 2019). The ability of 8 Article 6 to contribute to the goal of the Paris Agreement will depend on the extent to which the rules 9 ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting, while utilising the full potential of 10 cooperative efforts (Schneider et al. 2019; Michaelowa et al. 2019a). 11 In relation to the criterion of institutional strength, the Paris Agreement’s signalling and guidance 12 function is, however, arguably high. The Paris Agreement has the potential to interact with 13 complementary approaches to climate governance emerging beyond it (Held and Roger 2018). It may 14 also be used by publics – organised and mobilised in many countries and transnationally – as a point of 15 leverage in domestic politics to encourage countries to take costly mitigation actions (Keohane and 16 Oppenheimer 2016). More broadly, the Paris Agreement’s architecture provides flexibility for 17 decentralised forms of governance (Jordan et al. 2015; Victor 2016) (see further Section 14.5 below). 18 The Agreement has served a catalytic and facilitative role in enabling and facilitating climate action 19 from non-state and sub-state actors (Chan et al. 2015; Hale 2016; Chan et al. 2016; Bäckstrand et al. 20 2017; Kuyper et al. 2018b). Such action could potentially ‘bridge’ the ambition gap created by 21 insufficient NDCs from parties (Hsu et al. 2019b). The 2018 UNEP Emissions Gap Report estimates 22 that if ‘cooperative initiatives are scaled up to their fullest potential’, the impact of non-state and sub- 23 national actors could be up to 15-23 GtCO2eq yr-1 by 2030 compared to current policy, which could 24 bridge the gap (Lui et al. 2021). However, at present such a contribution is limited (Michaelowa and 25 Michaelowa 2017; UNEP 2018a). Non-state actors are also playing a role in enhancing the ambition of 26 individual NDCs by challenging their adequacy in national courts (see Chapter 13 and Section 14.5.3 27 below). 28 The Paris Agreement’s institutional strength in terms of ‘rules and standards to facilitate collective 29 action’ is disputed given the current lack of comparable information in NDCs (Peters et al. 2017; Pauw 30 et al. 2018; Mayer 2019; Zihua et al. 2019), and the extent to which its language, as well as that of the 31 Rulebook, strikes a balance in favour of discretion over prescriptiveness (Rajamani and Bodansky 32 2019). Similarly, in terms of ‘mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability’, although 33 detailed rules relating to transparency have been developed under the Paris Rulebook, these rules permit 34 parties considerable self-determination in the extent and manner of application (Rajamani and 35 Bodansky 2019), and may not lead to further ambition (Weikmans et al. 2020). Further the Paris 36 Agreement’s compliance committee is facilitative and designed to ensure compliance with the 37 procedural obligations in the Agreement, rather than with the NDCs themselves, which are not subject 38 to obligations of result. The Paris Agreement does, however, seek to support the building of 39 transparency-related capacity of developing countries, potentially triggering institutional capacity- 40 building at the national, sub-national and sectoral level (see 14.3.2.7). 41 Ultimately, the overall effectiveness of the Paris Agreement depends on its ability to lead to ratcheting 42 up of collective climate action to meet the long-term global temperature goal (Bang et al. 2016; Christoff 43 2016; Young 2016; Dimitrov et al. 2019; Gupta and van Asselt 2019). As noted above, there is some 44 evidence that this is already occurring. The design of the Paris Agreement, with ‘nationally determined’ 45 contributions at its centre, countenances an initial shortfall in collective ambition in relation to the long- 46 term global temperature goal on the understanding and expectation that Parties will enhance the 47 ambition of their NDCs over time (Article 4). This is essential given the current shortfall in ambition. 48 The pathways reflecting current NDCs, according to various estimates, imply global warming in the Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-41 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 range of 3°C by 2100 (UNFCCC 2016b; UNEP 2018a) (Chapter 4, Box 3). NDCs will need to be 2 substantially scaled up if the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement is to be met (Rogelj et al. 2018, 3 2016; Höhne et al. 2017, 2018; UNEP 2020). The Paris Agreement’s ‘ambition cycle’ is designed to 4 trigger such enhanced ambition over time. Some studies find that like-minded climate mitigation clubs 5 can deliver substantial emission reductions (Hovi et al. 2017) and are reasonably stable despite the 6 departure of a major emitter such as the United States (Sprinz et al. 2018), other studies find that 7 conditional commitments in the context of a pledge and review mechanism are unlikely to substantially 8 increase countries’ contributions to emissions reductions (Helland et al. 2017), and hence need to be 9 complemented by the adoption of instruments designed differently from the Paris Agreement (Barrett 10 and Dannenberg 2016). In any case, high (but not perfect) levels of mean compliance rates with the 11 Paris Agreement have to be assumed for reaching the ‘well below 2°C’ temperature goal (Sælen 2020; 12 Sælen et al. 2020). This is by no means assured. 13 In conclusion, it remains to be seen whether the Paris Agreement will deliver the collective ambition 14 necessary to meet the temperature goal. While the Paris Agreement does not contain strong and stringent 15 obligations of result for major emitters, backed by a demanding compliance system, it establishes 16 binding procedural obligations, lays out a range of normative expectations, and creates mechanisms for 17 regular review, stock taking, and revision of NDCs. In combination with complementary approaches to 18 climate governance, engagement of a wide range of non-state and sub-national actors, and domestic 19 enforcement mechanisms, these have the potential to deliver the necessary collective ambition and 20 implementation. Whether it will do so, remains to be seen. 21 22 START CROSS-CHAPTER BOX 10 HERE 23 Cross-Chapter Box 10: Policy Attribution - Methodologies for estimating the macro-level 24 impact of mitigation policies on indices of GHG mitigation 25 Authors: Mustafa Babiker (Saudi Arabia), Paolo Bertoldi (Italy), Christopher Bataille (Canada), Felix 26 Creutzig (Germany), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Michael Grubb (United Kingdom), Erik Haites 27 (Canada), Ben Hinder (United Kingdom), Janna Hoppe (Switzerland), Yong-Gun Kim (Republic of 28 Korea), Gregory Nemet (the United States of America), Anthony Patt (Switzerland), Yamina Saheb 29 (France), Raphael Slade (United Kingdom) 30 This report notes both a growing prevalence of mitigation policies over the past quarter century (Chapter 31 13), and ‘signs of progress’ including various quantified indices of GHG mitigation (Chapter 2, Table 32 2.4). Even though policies implemented and planned to date are clearly insufficient for meeting the 33 Paris long-term temperature goals, a natural question is to what extent the observed macro-level changes 34 (global, national, sectoral, technological) can be attributed to policy developments. This Assessment 35 Report is the first to address that question. This box describes the methods for conducting such 36 ‘attribution analysis’ as well as its key results, focusing on the extent to which polices have affected 37 three main types of ‘outcome indices’: 38 • GHG emissions: emissions volumes and trends at various levels of governance including sub- and 39 supra-national levels, and within and across sectors. 40 • Proximate emission drivers: trends in the factors that drive emissions, distinguished through 41 decomposition analyses, notably: energy/GDP intensity and carbon/energy intensity (for energy-related 42 emissions); indices of land use such as deforestation rates (for LULUCF/AFOLU); and more sector- 43 specific component drivers such as the floor area per capita, or passenger kilometres per capita. 44 • Technologies: developments in key low-carbon technologies that are likely to have a strong influence 45 on future emissions trends, notably levels of new investment and capacity expansions, as well as 46 technology costs, with a focus on those highlighted in Chapter 2 Figure 2.30. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-42 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Policy attribution examines the extent to which emission-relevant outcomes on these indices – charted 2 for countries, sectors and technologies, particularly in Chapter 2 and the sectoral chapters – may be 3 reasonably attributed to policies implemented prior to the observed changes. Such policies include 4 regulatory instruments such as energy efficiency programmes or technical standards and codes, carbon 5 pricing, financial support for low-carbon energy technologies and efficiency, voluntary agreements, and 6 regulation of land use practices. The sectoral chapters give more detail along with some accounts of 7 policy, whilst trends in mitigation policy adoption are summarised in Chapter 13. 8 In reviewing hundreds of scientific studies cited in this report, the impacts of adopted policies on 9 observed outcomes were assessed. The vast majority of these studies examine particular instruments in 10 particular contexts, as covered in the sectoral chapters and Chapter 13; only a few have appraised global 11 impacts of policies, directly or plausibly inferred (the most significant are cited in the figure in this 12 box). Typically, studies consider ‘mitigation policies’ to be those adopted with either a primary 13 objective of reducing GHG emissions or emissions reductions as one among multiple objectives. 14 Policies differ in design, scope, and stringency, may change over time as they require amendments or 15 new laws, and often partially overlap with other instruments. Overall, the literature indicates that policy 16 mixes are, theoretically and empirically, more effective in reducing emissions, stimulating innovation, 17 and inducing behavioural change than stand-alone policy instruments (Chapter 5 section 5.6; Chapter 18 13, section 13.7) (Rosenow et al. 2017; Sethi et al. 2020; Best and Burke 2018). Nevertheless, these 19 factors complicate analysis, because they give rise to the potential for double counting emissions 20 reductions that have been observed, and which separate studies can attribute to different policy 21 instruments. 22 Efforts to attribute observed outcomes to a policy or policy mix is also greatly complicated by the 23 influence of many exogenous factors, including fossil fuel prices and socio-economic conditions. 24 Likewise, technological progress can result from both exogenous causes, such as ‘spillover’ from other 25 sectors, and policy pressure. Further, other policies, such as fossil fuel subsidies as well as trade-related 26 policies, can partially counteract the effect of mitigation policies by increasing the demand for energy 27 or carbon-intensive goods and services. In some cases, policies aimed at development, energy security, 28 or air quality have climate co-benefits, while others increase emissions. 29 Studies have applied a number of methods to identify the actual effects of mitigation policies in the 30 presence of such confounding factors. These include statistical attribution methodologies, including 31 experimental and quasi-experimental design, instrumental variable approaches, and simple correlational 32 methods. Typically, the relevant mitigation metric is the outcome variable, while measures of policies 33 and other factors act as explanatory variables. Other methodologies include aggregations and 34 extrapolations from micro-level data evaluation, and inference from combining multiple lines of 35 analysis, including expert opinion. Additionally, the literature contains reviews, many of them 36 systematic in nature, that assess and aggregate multiple empirical studies. 37 With these considerations in mind, multiple lines of evidence, based upon the literature, support a set 38 of high-level findings, as illustrated in the figure in this box, as follows. 39 1. GHG Emissions. There is robust evidence with a high level of agreement that mitigation policies 40 have had a discernible impact on emissions. Several lines of evidence indicate that mitigation policies 41 have led to avoided global emissions to date by several billion tonnes CO2-eq annually. The figure in 42 this box shows a selection of results giving rise to this estimate. 43 As a starting point, one methodologically sophisticated econometric study links global mitigation 44 policies (defined as climate laws and executive orders) to emission outcomes; it estimates emission 45 savings of 5.9 GtCO2 yr-1 in 2016 compared to a no-policy world (Eskander and Fankhauser 2020, see 46 Chapter 13.6.2). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-43 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 A second line of evidence derives from analyses of the Kyoto Protocol. Countries which took on Kyoto 2 Protocol targets accounted for about 24% of global emissions during the first commitment period (2008- 3 12). The most recent robust econometric assessment (Maamoun 2019) estimates that these countries cut 4 GHG emissions by about 7% on average over 2005-2012, rising over the period to around 12% (1.3 5 GtCO2e yr-1) relative to a no-Kyoto scenario. This is consistent with estimates of Grunewald and 6 Martinez (2016) of about 800 MtCO2e yr-1 averaged to 2009. Developing countries emission reduction 7 projects through the CDM (defined in article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol) were certified as growing to 8 over 240 MtCO2e yr-1 by 2012 (UNFCC 2021c). With debates about the full extent of ‘additionality’, 9 academic assessments of savings from the CDM have been slightly lower with particular concerns 10 around some non-energy projects (see Chapter 14.3.3.1). 11 A third line of evidence derives from studies that identify policy-related, absolute reductions from 12 historical levels in particular countries and sectors through decomposition analyses (e.g., Lamb et al. 13 2021; Le Quéré et al. 2019), or evaluate the impact of particular policies, such as carbon pricing systems. 14 From a wide range of estimates in the literature (see Chapters 2.8.2.2 and 13.6), many evaluations of 15 the EU ETS suggest that it has reduced emissions by around 3% to 9% relative to unregulated firms 16 and/or sectors (Schäfer 2019; Colmer et al. 2020), whilst other factors, both policy (energy efficiency 17 and renewable support) and exogenous trends, played a larger role in the overall reductions seen (Haites 18 2018). 19 These findings derived from the peer-reviewed literature are also consistent with two additional sets of 20 analysis. The first set concerns trends in emissions, drawing directly from Chapters 6-11 and Chapter 21 2, showing that global annual emission growth has slowed as evidenced by annual emission increments 22 of 0.55 GtCO2e yr-1 between 2011 and 2019 compared to 1.014 GtCO2e yr-1 in 2000-08. This suggests 23 avoided emissions of 4-5 Gt yr-1 (see also Chapter 1, Figure 1.1d). The second set concerns emissions 24 reductions projected by Annex I governments for 2020 in their fourth biennial reports to the UNFCCC. 25 It is important to note that these are mostly projected annual savings from implemented policies (not 26 ex-post evaluations), and there are considerable differences in countries’ estimation methodologies. 27 Nevertheless, combining estimates from 38% of the total of 2,811 reported policies and measures yields 28 an overall estimate of 3.81GtCO2e yr-1 emission savings (UNFCCC 2020d). 29 2. Proximate emission drivers. With less overt focus on emissions, studies of trends in energy 30 efficiency, carbon intensity, or deforestation often point to associated policies. The literature s includes 31 an increasing number of studies on demonstrable progress in developing countries. For example, South 32 and South-East Asia have seen energy intensity in buildings improving at ca. 5 – 6% yr-1 since 2010 33 (Chapter 2, Figure 2.22). In India alone, innovative programmes in efficient air conditioning, LED 34 lighting, and industrial efficiency are reported as saving around 25 Mtoe in 2019-2020, thus leading to 35 avoided emissions of over 150 MtCO2 yr-1 (see Chapter 16, box 16.3; Malhotra et al. 2021). Likewise, 36 reductions in deforestation rates in several South and Central American and Asian countries are at least 37 partly attributable to ecosystem payments, land use regulation, and internal efforts (Chapter 7.6.2). 38 Finally, the policy-driven displacement of fossil fuel combustion by renewables in energy has led to 39 reductions in carbon intensity in several world regions (Chapters 2 and 6). 40 3. Technologies. The literature indicates unambiguously that the rapid expansion of low-carbon energy 41 technologies is substantially attributable to policy (Chapter 6.7.5, Chapter 16.5). Technology-specific 42 adoption incentives have led to a greater use of less carbon-intensive (e.g. renewable electricity) and 43 less energy-intensive (especially in transport and buildings) technologies. As Chapters 2 and 6 of this 44 report note, modern renewable energy sources currently satisfy over 9% of global electricity demand, 45 and this is largely attributable to policy. There are no global-level studies estimating the avoided 46 emissions due to renewable energy support policies, but there are methods that have been developed to 47 link renewable energy penetration to avoided emissions, such as that of IRENA (2021). Using that 48 method, and assuming that 70% of modern renewable energy expansion has been policy-induced, yields Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-44 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 an estimate of avoided emissions of 1.3 GtCO2e yr-1 in 2019. Furthermore, observed cost reductions 2 are the result of policy-driven capacity expansion as well as publicly funded R&D, in individual 3 countries and globally. These correspond with induced effects on number of patents, ‘learning curve’ 4 correlations with deployed capacity, and cost component and related case study analyses (Kavlak et al. 5 2018; Nemet 2019; Popp 2019; Grubb et al. 2021). 6 7 8 Cross-Chapter Box 10, Figure 1: Policy impacts on key outcome indices: GHG emissions, proximate 9 emission drivers, and technologies, including several lines of evidence on GHG abatement attributable to 10 policies. 11 END CROSS-CHAPTER BOX 10 HERE 12 13 14.4 Supplementary means and mechanisms of implementation 14 As discussed above, the Paris Agreement sets in place a new framework for international climate policy 15 albeit one that is embedded in the wider climate regime complex (Coen et al. 2020). Whereas 16 international governance had earlier assumed centre stage, the Paris Agreement recognises the salience 17 of domestic politics in the governance of climate change (Kinley et al. 2020). The new architecture also 18 provides more flexibility for recognising the benefits of working in diverse forms and groups and allows 19 for more decentralised “polycentric” forms of governance (Jordan et al. 2015; Victor 2016). The next 20 two sections address this complementarity between the Paris Agreement and other agreements and 21 institutions. 22 The Paris Agreement identifies a number of pathways, or means of implementation, towards 23 accomplishing rapid mitigation and the achieving of its temperature goal: finance; capacity building; 24 technology and innovation; and, cooperative approaches and markets (see sections 14.3.2.7-14.3.2.10 25 above). In this section, we examine each of these means and mechanisms of implementation, and the 26 agreements and institutions lying outside of the Paris Agreement that contribute to each. In the 27 following Section, 14.5, we examine the agreements and institutions playing other governance roles: 28 regulating activities in particular sectors; linking climate mitigation with other activities such as 29 adaptation; and, stimulating and coordinating the actions of non-state actors at a global scale. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-45 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Figure 14.3 maps out the interlinkages described in the text of the sections 14.4 and 14.5. It is an 2 incomplete list, but illustrates clearly that across multiple types of governance, there are multiple 3 instruments or organisations with activities connected to the different governance roles associated with 4 the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC more generally. 5 6 Figure 14.3 Climate governance beyond the UNFCCC. The figure shows those relationships, marked in 7 blue, between international governance activities, described in the text, that relate to activities of the 8 UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. 9 14.4.1 Finance 10 International cooperation on climate finance is underpinned by various articles of the UNFCCC 11 including Articles 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7 and 11.5 (UNFCCC 1992). This was further amplified through the 12 commitment by developed countries in the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements to mobilise 13 jointly through various sources USD100 billion yr-1 by 2020 to meet the needs of the developing 14 countries (UNFCCC 2010b). This commitment was made in the context of meaningful mitigation action 15 and transparency of implementation. As mentioned earlier in Section 14.3.2.8, in the Paris Agreement 16 the binding obligation on developed country parties to provide financial resources to assist developing 17 country parties applies to both mitigation and adaptation (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 9.1). In 2019, climate 18 finance provided and mobilised by developed countries was in the order of USD79.6 billion, coming 19 from different channels including bilateral and multilateral channels, and also through mobilisation of 20 the private sector attributable to these channels (OECD 2021). A majority (two-thirds) of these flows 21 targeted mitigation action exclusively (see also Chapter 15). These estimates, however, have been 22 criticised on various grounds, including that they are an overestimate and do not represent climate 23 specific net assistance only; that in grant equivalence terms the order of magnitude is lower; and the 24 questionable extent of transparency of information on mobilised private finance, as well as the direction 25 of these flows (Carty et al. 2020). On balance, such assessments need to be viewed in the context of the 26 original commitment, the source of the data and the evolving guidance, and modalities and procedures 27 from the UNFCCC processes. As mentioned in Chapter 15, the measurement of climate finance flows 28 continues to face definitional, coverage and reliability issues despite progress made by various data 29 providers and collators (see section 15.3.2 in Chapter 15). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-46 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 The multiplicity of actors providing financial support has resulted in a fragmented international climate 2 finance architecture as indicated in Section 14.3.2.8. It is also seen as a system which allows for speed, 3 flexibility and innovation (Pickering et al. 2017). However, the system is not yet delivering adequate 4 flows given the needs of developing countries (see Section 14.3.2.8). An early indication of these self- 5 assessed needs is provided in the conditional NDCs. Of the 136 conditional NDCs submitted by June 6 2019, 110 have components or additional actions conditioned on financing support for mitigation and 7 79 have components or additional actions for support for adaptation (Pauw et al. 2020). While the Paris 8 Agreement did not explicitly countenance conditionality for actions in developing countries, it is 9 generally understood that the ambition and effectiveness of climate ambition in these countries is 10 dependent on financial support (Voigt and Ferreira 2016b). 11 14.4.1.1 Bilateral finance 12 The Paris Agreement and the imperative for sustainable development reinforce the need to forge strong 13 linkages between climate and development (Fay et al. 2015). This in turn has highlighted the urgent 14 need for greater attention to the relationship between development assistance and finance, and climate 15 change (Steele 2015). 16 The UNFCCC website cites some 20 bilateral development agencies providing support to climate 17 change programs in developing countries (UNFCCC 2020a). These agencies provide a mix of 18 development cooperation, policy advice and support and financing for climate change projects. Since 19 the year 2000, the OECD Development Assistance Committee has been tracking trends in climate- 20 related development finance and assistance. The amount of bilateral development finance with climate 21 relevance has increased substantially since 2000 (OECD 2019a). For 2019, it was reported to be 22 USD28.8 billion in direct finance and USD2.6 billion through export credit agencies. Further, another 23 USD34.1 billion of the climate finance provided through multilateral channels is attributable to the 24 developed countries (OECD 2021). The OECD methodology has been critiqued as it uses Rio markers 25 the limitations of which could lead to erroneous reporting and assessment of finance provided as well 26 as the mitigation outcome (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2011b; Weikmans and Roberts 2019). This 27 issue is to be addressed through the modalities, procedures and guidance under the Enhanced 28 Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement (see Section 14.3.2.4), through the mandate to 29 Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to develop Common Tabular 30 Formats (CTFs) for the reporting of information on, inter alia, financial support provided, mobilised 31 and received (UNFCCC 2019k). Until then, the Biennial Assessment Report prepared by the Standing 32 Committee on Finance provides the best available information on financial support. 33 14.4.1.2 Multilateral finance 34 Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) comprise six global development banks that include the 35 European Investment Bank (EIB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 36 International Investment Bank (IIB), New Development Bank (NDB), OPEC Fund for International 37 Development (OFID), and the World Bank Group, six regional development banks that include the 38 African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (AsDB), Asian Infrastructure 39 Investment Bank (AIIB), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Inter- 40 American Development Bank (IADB), and the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), and thirteen sub- 41 regional development banks that include the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa 42 (BADEA), Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD), Black Sea Trade and 43 Development Bank (BSTDB), Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), Central American Bank for 44 Economic Integration (CABEI), Development Bank of the Central African States (BDEAC), 45 Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), East African Development Bank (EADB), Eastern and 46 Southern African Trade and Development Bank (TDB), Economic Cooperation Organization Trade and 47 Development Bank (ETDB), ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID), Eurasian 48 Development Bank EDB), and the West African Development Bank (BOAD). Together they play a key Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-47 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 role in international cooperation at the global, regional and sub-regional level because of their growing 2 mandates and proximity to policymakers (Engen and Prizzon 2018). For many, climate change is a 3 growing priority and for some, because of the needs of the regions, or sub-regions in which they operate, 4 climate change is embedded in many of their operations. 5 In 2015, twenty representative MDBs and members of the International Development Finance Club 6 unveiled five voluntary principles to mainstream climate action in their investments, including 7 commitment to climate strategies, managing climate risks, promoting climate smart objectives, 8 improving climate performance and accounting for their own actions (World Bank 2015a; Institute for 9 Climate Economics 2017). The members subscribing to these principles have since grown to 44 in 10 January 2020. Arguably, it is only through closer linkages between climate and development that 11 significant inroads can be made in addressing climate change. MDBs can play a major role through the 12 totality of their portfolios (Larsen et al. 2018). 13 The MDBs as a cohort have been collaborating and coordinating in reporting on climate financing since 14 2012 following a commitment made in 2012 at the Rio +20 summit (MDB 2012). This has engendered 15 other forms of collaboration among the MDBs, including: commitments to collectively total at least 16 USD65 billion annually by 2025 in climate finance, with USD50 billion for low and middle income 17 economies; to mobilise a further USD40 billion annually by 2025 from private sector investors, 18 including through the increased provision of technical assistance, use of guarantees, and other de- 19 risking instruments; and to commit to helping clients deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement; 20 building a transparency framework on impact of MDBs’ activities and enabling clients to move away 21 from fossil fuels (Asian Development Bank 2019). While the share of MDBs in direct climate financing 22 is small, their role in influencing national development banks and local financial institutions, and 23 leveraging and crowding in private investments in financing sustainable infrastructure, is widely 24 recognised (NCE 2016). However, with this recognition there is also an exhortation to do more to align 25 with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including a comprehensive examination of their portfolios 26 beyond investments that directly support climate action to also enabling the long-term net zero GHG 27 emissions trajectory (Cochran and Pauthier 2019; Larsen et al. 2018). Further, a recent assessment has 28 shown that MDBs perform relatively better in mobilising other public finance than private co- financing 29 (Thwaites 2020). In addition, the banks have launched or are members of significant initiatives such as 30 the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to reduce short lived climate pollutants, the Carbon 31 Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC), the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI) and the 32 Coalition of Finance Ministers for climate action. These help to spur action at different levels, from 33 economic analysis, to carbon financing and convenors of finance and development ministers for climate 34 action, with leadership of many of these initiatives led by the World Bank. 35 The multilateral climate funds also have a role in the international climate finance architecture. This 36 includes, as mentioned in Section 14.3.2.8, those established under the UNFCCC’s financial 37 mechanism, its operating entities, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which also manages two 38 special funds, the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Least Developed Countries Fund 39 (LDCF); the Green Climate Fund (GCF), also an operating entity of the financial mechanism which in 40 2015, was given a special role in supporting the Paris Agreement. The GCF aims to provide funding at 41 scale, balanced between mitigation and adaptation, using various financial instruments including grants, 42 loans, equity, guarantees or others to activities that are aligned with the priorities of the countries 43 compatible with the principle of country ownership (GCF 2011). The GCF faces many challenges. 44 While some see the GCF as an opportunity to transform and rationalise what is now a complex and 45 fragmented climate finance architecture with insufficient resources and overlapping remits (Nakhooda 46 et al. 2014), others see it as an opportunity to address the frequent tensions which arise between 47 mitigation-focused transformation and national priorities of countries. This tension is at the heart of the 48 principle of country ownership and the need for transformational change (Winkler and Dubash 2016). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-48 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Leveraging private funds and investments by the public sector, taking risks to unlock climate action are 2 also expressed strategic aims of the GCF. 3 The UN system is also supporting climate action through much needed technical assistance and capacity 4 building, which is complementary to the financial flows insofar as it enables countries with relevant 5 tools and methodologies to assess their needs, develop national climate finance roadmaps, establish 6 relevant institutional mechanisms to receive support and track it, enhance readiness to access financing, 7 and include climate action across relevant national financial planning and budgeting processes (UN 8 2017a). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the largest implementer of climate 9 action among the UN Agencies, with others, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 10 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Industrial Development 11 Organisation (UNIDO), and United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC), providing 12 relevant support. 13 The current architecture of climate finance is one that is primarily based on north-south, developed- 14 developing country dichotomies. The Paris Agreement, however, has clearly recognised the role of 15 climate finance flows across developing countries, thereby enhancing the scope of international 16 cooperation (Voigt and Ferreira 2016b). Estimates of such flows, though, are not readily available. 17 According to one estimate in 2020 the flows among non-OECD countries were of the order of USD29 18 billion (CPI 2021). 19 14.4.1.3 Private sector financing 20 There is a growing recognition of the importance of mobilising private sector financing including for 21 climate action (World Bank 2015b; Michaelowa et al. 2020b). An early example of the mobilisation of 22 the private sector in a cooperative mode for mitigation outcomes is evidenced from the Clean 23 Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol and the linking with the European Union’s Emissions 24 Trading Scheme, both triggered by relevant provisions in the Kyoto Protocol (see Section 14.4.4) and 25 lessons learnt from this are relevant for development of market mechanisms in the post Paris Agreement 26 period (Michaelowa et al. 2019b). In 2019/2020, on an average for the two years, public and private 27 climate financing was on the order of USD632 billion, of which USD310 billion originated from the 28 private sector. However, as much as 76% of the (overall) finance stayed in the country of origin. This 29 trends holds true also for private finance (CPI 2021). Figure 14.4 depicts the international climate 30 finance flows totalling USD161 billion reported in 2020, about 19% were private flows. For 31 (international) mitigation financing flows of USD116 billion, the share provided by private sources was 32 24%. 33 Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-49 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 2 Figure 14.4 International Finance Flows. Total international climate financial flows for 2020 were 3 USD161 billion. By comparison, public sector bilateral and multilateral finance in 2017 for fossil fuel 4 development, including gas pipelines, was roughly USD4 billion. Part (a) disaggregates total financial 5 flows according to public and private sources, and indicates the breakdown between mitigation on the one 6 hand, and adaptation and multiple objectives on the other, within each source. Part (b) disaggregates 7 total financial flows according to intended purpose, namely mitigation or adaptation and multiple 8 objectives, and disaggregates each type according to source. Part (c) provides additional detail on the 9 relative contributions of different public and private sources. Sources: (CPI 2021; OECD 2021). 10 11 Foreign direct investments and its greening is seen as a channel for increasing cooperation. An 12 assessment of the greenfield foreign direct investment in different sectors shows the growing share of 13 renewable energy at USD92.2 billion (12% of the volume and 38% of the number of projects) (FDI 14 Intelligence 2020). Coal, oil and gas sectors maintain the top spot for capital investments globally. Over 15 the last decade there is growing issuance of green bonds with non-financial private sector issuance 16 gaining ground (Almeida 2020). While it is questionable if green bonds have a significant impact on 17 shifting capital from non-sustainable to sustainable investments, they do incentivise the issuing 18 organisations to enhance their green ambition and have led to an appreciation within capital markets of 19 green frameworks and guidelines and signalling new expectations (Maltais and Nykvist 2020). In 20 parallel, institutional investors including pension funds are seeking investments that align with the Paris 21 Agreement (IIGCC 2020). However, the readiness of institutional investors to make this transition is 22 arguable (OECD 2019b; Ameli et al. 2020). This evidence suggests that international private financing 23 could play an important role but this potential is yet to be realised (see Chapter 15). 24 25 14.4.2 Science, technology and innovation 26 Science, technology and innovation are essential for the design of effective measures to address climate 27 change and, more generally, for economic and social development (de Coninck and Sagar 2015a). The 28 OECD finds that single countries alone often cannot provide effective solutions to today’s global 29 challenges, as these cross national borders and affect different actors (OECD 2012). Madani (2020) 30 shows how conflict, including international sanctions, can reduce science and innovation capacity, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-50 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 which is not evenly distributed, particularly across the developed and the developing world. For this 2 reason, many countries have introduced strategies and policies to enhance international cooperation in 3 science and technology (Chen et al. 2019). Partnerships and international cooperation can play a role in 4 establishing domestic innovation systems, which enable more effective science and technology 5 innovation (de Coninck and Sagar 2015b,a). 6 International cooperation in science and technology occurs across different levels, with a growing 7 number of international cooperation initiatives aimed at research and collaborative action in technology 8 development. (Weart 2012) finds that such global efforts are effective in advancing climate change 9 science due to the international nature of the challenge. Global research programmes and institutions 10 have also provided the scientific basis for major international environmental treaties. For example, the 11 Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Convention and the Montreal Protocol were both informed 12 by scientific assessments based on collaboration and cooperation of scientists across several 13 geographies (Andresen et al. 2000). Furthermore, the Global Energy Assessment (GEA 2012) provided 14 the scientific basis and evidence for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular SDG7 15 to ensure access to affordable, reliable and sustainable modern energy for all. The GEA drew on the 16 expertise of scientists from over 60 countries and institutions. Several other platforms exist to provide 17 scientists and policymakers an opportunity for joint research and knowledge sharing, such as The World 18 in 2050, an initiative that brings together scientists from some 40 institutions from around the world to 19 provide the science for SDG and Paris Agreement implementation (TWI2050 2018). 20 Non-state actors are also increasingly collaborating internationally. Such collaborations, referred to as 21 international cooperative initiatives (ICIs), bring together multi-stakeholder groups across industry, 22 communities, and regions, and operate both within and outside the UNFCCC process. Lui et al. (2021) 23 find that such initiatives could make a major contribution to global emissions reduction, Bakhtiari 24 (2018) finds that the impact on greenhouse gas reduction of these initiatives is hindered due to a lack 25 of coordination between ICIs, overlap with other activities conducted by the UNFCCC and 26 governments, and a lack of monitoring system to measure impact. Increasing the exchange of 27 information between ICIs, enhancing monitoring systems, and increasing collaborative research in 28 science and technology would help address these issues (Boekholt et al. 2009; Bakhtiari 2018). 29 At the level of research institutes, there has been a major shift to a more structured and global type of 30 cooperation in research; Wagner et al. (2017) found significant increases in both the proportion of 31 papers written by author teams from multiple countries, and in the number of countries participating in 32 such collaboration, over the time period 1990 - 2013. Although only a portion of these scientific papers 33 address the issue of climate change specifically, this growth of scientific collaboration across borders 34 provides a comprehensive view of the conducive environment in which climate science collaboration 35 has grown. 36 However, there are areas in which international cooperation can be strengthened. Both the Paris 37 Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development call for more creative forms of 38 international cooperation in science that help bridge the science and policy interface, and provide 39 learning processes and places to deliberate on possible policy pathways across disciplines on a more 40 sustainable and long-lasting basis. Scientific assessments, such as the IPCC and IPBES offer this 41 possibility, but processes need to be enriched for this to happen more effectively (Kowarsch et al. 2016) 42 A particular locus for international cooperation on technology development and innovation is found 43 within institutions and mechanisms of the UN climate regime. The UNFCCC, in Article 4.1(c), calls on 44 ‘all parties’ to ‘promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, 45 of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of 46 greenhouse gases’ and places responsibility on developed country parties to ‘take all practicable steps 47 to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to environmentally sound 48 technologies and know-how to other parties, particularly developing country parties, to enable them to Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-51 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 implement the provisions of the Convention’ (UNFCCC 1992, Art. 4.5). The issue of technology 2 development and transfer has continued to receive much attention in the international climate policy 3 domain since its initial inclusion in the UNFCCC in 1992 – albeit often overshadowed by dominant 4 discourses around market-based mechanisms – and its role in reducing GHG emissions and adapting to 5 the consequences of climate change ‘is seen as becoming ever more critical’ (de Coninck and Sagar 6 2015a). Milestones in the development of international cooperation on climate technologies under the 7 UNFCCC have included: (1) the development of a technology transfer framework and establishment of 8 the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and 9 Technological Advice (SBSTA) in 2001; (2) recommendations for enhancing the technology transfer 10 framework put forward at the Bali Conference of the Parties in 2007 and creation of the Poznan strategic 11 program on technology transfer under the Global Environmental Facility (GEF); and (3) the 12 establishment of the Technology Mechanism by the Conference of the Parties in 2010 as part of the 13 Cancun Agreements (UNFCCC 2010b). The Technology Mechanism is presently the principal avenue 14 within the UNFCCC for facilitating cooperation on the development and transfer of climate 15 technologies to developing countries (UNFCCC 2015b). As discussed in Section 14.3.2.9 above, the 16 Paris Agreement tasks the Technology Mechanism also to serve the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015b, 17 Art. 10.3). 18 The Technology Mechanism consists of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) (replacing the 19 EGTT), as its policy arm, and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), as its 20 implementation arm (UNFCCC 2015b). The TEC focuses on identifying and recommending policies 21 that can support countries in enhancing and accelerating the development and transfer of climate 22 technologies (UNFCCC 2020b). The CTCN facilitates the transfer of technologies through three core 23 services: (1) providing technical assistance at the request of developing countries; (2) creating access 24 to information and knowledge on climate technologies; and (3) fostering collaboration and capacity- 25 building (CTCN 2020a). The CTCN ‘network’ consists of a diverse set of climate technology 26 stakeholders from academic, finance, non-government, private sector, public sector, and research 27 entities, together with more than 150 National Designated Entities, which serve as CTCN national focal 28 points. Through its network, the CTCN seeks to mobilise policy and technical expertise to deliver 29 technology solutions, capacity-building and implementation advice to developing countries (CTCN 30 2020b). At the Katowice UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in 2018, the TEC and CTCN were 31 requested to incorporate the technology framework developed pursuant to Article 10 of the Paris 32 Agreement into their respective workplans and programmes of work (UNFCCC 2019f). 33 The Joint Annual Report of the TEC and CTCN for 2019 indicated that, as of July 2019, the CTCN had 34 engaged with 93 developing country parties regarding a total of 273 requests for technical assistance, 35 including 11 multi-country requests. Nearly three-quarters (72.9%) of requests received by the CTCN 36 had a mitigation component, with two-thirds of those mitigation requests related to either renewable 37 energy or energy efficiency. Requests for decision-making or information tools are received most 38 frequently (28% of requests), followed by requests for technology feasibility studies (20%) and 39 technology identification and prioritisation (18%) (TEC and CTCN 2019). 40 The CTCN is presently funded from ‘various sources, ranging from the [UNFCCC] Financial 41 Mechanism to philanthropic and private sector sources, as well as by financial and in-kind contributions 42 from the co-hosts of the CTCN and from participants in the Network’ (TEC and CTCN 2019, para. 97). 43 Oh (2020b) describes the institution as ‘mainly financially dependent on bilateral donations from 44 developed countries and multilateral support’. Nevertheless, inadequate funding of the CTCN poses a 45 problem for its effectiveness and capacity to contribute to implementation of the Paris Agreement. A 46 2017 independent review of the CTCN identified ‘limited availability of funding’ as a key constraint 47 on its ability to deliver services at the expected level and recommended that ‘[b]etter predictability and 48 security over financial resources will ensure that the CTCN can continue to successfully respond to its Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-52 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 COP mandate and the needs and expectations of developing countries’ (Ernst & Young 2017, para. 84). 2 The 2019 Joint Report of the TEC and CTCN indicates that resource mobilisation for the Network 3 remains a challenge (TEC and CTCN 2019, pp. 23-24). 4 The importance of ‘financial support’ for strengthening cooperative action on technology development 5 and transfer was recognised in Article 10.6 of the Paris Agreement. The technology framework 6 established by the Paris Rulebook specifies actions and activities relating to the thematic area of 7 ‘support’ as including: (a) enhancing the collaboration of the Technology Mechanism with the Financial 8 Mechanism; (b) identifying and promoting innovative finance and investment at different stages of the 9 technology cycle; (c) providing enhanced technical support to developing country parties, in a country- 10 driven manner, and facilitating their access to financing for innovation, enabling environments and 11 capacity-building, developing and implementing the results of TNAs, and engagement and 12 collaboration with stakeholders, including organisational and institutional support; and (d) enhancing 13 the mobilisation of various types of support, including pro bono and in-kind support, from various 14 sources for the implementation of actions and activities under each key theme of the technology 15 framework. 16 Notwithstanding the technology framework’s directive for enhanced collaboration of the Technology 17 and Financial Mechanisms of the UNFCCC, linkages between them, and particularly to the GCF, 18 continue to engender political contestation between developing and developed countries (Oh 2020b). 19 Developing countries sought to address concerns over the unsustainable funding status of the CTCN by 20 advocating linkage through a funding arrangement or financial linkage, whereas developed countries 21 favour the design of an institutional linkage maintaining the different and separate mandates of the 22 CTCN and the GCF (Oh 2020a,b). With no resolution reached, the UNFCCC COP requested the 23 Subsidiary Body for Implementation, at its fifty-third session, to take stock of progress in strengthening 24 the linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism with a view to 25 recommending a draft decision for consideration and adoption by the Glasgow COP, scheduled for 2021 26 (UNFCCC 2019l). 27 28 14.4.3 Capacity Building 29 International climate cooperation has long focused on supporting developing countries in building 30 capacity to implement climate mitigation actions. While there is no universally agreed definition of 31 capacity-building and the UNFCCC does not define the term (Khan et al. 2020), elements of capacity- 32 building can be discerned from the Convention’s provisions on education and training programmes 33 (UNFCCC 1992, Art. 6), as well as the reference in Article 9(2)(d) of the UNFCCC to the Subsidiary 34 Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) providing support for ‘endogenous capacity- 35 building in developing countries.’ 36 Capacity-building is generally conceived as taking place at three levels: individual (focused on 37 knowledge, skills and training), organisational/institutional (focusing on organisational performance 38 and institutional cooperation) and systemic (creating enabling environments through regulatory and 39 economic policies (Khan et al. 2020; UNFCCC 2021b). In its annual synthesis report for 2018, the 40 UNFCCC secretariat compiled information submitted by parties on the implementation of capacity- 41 building in developing countries, highlighting cooperative and regional activities on NDCs, including 42 projects to build capacity for implementation, workshops related to transparency under the Paris 43 Agreement and collaboration to provide coaching and training (UNFCCC 2019h). A number of 44 developing country Parties also highlighted their contributions to South–South cooperation (discussed 45 further in Section 14.5.1.4 below), and identified capacity-building projects undertaken with others (e.g. 46 capacity-building for risk management in Latin America and the Caribbean, improving capacity for Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-53 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) through the Alliance of the Pacific and a climate action 2 package launched by Singapore). 3 Beyond the UNFCCC, other climate cooperation and partnership activities on capacity building include 4 climate-related bilateral cooperation and those organised by the OECD, IFDD (Francophonie Institute 5 for Sustainable Development), UNDP-NCSP programme, UNEP and the World Bank. 6 Climate-related bilateral cooperation provides important human and institutional capacity building 7 supports for climate change actions and activities in developing countries, particularly through 8 developed countries’ bilateral cooperation structures, such as the French Development Agency (AFD), 9 the German Development Agency (The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – 10 GIZ), the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and others. 11 There are also a number of regional cooperative structures with capacity-building components, 12 including ClimaSouth, Euroclima+, the UN-REDD Programme, the Caribbean Regional Strategic 13 Programme for Resilience, the Caribbean Climate Online Risk and Adaptation Tool, a project on 14 accelerating low carbon and resilient society realisation in the Southeast Asian region, the World Health 15 Organisation’s Global Salm-Surv network, the Red Iberoamericana de Oficinas de Cambio Climático 16 network and the Africa Adaptation Initiative. Many climate-related capacity-building initiatives, 17 including those coordinated or funded by international or regional institutions, are implemented at the 18 national and sub-national level, often with the involvement of universities, consultancy groups and civil 19 society actors. 20 It is also noted that comprehensive support is provided by the GCF to developing countries (GCF, 21 2020). This support is made available and accessible for all developing countries through three different 22 GCF tools: the Readiness Programme, the Project Preparation Facility, and the funding of 23 transformative projects and programmes. The goal of the Readiness Programme is to strengthen 24 institutional capacities, governance mechanisms, and planning and programming competencies in 25 support of developing countries’ transformational long-term climate policies (GCF, 2020). Despite a 26 decades-long process of capacity-building efforts under many development and environmental regimes, 27 including the UNFCCC, progress has been uneven and largely unsuccessful in establishing institution- 28 based capacity in developing countries (Robinson 2018). In an effort to improve capacity-building 29 efforts within the UNFCCC, in 2015, the Paris Committee on Capacity-building (PCCB) was 30 established by the COP decision accompanying the Paris Agreement as the primary body for enhancing 31 capacity-building efforts, including by improving coherence and coordination in capacity-building 32 activities (UNFCCC 2016a, para. 71). The activities of the Committee include the provision of guidance 33 and technical support on climate change training and capacity building, raising awareness and sharing 34 climate information and knowledge. During 2020, the PCCB was able, despite the Covid-19 situation, 35 to hold its 4th meeting, implement and assess its 2017-2020 work plan, and develop and agree on its 36 future roadmap (2021-2024) (UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation 2020). Non-governmental 37 organisations such as the Coalition on Paris Agreement Capacity-building provide expert input to the 38 PCCB. 39 Quantifying the contribution of capacity-building efforts to climate mitigation is acknowledged to be 40 ‘difficult, if not impossible’ (Hsu et al. 2019a). Nonetheless, such activities ‘may play a valuable role 41 in building a foundation for future reductions’ by providing ‘necessary catalytic linkages between 42 actors’ (Hsu et al. 2019a). 43 44 14.4.4 Cooperative mechanisms and markets 45 In theory, trading carbon assets can reduce the costs of global climate mitigation, by helping facilitate 46 abatement of greenhouse gases at least-cost locations. This could help countries ratchet up their Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-54 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 ambitions more than in a situation without such mechanisms (Mehling et al. 2018), particularly if 2 mechanisms are scaled up from projects and programmes (Michaelowa et al. 2019b). Progress as to 3 developing such mechanisms has however so far been moderate and uneven. 4 Of the three international market-based mechanisms under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol discussed in 5 Section 14.3.2.7, and in previous IPCC reports, only the CDM or a similar mechanism may have a role 6 to play under the Paris Agreement, although the precise terms are yet to be decided. 7 Article 6, also discussed in Section 14.3.2.7, is the main framework to foster enhanced cooperation 8 within the Paris Agreement. Although there is an emerging global landscape of activities based on 9 Article 6 (Greiner et al. 2020), such as the bilateral treaty signed under the framework of Article 6 in 10 October 2020 by Switzerland and Peru, the possibilities of bilateral cooperation are yet to be fully 11 exploited. As discussed above, adequate accounting rules are key to the success of Article 6. Sectoral 12 agreements are also a promising cooperative mechanism, as discussed in Section 14.5.2. In fact, both 13 bilateral and sectoral agreements have the potential to enhance the ambition of the parties involved and 14 can eventually serve as building blocks towards more comprehensive agreements (see the discussion in 15 Section 14.2.2). 16 A relevant and promising new development is the international linkage of existing regional or national 17 emission trading systems. Several emission trading systems are now operational in different 18 jurisdictions, including the EU, Switzerland, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Kazakhstan and several 19 US states and Canadian provinces (Wettestad and Gulbrandsen 2018). More systems are in the pipeline, 20 including Mexico and Thailand (ICAP 2019). The link between the EU and Switzerland entered into 21 force in January 2020 and other linkages are being negotiated. Scholars analyse the potential benefits 22 of these multilateral linkages and demonstrate that these can be significant (Doda et al. 2019; Doda and 23 Taschini 2017). Over time, the linkages of national emission trading systems can be seen as building 24 blocks to a strategic enlargement of international cooperation (Caparrós and Péreau 2017; Mehling 25 2019). The World Bank has emerged as an important lynchpin and facilitator of knowledge-building 26 and sharing of lessons about the design and linking of carbon markets, through initiatives such as the 27 Partnership for Market Readiness, Networked Carbon Markets and the Carbon Pricing Leadership 28 Coalition (Wettestad et al. 2021). 29 However, it is important to distinguish between theory and practice. The practice of ETS linking so far 30 demonstrates a few attempts that did not result in linkages due to shifts of governments and political 31 preferences (for instance the process between the EU and Australia, and Ontario withdrawing from the 32 WCI) (Bailey and Inderberg 2018). It is worth noting that the linking of carbon markets raises problems 33 of distribution of costs and loss of political control and hence does not offer a politically easy alternative 34 route to a truly international carbon market. Careful, piece-meal and incremental linking may be the 35 most feasible approach forward (Green et al. 2014; Gulbrandsen et al. 2019). It is premature for any 36 serious assessment of the practice of ETS linking to be conducted. Environmental effectiveness, 37 transformative potential, economic performance, institutional strength and even distributional outcomes 38 can potentially be significant and positive if linking is done carefully (Doda and Taschini 2017; Mehling 39 et al. 2018; Doda et al. 2019), but are all marginal if one focuses on existing experiences (Haites 2016; 40 Schneider et al. 2017; Spalding-Fecher et al. 2012; La Hoz Theuer et al. 2019; Schneider et al. 2019). 41 42 14.4.5 International Governance of SRM and CDR 43 While Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) were often referred 44 to as ‘geoengineering’ in earlier IPCC reports and in the literature, IPCC SR1.5 started to explore SRM 45 and CDR more thoroughly and to highlight the differences between – but also within – both approaches 46 more clearly. This section assesses international governance of both SRM and CDR, recognizing that 47 CDR, as a mitigation option, is covered elsewhere in this report, whereas SRM is not. Chapter 12 of Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-55 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 this report covers the emerging national, sub-national and non-state governance of CDR, while chapters 2 6, 7 and 12 also assess the mitigation potential, risks and co-benefits of some CDR options. Chapters 4 3 and 5 of the WGI Report assess the physical climate system and biogeochemical responses to different 4 SRM and CDR methods. The Cross Working Group Box 5 on SRM (WGII, Chapter 16 and Cross- 5 Working Group Box 4 in WGIII below) gives a brief overview of solar radiation modification methods, 6 risks, benefits, ethics and governance. 7 8 9 START CROSS-WORKING GROUP BOX 4 HERE 10 11 Cross-Working Group Box in WGII and Cross-Working Group Box 4 in WGIII 12 13 Cross-Working Group Box 4: Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) 14 Authors: Govindasamy Bala (India), Heleen de Coninck (the Netherlands), Oliver Geden (Germany), 15 Veronika Ginzburg (the Russian Federation), Katharine J. Mach (the United States of America), 16 Anthony Patt (Switzerland), Sonia I. Seneviratne (Switzerland), Masahiro Sugiyama (Japan), 17 Christopher H. Trisos (Republic of South Africa), Maarten van Aalst (the Netherlands) 18 Proposed Solar Radiation Modification Schemes 19 This cross-working group box assesses Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) proposals, their potential 20 contribution to reducing or increasing climate risk, as well as other risks they may pose (categorised as 21 risks from responses to climate change in the IPCC AR6 risk definition in 1.2.1.1), and related 22 perception, ethics and governance questions. 23 SRM refers to proposals to increase the reflection of shortwave radiation (sunlight) back to space to 24 counteract anthropogenic warming and some of its harmful impacts (de Coninck et al. 2018) (Cross- 25 Working Group Box 4; WGI Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). A number of SRM options have been proposed, 26 including: Stratospheric Aerosol Interventions (SAI), Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), Ground- 27 Based Albedo Modifications (GBAM), and Ocean Albedo Change (OAC). Although not strictly a form 28 of SRM, Cirrus Cloud Thinning (CCT) has been proposed to cool the planet by increasing the escape 29 of longwave thermal radiation to space and is included here for consistency with previous assessments 30 (de Coninck et al. 2018). SAI is the most-researched proposal. Modeling studies show SRM could 31 reduce surface temperatures and potentially ameliorate some climate change risks (with more 32 confidence for SAI than other options), but SRM could also introduce a range of new risks. 33 There is high agreement in the literature that for addressing climate change risks SRM cannot be the 34 main policy response to climate change and is, at best, a supplement to achieving sustained net zero or 35 net negative CO2 emission levels globally (de Coninck et al. 2018; MacMartin et al. 2018; Buck et al. 36 2020; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medecine 2021). SRM contrasts with climate 37 change mitigation activities, such as emission reductions and CDR, as it introduces a ‘mask’ to the 38 climate change problem by altering the Earth’s radiation budget, rather than attempting to address the 39 root cause of the problem, which is the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. In addition, the effects of 40 proposed SRM options would only last as long as a deployment is maintained— e.g. requiring ca. yearly 41 injection of aerosols in the case of SAI as the lifetime of aerosols in the stratosphere is 1-3 years 42 (Niemeier et al. 2011) or continuous spraying of sea salt in the case of MCB as the lifetime of sea salt 43 aerosols in the atmosphere is only about 10 days—which contrasts with the long lifetime of CO2 and 44 its climate effects, with global warming resulting from CO2 emissions likely remaining at a similar level 45 for a hundred years or more (MacDougall et al. 2020) and long-term climate effects of emitted CO2 46 remaining for several hundreds to thousands of years (Solomon et al. 2009). 47 Which scenarios? Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-56 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 The choice of SRM deployment scenarios and reference scenarios is crucial in assessment of SRM risks 2 and its effectiveness in attenuating climate change risks (Keith and MacMartin 2015; Honegger et al. 3 2021a). Most climate model simulations have used scenarios with highly stylized large SRM forcing to 4 fully counteract large amounts of warming in order to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio of climate 5 responses to SRM (Kravitz et al. 2015; Sugiyama et al. 2018a; Krishnamohan et al. 2019). 6 The effects of SRM fundamentally depend on a variety of choices about deployment (Sugiyama et al. 7 2018b), including: its position in the portfolio of human responses to climate change (e.g., the 8 magnitude of SRM used against the background radiative forcing), governance of research and potential 9 deployment strategies, and technical details (latitude, materials, and season, among others, see WGI 10 Chapter 4.6.3.3). The plausibility of many SRM scenarios is highly contested and not all scenarios are 11 equally plausible because of socio-political considerations (Talberg et al. 2018), as with, for example, 12 CDR (Fuss et al. 2014, 2018). Development of scenarios and their selection in assessments should 13 reflect a diverse set of societal values with public and stakeholder inputs (Sugiyama et al. 2018a; Low 14 and Honegger 2020), as depending on the focus of a limited climate model simulation, SRM could look 15 grossly risky or highly beneficial (Pereira et al. 2021). 16 In the context of reaching the long-term global temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, there are 17 different hypothetical scenarios of SRM deployment: early, substantial mitigation with no SRM, more 18 limited or delayed mitigation with moderate SRM, unchecked emissions with total reliance on SRM, 19 and regionally heterogeneous SRM. Each scenario presents different levels and distributions of SRM 20 benefits, side effects, and risks. The more intense the SRM deployment, the larger is the likelihood for 21 the risks of side effects and environmental risks (e.g., Heutel et al., 2018). Regional disparities in climate 22 hazards may result from both regionally-deployed SRM options such as GBAM, and more globally 23 uniform SRM such as SAI (Jones et al. 2018; Seneviratne et al. 2018). There is an emerging literature 24 on smaller forcings of SAI to reduce global average warming, for instance, to hold global warming to 25 1.5°C or 2°C alongside ambitious conventional mitigation (Jones et al. 2018; MacMartin et al. 2018), 26 or bring down temperature after an overshoot (Tilmes et al. 2020). If emissions reductions and CDR 27 are deemed insufficient, SRM may be seen by some as the only option left to ensure the achievement 28 of the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal by 2100. 29 Cross-Working Group Box 4, Table 1: SRM options and their potential climate and non-climate impacts. 30 Description, potential climate impacts, potential impacts on human and natural systems, and termination 31 effects of a number of SRM options: Stratospheric Aerosol Interventions (SAI), Marine Cloud 32 Brightening (MCB), Ocean Albedo Change (OAC), Ground-Based Albedo Modifications (GBAM), and 33 Cirrus Cloud Thinning (CCT). 34 SRM option SAI MCB OAC GBAM CCT Description Injection of Spraying sea Increase Whitening roofs, Seeding to reflective salt or other surface changes in land promote aerosol particles in albedo of the use management nucleation of particles marine clouds, ocean (e.g., (e.g., no-till cirrus clouds, directly into making them by creating farming, reducing the stratosphere more reflective microbubbles bioengineering to optical or a gas which or placing make crop leaves thickness and then reflective more reflective), cloud lifetime converts to foam on the desert albedo to allow more aerosols that surface) enhancement, outgoing reflect sunlight covering glaciers longwave with reflective radiation to sheeting escape to space Potential climate Change Change in Change in Changes in Changes in impacts other precipitation land-sea land-sea regional temperature and runoff contrast in contrast in precipitation and Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-57 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII than reduced pattern; temperature temperature pattern, regional precipitation warming reduced and and extremes and pattern, temperature precipitation, precipitation, regional altered and regional regional , circulation regional water precipitation precipitation precipitation cycle, increase extremes; and runoff and runoff in sunlight precipitation changes changes. reaching the reduction in surface some monsoon regions; decrease in direct and increase in diffuse sunlight at surface; changes to stratospheric dynamics and chemistry; potential delay in ozone hole recovery; changes in surface ozone and UV radiation Potential Changes in Changes in Altered impacts on crop yields, regional ocean Unresearched photosynthesis, Altered human and changes in land productivity, carbon uptake and photosynthesis natural systems and ocean changes in side effects on and carbon ecosystem crop yields, biodiversity uptake productivity, reduced heat acid rain (if stress for using corals, changes sulphate), in ecosystem reduced risk of productivity on heat stress to land, sea salt corals deposition over land Termination Sudden and Sudden and Sudden and GBAM can be Sudden and effects sustained sustained sustained maintained over sustained termination termination termination several years termination would result in would result in would result without major would result rapid warming, rapid warming, in rapid termination effects in rapid and abrupt and abrupt warming. because of its warming. changes to changes to Magnitude of regional scale of Magnitude of water cycle. water cycle. termination application. termination Magnitude of Magnitude of depends on Magnitude of depends on termination termination the degree of termination the degree of depends on the depends on the warming depends on the warming degree of degree of offset. degree of offset. warming warming warming offset. offset. offset. References (also (Visioni et al. Latham et al. Evans et al. Davin et al. Storelvmo and see main text of 2017) (2012) (2010) (2014) Herger (2014) this box) Tilmes et al. Ahlm et al. Crook et al. Crook et al. (2018) (2017) (2015) (2015) Crook et al. Simpson et al. Stjern et al. Zhang et al. (2015) (2019) (2018) (2016) Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-58 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII Field et al. (2018) Jackson et al. Seneviratne et al. (2016) (2018) Duan et al. (2020) Gasparini et al. (2020) 1 2 SRM risks to human and natural systems and potential for risk reduction 3 Since AR5, hundreds of climate modelling studies have simulated effects of SRM on climate hazards 4 (Kravitz et al. 2015; Tilmes et al. 2018). Modelling studies have shown SRM has the potential to offset 5 some effects of increasing GHGs on global and regional climate, including the increase in frequency 6 and intensity of extremes of temperature and precipitation, melting of Arctic sea ice and mountain 7 glaciers, weakening of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, changes in frequency and intensity 8 of tropical cyclones, and decrease in soil moisture (WGI, Chapter 4). However, while SRM may be 9 effective in alleviating anthropogenic climate warming either locally or globally, it would not maintain 10 the climate in a present-day state nor return the climate to a pre-industrial state (climate averaged over 11 1850-1900, See WGI Chapter 1, Box 1.2) in all regions and in all seasons even when used to fully offset 12 the global mean warming (high confidence); WGI Chapter 4}. This is because the climate forcing and 13 response to SRM options are different from the forcing and response to GHG increase. Because of these 14 differences in climate forcing and response patterns, the regional and seasonal climates of a world with 15 a global mean warming of 1.5 or 2°C achieved via SRM would be different from a world with similar 16 global mean warming but achieved through mitigation (MacMartin et al. 2018). At the regional scale 17 and seasonal timescale there could be considerable residual climate change and/or overcompensating 18 change (e.g., more cooling, wetting or drying than just what’s needed to offset warming, drying or 19 wetting due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions), and there is low confidence in understanding 20 of the climate response to SRM at the regional scale (WGI, Chapter 4). 21 SAI implemented to partially offset warming (e.g., offsetting half of global warming) may have 22 potential to ameliorate hazards in multiple regions and reduce negative residual change, such as drying 23 compared to present-day climate, that are associated with fully offsetting global mean warming (Irvine 24 and Keith 2020), but may also increase flood and drought risk in Europe compared to unmitigated 25 warming (Jones et al. 2021). Recent modelling studies suggest it is conceptually possible to meet 26 multiple climate objectives through optimally designed SRM strategies (WGI, Chapter 4). Nevertheless, 27 large uncertainties still exist for climate processes associated with SRM options (e.g. aerosol-cloud- 28 radiation interaction) (WGI, Chapter 4) (Kravitz and MacMartin 2020). 29 Compared with climate hazards, many fewer studies have examined SRM risks—the potential adverse 30 consequences to people and ecosystems from the combination of climate hazards, exposure and 31 vulnerability—or the potential for SRM to reduce risk (Curry et al. 2014; Irvine et al. 2017). Risk 32 analyses have often used inputs from climate models forced with stylized representations of SRM, such 33 as dimming the sun. Fewer have used inputs from climate models that explicitly simulated injection of 34 gases or aerosols into the atmosphere, which include more complex cloud-radiative feedbacks. Most 35 studies have used scenarios where SAI is deployed to hold average global temperature constant despite 36 high emissions. 37 There is low confidence and large uncertainty in projected impacts of SRM on crop yields due in part 38 to a limited number of studies. Because SRM would result in only a slight reduction in CO2 39 concentrations relative to the emission scenario without SRM (Chapter 5, WGI), the CO2 fertilization 40 effect on plant productivity is nearly the same in emissions scenarios with and without SRM. 41 Nevertheless, changes in climate due to SRM are likely to have some impacts on crop yields. A single Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-59 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 study indicates MCB may reduce crop failure rates compared to climate change from a doubling of CO2 2 pre-industrial concentrations (Parkes et al. 2015). Models suggest SAI cooling would reduce crop 3 productivity at higher latitudes compared to a scenario without SRM by reducing the growing season 4 length, but benefit crop productivity in lower latitudes by reducing heat stress (Pongratz et al. 2012; Xia 5 et al. 2014; Zhan et al. 2019). Crop productivity is also projected to be reduced where SAI reduces 6 rainfall relative to the scenario without SRM, including a case where reduced Asian summer monsoon 7 rainfall causes a reduction in groundnut yields (Xia et al. 2014; Yang et al. 2016). SAI will increase the 8 fraction of diffuse sunlight, which is projected to increase photosynthesis in forested canopy, but will 9 reduce the direct and total available sunlight, which tends to reduce photosynthesis. As total sunlight is 10 reduced, there is a net reduction in crop photosynthesis with the result that any benefits to crops from 11 avoided heat stress may be offset by reduced photosynthesis, as indicated by a single statistical 12 modeling study (Proctor et al. 2018). SAI would reduce average surface ozone concentration (Xia et al. 13 2017) mainly as a result of aerosol-induced reduction in stratospheric ozone in polar regions, resulting 14 in reduced downward transport of ozone to the troposphere (Pitari et al. 2014; Tilmes et al. 2018). The 15 reduction in stratospheric ozone also allows more UV radiation to reach the surface. The reduction in 16 surface ozone, together with an increase in surface UV radiation, would have important implications 17 for crop yields but there is low confidence in our understanding of the net impact. 18 Few studies have assessed potential SRM impacts on human health and wellbeing. SAI using sulfate 19 aerosols is projected to deplete the ozone layer, increasing mortality from skin cancer, and SAI could 20 increase particulate matter due to offsetting warming, reduced precipitation and deposition of SAI 21 aerosols, which would increase mortality, but SAI also reduces surface-level ozone exposure, which 22 would reduce mortality from air pollution, with net changes in mortality uncertain and depending on 23 aerosol type and deployment scenario (Effiong and Neitzel 2016; Eastham et al. 2018; Dai et al. 2020). 24 However, these effects may be small compared to changes in risk from infectious disease (e.g., 25 mosquito-borne illnesses) or food security due to SRM influences on climate (Carlson et al. 2020). 26 Using volcanic eruptions as a natural analog, a sudden implementation of SAI that forced the ENSO 27 system may increase risk of severe cholera outbreaks in Bengal (Trisos et al. 2018; Pinke et al. 2019). 28 Considering only mean annual temperature and precipitation, SAI that stabilizes global temperature at 29 its present-day level is projected to reduce income inequality between countries compared to the highest 30 warming pathway (RCP8.5) (Harding et al. 2020). Some integrated assessment model scenarios have 31 included SAI (Arino et al. 2016; Emmerling and Tavoni 2018; Heutel et al. 2018; Helwegen et al. 2019; 32 Rickels et al. 2020) showing the indirect costs and benefits to welfare dominate, since the direct 33 economic cost of SAI itself is expected to be relatively low (Moriyama et al. 2017; Smith and Wagner 34 2018). There is a general lack of research on the wide scope of potential risk or risk reduction to human 35 health, wellbeing and sustainable development from SRM and on their distribution across countries and 36 vulnerable groups (Carlson et al. 2020; Honegger et al. 2021a). 37 SRM may also introduce novel risks for international collaboration and peace. Conflicting temperature 38 preferences between countries may lead to counter-geoengineering measures such as deliberate release 39 of warming agents or destruction of deployment equipment (Parker et al. 2018). Game-theoretic models 40 and laboratory experiments indicate a powerful actor or group with a higher preference for SRM may 41 use SAI to cool the planet beyond what is socially optimal, imposing welfare losses on others although 42 this cooling does not necessarily imply excluded countries would be worse off relative to a world of 43 unmitigated warming (Ricke et al. 2013; Weitzman 2015; Abatayo et al. 2020). In this context counter- 44 geoengineering may promote international cooperation or lead to large welfare losses (Helwegen et al. 45 2019; Abatayo et al. 2020). 46 Cooling caused by SRM would increase the global land and ocean CO2 sinks (medium confidence), but 47 this would not stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere or affect the resulting ocean acidification 48 under continued anthropogenic emissions (high confidence) (WGI Chapter 5). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-60 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Few studies have assessed potential SRM impacts on ecosystems. SAI and MCB may reduce risk of 2 coral reef bleaching compared to global warming with no SAI (Latham et al. 2013; Kwiatkowski et al. 3 2015), but risks to marine life from ocean acidification would remain, because SRM proposals do not 4 reduce elevated levels of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 concentrations. MCB could cause changes in 5 marine net primary productivity by reducing light availability in deployment regions, with important 6 fishing regions off the west coast of South America showing both large increases and decreases in 7 productivity (Partanen et al. 2016; Keller 2018). 8 There is large uncertainty in terrestrial ecosystem responses to SRM. By decoupling increases in 9 atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature, SAI could generate substantial impacts on 10 large-scale biogeochemical cycles, with feedbacks to regional and global climate variability and change 11 (Zarnetske et al. 2021). Compared to a high CO2 world without SRM, global-scale SRM simulations 12 indicate reducing heat stress in low latitudes would increase plant productivity, but cooling would also 13 slow down the process of nitrogen mineralization which could decrease plant productivity (Glienke et 14 al. 2015; Duan et al. 2020). In high latitude and polar regions SRM may limit vegetation growth 15 compared to a high CO2 world without SRM, but net primary productivity may still be higher than pre- 16 industrial climate (Glienke et al. 2015). Tropical forests cycle more carbon and water than other 17 terrestrial biomes but large areas of the tropics may tip between savanna and tropical forest depending 18 on rainfall and fire (Beer et al. 2010; Staver et al. 2011). Thus, SAI-induced reductions in precipitation 19 in Amazonia and central Africa are expected to change the biogeography of tropical ecosystems in ways 20 different both from present-day climate and global warming without SAI (Simpson et al. 2019; 21 Zarnetske et al. 2021). This would have potentially large consequences for ecosystem services (Chapter 22 2 and Chapter 9). When designing and evaluating SAI scenarios, biome-specific responses need to be 23 considered if SAI approaches are to benefit rather than harm ecosystems. Regional precipitation change 24 and sea salt deposition over land from MCB may increase or decrease primary productivity in tropical 25 rainforests (Muri et al. 2015). SRM that fully offsets warming could reduce the dispersal velocity 26 required for species to track shifting temperature niches whereas partially offsetting warming with SAI 27 would not reduce this risk unless rates of warming were also reduced (Trisos et al. 2018; Dagon and 28 Schrag 2019). SAI may reduce high fire risk weather in Australia, Europe and parts of the Americas, 29 compared to global warming without SAI (Burton et al. 2018). Yet SAI using sulfur injection could 30 shift the spatial distribution of acid-induced aluminum soil toxicity into relatively undisturbed 31 ecosystems in Europe and North America (Visioni et al. 2020). For the same amount of global mean 32 cooling, SAI, MCB, and CCT would have different effects on gross and net primary productivity 33 because of different spatial patterns of temperature, available sunlight, and hydrological cycle changes 34 (Duan et al. 2020). Large-scale modification of land surfaces for GBAM may have strong trade-offs 35 with biodiversity and other ecosystem services, including food security (Seneviratne et al. 2018). 36 Although existing studies indicate SRM will have widespread impacts on ecosystems, risks and 37 potential for risk reduction for marine and terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity remain largely 38 unknown. 39 A sudden and sustained termination of SRM in a high CO2 emissions scenario would cause rapid climate 40 change (high confidence; WGI Chapter 4). More scenario analysis is needed on the potential likelihood 41 of sudden termination (Kosugi 2013; Irvine and Keith 2020). A gradual phase-out of SRM combined 42 with emission reduction and CDR could avoid these termination effects (medium confidence) 43 (MacMartin et al. 2014; Keith and MacMartin 2015; Tilmes et al. 2016). Several studies find that large 44 and extremely rapid warming and abrupt changes to the water cycle would occur within a decade if a 45 sudden termination of SAI occurred (McCusker et al. 2014; Crook et al. 2015). The size of this 46 ‘termination shock’ is proportional to the amount of radiative forcing being masked by SAI. A sudden 47 termination of SAI could place many thousands of species at risk of extinction, because the resulting 48 rapid warming would be too fast for species to track the changing climate (Trisos et al. 2018). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-61 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Public perceptions of SRM 2 Studies on the public perception of SRM have used multiple methods: questionnaire surveys, 3 workshops, and focus group interviews (Burns et al. 2016; Cummings et al. 2017). Most studies have 4 been limited to Western societies with some exceptions. Studies have repeatedly found that respondents 5 are largely unaware of SRM (Merk et al. 2015). In the context of this general lack of familiarity, the 6 publics prefer carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to SRM (Pidgeon et al. 2012), are very cautious about 7 SRM deployment because of potential environmental side effects and governance concerns, and mostly 8 reject deployment for the foreseeable future. Studies also suggest conditional and reluctant support for 9 research, including proposed field experiments, with conditions of proper governance (Sugiyama et al. 10 2020). Recent studies show that the perception varies with the intensity of deliberation (Merk et al. 11 2019), and that the public distinguishes different funding sources (Nelson et al. 2021). Limited studies 12 for developing countries show a tendency for respondents to be more open to SRM (Visschers et al. 13 2017; Sugiyama et al. 2020), perhaps because they experience climate change more directly (Carr and 14 Yung 2018). In some Anglophone countries, a small portion of the public believes in chemtrail 15 conspiracy theories, which are easily found in social media (Tingley and Wagner 2017; Allgaier 2019). 16 Since researchers rarely distinguish different SRM options in engagement studies, there remains 17 uncertainty in public perception. 18 Ethics 19 There is broad literature on ethical considerations around SRM, mainly stemming from philosophy or 20 political theory, and mainly focused on SAI (Flegal et al. 2019). There is concern that publicly debating, 21 researching and potentially deploying SAI could involve a ‘moral hazard’, with potential to obstruct 22 ongoing and future mitigation efforts (Morrow 2014; Baatz 2016; McLaren 2016), while empirical 23 evidence is limited and mostly at the individual, not societal, level (Burns et al. 2016; Merk et al. 2016, 24 2019). There is low agreement whether research and outdoors experimentation will create a ‘slippery 25 slope’ toward eventual deployment, leading to a lock-in to long-term SRM, or can be effectively 26 regulated at a later stage to avoid undesirable outcomes (Hulme 2014; Parker 2014; Callies 2019; 27 McKinnon 2019). Regarding potential deployment of SRM, procedural, distributive and recognitional 28 conceptions of justice are being explored, (Svoboda and Irvine 2014; Svoboda 2017; Preston and Carr 29 2018; Hourdequin 2019). With the SRM research community’s increasing focus on distributional 30 impacts of SAI, researchers have started more explicitly considering inequality in participation and 31 inclusion of vulnerable countries and marginalized social groups (Flegal and Gupta 2018; Whyte 2018; 32 Táíwò and Talati 2021), including considering stopping research (Stephens and Surprise 2020; National 33 Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medecine 2021). There is recognition that SRM research has 34 been conducted predominantly by a relatively small number of experts in the Global North, and that 35 more can be done to enable participation from diverse peoples and geographies in setting research 36 agendas and research governance priorities, and undertaking research, with initial efforts to this effect 37 (e.g., Rahman et al. 2018), noting unequal power relations in participation could influence SRM 38 research governance and potential implications for policy (Winickoff et al. 2015; Frumhoff and 39 Stephens 2018; Whyte 2018; Biermann and Möller 2019; McLaren and Corry 2021; National 40 Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medecine 2021; Táíwò and Talati 2021). 41 Governance of research and of deployment 42 Currently, there is no dedicated, formal international SRM governance for research, development, 43 demonstration, or deployment (see WGIII Chapter 14). Some multilateral agreements—such as the UN 44 Convention on Biological Diversity or the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer— 45 indirectly and partially cover SRM, but none is comprehensive and the lack of robust and formal SRM 46 governance poses risks (Ricke et al. 2013; Talberg et al. 2018; Reynolds 2019a). While governance 47 objectives range broadly, from prohibition to enabling research and potentially deployment (Sugiyama 48 et al. 2018b; Gupta et al. 2020), there is agreement that SRM governance should cover all interacting Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-62 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 stages of research through to any potential, eventual deployment with rules, institutions, and norms 2 (Reynolds 2019b). Accordingly, governance arrangements are co-evolving with respective SRM 3 technologies across the interacting stages of research, development, demonstration, and—potentially— 4 deployment (Rayner et al. 2013; Parker 2014; Parson 2014). Stakeholders are developing governance 5 already in outdoors research; for example, for MCB and OAC experiments on the Great Barrier Reef 6 (McDonald et al. 2019). Co-evolution of governance and SRM research provides a chance for 7 responsibly developing SRM technologies with broader public participation and political legitimacy, 8 guarding against potential risks and harms relevant across a full range of scenarios, and ensuring that 9 SRM is considered only as a part of a broader portfolio of responses to climate change (Stilgoe 2015; 10 Nicholson et al. 2018). For SAI, large-scale outdoor experiments even with low radiative forcing could 11 be transboundary and those with deployment-scale radiative forcing may not be distinguished from 12 deployment, such that (MacMartin and Kravitz 2019) argue for continued reliance on modeling until a 13 decision on whether and how to deploy is made, with modeling helping governance development. For 14 further discussion of SRM governance see Chapter 14, WGIII. 15 END CROSS-WORKING GROUP BOX 4 HERE 16 17 14.4.5.1 Global governance of solar radiation modification and associated risks 18 Solar Radiation Modification, in the literature also referred to as ‘solar geoengineering’, refers to the 19 intentional modification of the Earth's shortwave radiative budget, such as by increasing the reflection 20 of sunlight back to space, with the aim of reducing warming. Several SRM options have been proposed, 21 including Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), Ground-Based 22 Albedo Modifications, and Ocean Albedo Change (OAC). SRM has been discussed as a potential 23 response option within a broader climate risk management strategy, as a supplement to emissions 24 reduction, carbon dioxide removal and adaptation (Crutzen 2006; Shepherd 2009; Caldeira and Bala 25 2017; Buck et al. 2020), for example as a temporary measure to slow the rate of warming (Keith and 26 MacMartin 2015) or address temperature overshoot (MacMartin et al. 2018; Tilmes et al. 2020). SRM 27 assessments of potential benefits and risks still primarily rely on modelling efforts and their underlying 28 scenario assumptions (Sugiyama et al. 2018a), for example in the context of the Geoengineering Model 29 Intercomparison Project GeoMIP6 (Kravitz et al. 2015). Recently, small-scale MCB and OAC 30 experiments started to take place on the Great Barrier Reef (McDonald et al. 2019). 31 Stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI) – the most researched SRM method – poses significant 32 international governance challenges since it could potentially be deployed uni- or minilaterally and alter 33 the global mean temperature much faster than any other climate policy measure, at comparatively low 34 direct costs (Parson 2014; Nicholson et al. 2018; Smith and Wagner 2018; Sugiyama et al. 2018b; 35 Reynolds 2019a). While being dependent on the design of deployment systems, both geophysical 36 benefits and adverse effects would potentially be unevenly distributed (WGI Chapter 4). Perceived local 37 harm could exacerbate geopolitical conflicts, not the least depending on which countries are part of a 38 deployment coalition (Maas and Scheffran 2012; Zürn and Schäfer 2013), but also because immediate 39 attribution of climatic impacts to detected SAI deployment would not be possible. Uncoordinated or 40 poorly researched deployment by a limited number of states, triggered by perceived climate 41 emergencies, could create international tensions (Corry 2017; Lederer and Kreuter 2018). An additional 42 risk is that of rapid temperature rise following an abrupt end of SAI activities (Parker and Irvine 2018; 43 Rabitz 2019). 44 While there is room for national and even sub-national governance of SAI – for example on research 45 (differentiating indoor from open-air) (Jinnah et al. 2018; Hubert 2020) and public engagement 46 (Bellamy and Lezaun 2017; Flegal et al. 2019) – international governance of SAI faces the challenge 47 that comprehensive institutional architectures designed too far in advance could prove either too 48 restrictive or too permissive in light of subsequent political, institutional, geophysical and technological 49 developments (Sugiyama et al. 2018a; Reynolds 2019a). Views on governance encompass a broad Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-63 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 range, from aiming to restrict to wanting to enable research and potentially deployment; in between 2 these poles, other suggest authors stress the operationalization of the precautionary approach: 3 preventing deployment until specific criteria regarding scientific consensus, impact assessments and 4 governance issues are met (Tedsen and Homann 2013; Wieding et al. 2020). Many scholars suggest 5 that governance arrangements ought to co-evolve with respective SRM technologies (Parker 2014), 6 including that it stay at least one step ahead of research, development, demonstration, and— 7 potentially—deployment (Rayner et al. 2013; Parson 2014). With the modelling community’s 8 increasing focus on showing that, and in what ways, SAI could help to minimise climate change impacts 9 in the Global South, the SRM governance literature has come to include considerations of how SAI 10 could contribute to global equity (Horton and Keith 2016; Flegal and Gupta 2018; Hourdequin 2018). 11 Given that risks and potential benefits of SRM proposals differ substantially and their large-scale 12 deployment is highly speculative, there is a wide array of concrete proposals for near-term anticipatory 13 or adaptive governance. Numerous authors suggest a wide range of governance principles; (Nicholson 14 et al. 2018) encapsulate most of these in suggesting a list of four: (1) Guard against potential risks and 15 harm; (2) Enable appropriate research and development of scientific knowledge; (3) Legitimise any 16 future research or policymaking through active and informed public and expert community engagement; 17 (4) Ensure that SRM is considered only as a part of a broader, mitigation-centred portfolio of responses 18 to climate change. Regarding international institutionalisation, options range from formal integration 19 into existing UN bodies like the UNFCCC (Nicholson et al. 2018) or the Convention on Biological 20 Diversity (CBD) (Bodle et al. 2014) to the creation of specific, but less formalised global fora (Parson 21 and Ernst 2013) to forms of club governance (Lloyd and Oppenheimer 2014; Bodansky 2013). Recent 22 years have also seen the emergence of transnational non-state actors focusing on SRM governance, 23 primarily expert networks and NGOs (Horton and Koremenos 2020). 24 Currently, there is no targeted international law relating to SRM, although some multilateral 25 agreements—such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention on the Law of the 26 Sea, the Environmental Modification Convention, or the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the 27 Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol—contain provisions applicable to SRM (Jinnah and Nicholson 28 2019; Bodansky 2013; Reynolds 2019a). 29 14.4.5.2 Carbon Dioxide removal 30 Carbon dioxide removal refers to a cluster of technologies, practices, and approaches that remove and 31 sequester carbon dioxide from the ocean and atmosphere and durably store it in geological, terrestrial, 32 or ocean reservoirs, or in products (see Table 12.6). In contrast to SRM, CDR does not necessarily 33 impose transboundary risks, except insofar as misleading accounting of its use and deployment could 34 give a false picture of countries’ overall mitigation efforts. CDR is clearly a form of climate change 35 mitigation, and as described in chapter 12 is needed to counterbalance residual GHG emissions that 36 may prove hard to abate (e.g., from industry, aviation or agriculture) in the context of reaching net zero 37 emissions both globally – in the context of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement – and nationally. CDR 38 could also later be used for reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by providing net negative 39 emissions on the global level (Fuglestvedt et al. 2018; Bellamy and Geden 2019). Despite the common 40 feature of removing carbon dioxide, technologies like afforestation/reforestation, soil carbon 41 sequestration, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture with carbon 42 storage, enhanced weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement or ocean fertilisation are very different, as 43 are the governance challenges. Chapter 12 highlights the sustainable development risks associated with 44 land and water use that are connected to the biological approaches to CDR. As a public good which 45 largely lacks incentives to be pursued as a business case, most types of CDR require a suite of dedicated 46 policy instruments that address both near-term needs as well as long-term continuity at scale (Honegger 47 et al. 2021b). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-64 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 CDR methods other than afforestation/reforestation and soil carbon sequestration have only played a 2 minor role in UNFCCC negotiations so far (Fridahl 2017; Rumpel et al. 2020). To accelerate, and indeed 3 better manage CDR globally, stringent rules and practices regarding emissions accounting, MRV and 4 project-based market mechanisms have been proposed (Honegger and Reiner 2018; Mace et al. 2018). 5 Given their historic responsibility, it can be expected that developed countries would carry the main 6 burden of researching, developing, demonstrating and deploying CDR, or finance such projects in other 7 countries (Pozo et al. 2020; Fyson et al. 2020). McLaren et al. (2019) suggest that there is a rationale 8 for separating the international commitments for net negative emissions from those for emission 9 reductions. 10 Specific regulations CDR options have been limited to those posing transboundary risks, namely the 11 use of ocean fertilization. In a series of separate decisions from 2008 - 13, the London Convention / 12 Protocol parties limited ocean fertilization activities to only those of a research character, and in 2012 13 the CBD made a non-legally binding decision to do the same, further requiring such research activities 14 to be limited scale, and carried out under controlled conditions, until more knowledge is gained to be 15 able to assess the risks (GESAMP 2019; Burns and Corbett 2020). In doing so they have taken a 16 precautionary approach (Sands & Peel, 2018). The London Convention/Protocol has also developed an 17 Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilisation (London 18 Convention/Protocol 2010) and in 2013 adopted amendments (which are not yet in force) to regulate 19 marine carbon dioxide removal activities, including ocean fertilisation. 20 21 22 14.5 Multi-level, multi-actor governance 23 The Paris Agreement sets in place a new framework for international climate policy (Paroussos et al. 24 2019), which some cite as evidence of ‘hybrid multilateralism’ (Savaresi 2016; Christoff 2016; 25 Bäckstrand et al. 2017). While a trend of widening involvement of non-state actors was evident prior to 26 conclusion of the Paris Agreement, particularly at UNFCCC COPs, the ‘new landscape of international 27 climate cooperation’ features an ‘intensified interplay between state and non-state actors,’ including 28 civil society and social movements, business actors, and subnational or substate actors, such as local 29 governments and cities (Bäckstrand et al. 2017, p. 562). This involvement of other actors beyond states 30 in international climate cooperation is facilitated by the Paris Agreement’s ‘hybrid climate policy 31 architecture’ (Bodansky et al. 2016) (Section 14.3.1.1 above), which acknowledges the primacy of 32 domestic politics in climate change and invites the mobilisation of international and domestic pressure 33 to make the Agreement effective (Falkner 2016b). In this landscape, there is greater flexibility for more 34 decentralised ‘polycentric’ forms of climate governance and recognition of the benefits of working in 35 diverse forms and groups to realise global climate mitigation goals (Oberthür 2016; Jordan et al. 2015) 36 (see also Chapter 1, 1.9) . 37 Increasing attention has focused on the role of multi-level, multi-actor cooperation among actors, 38 groupings and agreements beyond the UNFCCC climate regime as potential ‘building blocks’ towards 39 enhanced international action on climate mitigation (Falkner 2016a; Caparrós and Péreau 2017; Potoski 40 2017; Stewart et al. 2017). This can include agreements on emissions and technologies at the regional 41 or sub-global level; what scholars often refer to as climate club’ (Nordhaus 2015; Hovi et al. 2016; 42 Green 2017; Sprinz et al. 2018). One forum through which such agreements are often discussed, in 43 support of UNFCCC objectives, are high-level meetings of political leaders, such of the G7 and G20 44 states (Livingston 2016). It also includes cooperation on narrower sets of issues than are found within 45 the Paris Agreement; for instance, other international environmental agreements dealing with a 46 particular subset of GHGs; linkages with, or leveraging of, efforts or agreements in other spheres such Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-65 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 as adaptation, human rights or trade; agreements within particular economic sectors; or transnational 2 initiatives involving global cooperative efforts by different types of non-state actors. Cooperative efforts 3 in each of these forums are reviewed in the following sections of the chapter. Section 14.5.1 discusses 4 international cooperation at multiple governance levels (global, sub-global and regional); Section 14.5.2 5 discusses cooperation with international sectoral agreements and institutions such as in the forestry, 6 energy and transportation sectors; and Sections 14.5.3-14.5.5 discuss transnational cooperation across 7 civil society and social movements, business partnerships and investor coalitions, and between sub- 8 national entities and cities, respectively. 9 A key idea underpinning this analysis is that decomposition of the larger challenge of climate mitigation 10 into ‘smaller units’ may facilitate more effective cooperation (Sabel and Victor 2017) and complement 11 cooperation in the UN climate regime (Stewart et al. 2017). However, it is recognised that significant 12 uncertainty remains over the feasibility and costs of these efforts (Sabel and Victor 2017), as well as 13 whether they ultimately strengthen progress on climate mitigation in the multilateral climate arena 14 (Falkner 2016a). 15 16 14.5.1 International cooperation at multiple governance levels 17 14.5.1.1 Role of other environmental agreements 18 International cooperation on climate change mitigation takes place at multiple governance levels, 19 including under a range of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) beyond those of the 20 international climate regime. 21 The 1987 Montreal Ozone Protocol is the leading example of a non-climate MEA with significant 22 implications for mitigating climate change (Barrett 2008). The Montreal Protocol regulates a number 23 of substances that are both ozone depleting substances (ODS) and GHGs with a significant global 24 warming potential (GWP), including chlorofluorocarbons, halons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons 25 (HCFCs). As a result, implementation of phase-out requirements for these substances under the 26 Montreal Protocol has made a significant contribution to mitigating climate change (Molina et al. 2009) 27 (See also Section 9.9.7.1). Velders et al. (2007) found that over the period from 1990 to 2010, the 28 reduction in GWP100-weighted ODS emissions expected with compliance to the provisions of the 29 Montreal Protocol was 8 GtCO2eq yr-1, an amount substantially greater than the first commitment period 30 Kyoto reduction target. Young et al. (2021) suggest that the Montreal Protocol may also be helping to 31 mitigate climate change through avoided decreases in the land carbon sink. 32 The 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol applies to the production and consumption of 33 hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs, which are widely used as refrigerants (Abas et al. 2018), have a 34 high GWP100 of 14600 for HFC-23, and are not ODS (See also Section 9.9.7.1). The Kigali 35 Amendment addresses the risk that the phase-out of HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol and their 36 replacement with HFCs could exacerbate global warming (Akanle 2010; Hurwitz et al. 2016), 37 especially with the predicted growth in HFC usage for applications like air conditioners (Velders et al. 38 2015). In this way it creates a cooperative rather than a conflictual relationship between addressing 39 ozone depletion and the climate protection goals of the UNFCCC regime (Hoch et al. 2019). The Kigali 40 Amendment requires developed country parties to phase down HFCs by 85% from 2011-2013 levels 41 by 2036. Developing country parties are permitted longer phase-down periods (out to 2045 and 2047), 42 but must freeze production and consumption between 2024 and 2028 (Ripley and Verkuijl 2016; UN 43 2016). A ban on trade in HFCs with non-parties will come into effect from 1 January 2033. For HFC- 44 23, which is a by-product of HCFC production rather than an ODS, parties are required to report 45 production and consumption data, and to destroy all emissions of HFC-23 occurring as part of HCFCs 46 or HFCs to the extent practicable from 2020 onwards using approved technologies (Ripley and Verkuijl 47 2016). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-66 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Full compliance with the Kigali Amendment is predicted to reduce HFC emissions by 61% of the global 2 baseline by 2050 (Höglund-Isaksson et al. 2017), with avoided global warming in 2100 due to HFCs 3 from a baseline of 0.3-0.5°C to less than 0.1°C (WMO 2018). Examining the interplay of the Kigali 4 Amendment with the Paris Agreement, Hoch et al. (2019) show how the Article 6 mechanisms under 5 the Paris Agreement could generate financial incentives for HFC mitigation and related energy 6 efficiency improvements. Early action under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement could drive down 7 baseline levels of HFCs for developing countries (calculated in light of future production and 8 consumption in the early and mid-2020s) thus generating long-term mitigation benefits under the Kigali 9 Amendment (Hoch et al. 2019). However, achievement of the objectives of the Kigali Amendment is 10 dependent on its ratification by key developed countries, such as the United States, and the provision 11 of funds by developed countries through the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund to meet developing countries 12 agreed incremental costs of implementation (Roberts 2017). The Kigali Amendment came into force 13 on 1 January 2019 and has been ratified by 118 of the 198 parties to the Montreal Protocol. 14 MEAs dealing with transboundary air pollution, such as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary 15 Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and its implementing protocols, which regulate non-GHGs like particulates, 16 nitrogen oxides and ground-level ozone, can also have potential benefits for climate change mitigation 17 (Erickson 2017). Studies have indicated that rigorous air quality controls targeting short-lived climate 18 forcers, like methane, ozone and black carbon, could slow global mean temperature rise by about 0.5°C 19 by mid-century (Schmale et al. 2014). Steps in this direction were taken with 2012 amendments to the 20 CLRTAP Gothenburg Protocol (initially adopted in 1999) to include black carbon, which is an 21 important driver of climate change in the Arctic region (Yamineva and Kulovesi 2018). The amended 22 Protocol, which has 28 parties including the US and EU, entered into force in October 2019. However, 23 its limits on black carbon have been criticised as insufficiently ambitious in light of scientific 24 assessments (Khan and Kulovesi 2018). There is still a non-negligible uncertainty in the assessment of 25 radiative forcing of each Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs), and the results of AR6-WGI have been 26 updated since AR5. For example, the assessment of Emission-based Radiative Forcing from Black 27 Carbon emissions was revised downward in AR6 (AR6-WGI-6.4.2). When discussing co-benefits with 28 MEAs related to transboundary air pollution, attention should be paid to the uncertainty in radiative 29 forcing of SLCFs and the update of relevant scientific knowledge. 30 Another MEA that may play a role in aiding climate change mitigation is the 2013 Minamata Mercury 31 Convention, which came into force on 16 August 2017. Coal burning for electricity generation 32 represents the second largest source (behind artisanal and small-scale gold mining) of anthropogenic 33 mercury emissions to air (UNEP 2013). Efforts to control and reduce atmospheric emissions of mercury 34 from coal-fired power generation under the Minamata Convention may reduce GHG emissions from 35 this source (Eriksen and Perrez 2014; Selin 2014). For instance, Giang et al. (2015) have modelled the 36 implications of the Minamata Convention for mercury emissions from coal-fired power generation in 37 India and China, concluding that reducing mercury emissions from present-day levels in these countries 38 is likely to require ‘avoiding coal consumption and transitioning toward less carbon-intensive energy 39 sources’ (Giang et al. 2015). Parties to the Minamata Convention include five of the six top global CO2 40 emitters – China, the United States, the EU, India and Japan (Russia has not ratified the Convention). 41 The Minamata Convention also establishes an Implementation and Compliance Committee to review 42 compliance with its provisions on a ‘facilitative’ basis (Eriksen and Perrez 2014). 43 MEAs that require state parties to conserve habitat (such as the Convention on Biological Diversity) or 44 to protect certain ecosystems like wetlands (such as the Ramsar Wetlands Convention) may also have 45 co-benefits for climate change mitigation through the adoption of well-planned conservation policies 46 (Phelps et al. 2012; Gilroy et al. 2014). At a theoretical level, REDD+ activities have been identified as 47 a particular opportunity for achieving climate mitigation objectives while also conserving tropical forest 48 biodiversity and ecosystem services. Elements of REDD+ that promise greatest effectiveness for Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-67 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 climate change mitigation (e.g. greater finance combined with reference levels which reduce leakage 2 by promoting broad participation across countries with both high and low historical deforestation rates) 3 also offer the greatest benefits for biodiversity conservation (Busch et al. 2011). However, actual 4 biodiversity and ecosystem service co-benefits are dependent on the design and implementation of 5 REDD+ programmes (Ehara et al. 2014; Panfil and Harvey 2016), with limited empirical evidence to 6 date of emissions reductions from these programmes (Newton et al. 2016; Johnson et al. 2019), and 7 concerns about whether they meet equity and justice considerations (Schroeder and McDermott 2014) 8 (See also Chapter 7, section 7.6.1). 9 14.5.1.2 Linkages with sustainable development, adaptation, loss and damage, and human rights 10 As discussed in Chapter 1, the emerging framing for the issue of climate mitigation is that it is no longer 11 to be considered in isolation but rather in the context of its linkages with other areas. Adaptation, loss 12 and damage, human rights and sustainable development are all areas where there are clear or potential 13 overlaps, synergies, and conflicts with the cooperation underway in relation to mitigation. 14 The IPCC defines adaptation as: 'in human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected 15 climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, 16 the process of adjustment to actual climate and its effect; human intervention may facilitate adjustment 17 to expected climate and its effects' (See Annex I: Glossary). 18 Adaptation involves actions to lessen the harm associated with climate change, or take advantage of 19 potential gains (Smit and Wandel 2006). It can seek to reduce present and future exposure to specific 20 climate risks (Adger et al. 2003), mainstream climate information into existing planning efforts (Gupta 21 et al. 2010; van der Voorn et al. 2012, 2017), and reduce vulnerability (or increase resilience) of people 22 or communities to the effects of climate change (Kasperson and Kasperson 2001). There is a body of 23 literature highlighting potential synergies and conflicts between adaptation actions – in any of the three 24 areas above – and mitigation actions - and potential strategies for resolving them (Locatelli et al. 2011; 25 Casado-Asensio and Steurer 2014; Duguma et al. 2014; Suckall et al. 2015; Watkiss et al. 2015; van 26 der Voorn et al. 2020). In a strategic context, this issue has been analyzed in Bayramoglu et al. (2018), 27 Eisenack and Kähler (2016) and Ingham et al. (2013), among others. Bayramoglu et al. (2018) analyze 28 the strategic interaction between mitigation, as a public good, and adaptation, essentially a private good, 29 showing that the fear that adaptation will reduce the incentives to mitigate carbon emissions may not 30 be justified. On the contrary, adaptation can reduce free-rider incentives (lead to larger self-enforcing 31 agreements), yielding higher global mitigation levels and welfare, if adaptation efforts cause mitigation 32 levels between different countries to be complements instead of strategic substitutes (on the conditions 33 for adaptation and mitigation to be substitutes or complements, see (Ingham et al. 2013). 34 Distinct from project or programmatic level activities, however, international cooperation for adaptation 35 operates to provide finance and technical assistance (Bouwer and Aerts 2006). In most cases it involves 36 transboundary actions, such as in the case of transboundary watershed management (Wilder et al. 2010; 37 Milman et al. 2013; van der Voorn et al. 2017). In others it involves the mainstreaming of climate 38 change projections into existing treaties, such as for the protection of migratory species (Trouwborst et 39 al. 2012). 40 International cooperation in mitigation and adaptation share many of the same challenges, including the 41 need for effective institutions. The UNFCCC, for example, addresses international financial support for 42 adaptation and for mitigation in the same general category, and subjects them to the same sets of 43 institutional constraints (Peterson and Skovgaard 2019). Sovacool and Linnér (2016) argue that the 44 history of the UNFCCC and its sub-agreements has been shaped by an implicit bargain that developing 45 countries participate in global mitigation policy in return for receiving financial and technical assistance 46 for adaptation and development from industrialised countries and international green funds. Khan and 47 Roberts (2013) contend that this played out poorly under the Kyoto framework: the Protocol’s basic 48 architecture, oriented around legally binding commitments, was not amenable to merging the issues of Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-68 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 adaptation and mitigation. Kuyper et al. Kuyper et al. (2018a) argue that the movement from Kyoto to 2 Paris represents a shift in this regard; Paris was designed not primarily as a mitigation policy instrument, 3 but rather one encompassing mitigation, adaptation, and development concerns. While this argument 4 suggests that the Paris architecture, involving voluntary mitigation actions and a greater attention to 5 issues of financial support and transparency, functions better to leverage adaptation support into 6 meaningful mitigation actions, there are only few papers that examine this issue. Stua (2017a,b) 7 explores the relevance of the so-called 'share of proceeds' included in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement 8 as a key tool for leveraging adaptation though mitigation actions. 9 There are recognised limits to adaptation (Dow et al. 2013), and exceeding these limits results in loss 10 and damage, a topic that is gathering salience in the policy discourse. Roberts et al. (2014) focused on 11 ‘loss and damage’, essentially those climate change impacts which cannot be avoided through 12 adaptation. The Paris Agreement contains a free-standing article on loss and damage (UNFCCC 2015a), 13 focused on cooperation and facilitation, under which parties have established a clearing house on risk 14 transfer, and a task force on displacement (UNFCCC 2016a). The COP decision accompanying the 15 Paris Agreement specifies that ‘Article 8 does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or 16 compensation’ (UNFCCC 2016a). There is range of views on the treatment of loss and damage in the 17 Paris Agreement, how responsibility for loss and damage should be allocated (Lees 2017; McNamara 18 and Jackson 2019), and how it could be financed (Gewirtzman et al. 2018; Roberts et al. 2017). Some 19 scholars argue that there are continuing options to pursue compensation and liability in the climate 20 change regime (Mace and Verheyen 2016; Gsottbauer et al. 2018). There have also been efforts to 21 establish accountability of companies—particularly ‘carbon majors’ —for climate damage in domestic 22 courts (Ganguly et al. 2018; Benjamin 2021). For states that have suffered loss and damage there is also 23 the option to pursue ‘state responsibility’ claims under customary international law and international 24 human rights law (Wewerinke-Singh 2018; Wewerinke-Singh and Salili 2020). 25 One scholar argues that climate impacts are ‘incremental violence structurally over-determined by 26 international relations of power and control’ that affect most those who have contributed the least to 27 GHG emissions (Dehm 2020). Calls for compensation or reparation for loss and damage are therefore 28 a demand for climate justice (Dehm 2020). Many small island states entered declarations on acceptance 29 of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement that they continue to have rights under international law regarding 30 state responsibility for the adverse effects of climate change, and that no provision in these treaties can 31 be interpreted as derogating from any claims or rights concerning compensation and liability due to the 32 adverse effects of climate change. 33 The adoption in 2013 of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage as part of the United 34 Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) occurred despite the historic 35 opposition of the United States to this policy. Vanhala and Hestbaek (2016) examine the roles of ‘frame 36 contestation’ (contestations over different framings of loss and damage, whether as ‘liability and 37 compensation’ or ‘risk management and insurance’ or other) and ambiguity in accounting for the 38 evolution and institutionalisation of the loss and damage norm within the UNFCCC. However, there is 39 little international agreement on the scope of loss and damage programmes, and especially how they 40 would be funded and by whom (Gewirtzman et al. 2018). Moreover, non-economic loss and damage 41 (NELD) forms a distinct theme that refers to the climate-related losses of items both material and 42 non-material that are not commonly traded in the market, but whose loss is still experienced as such 43 by those affected. Examples of NELD include loss of cultural identity, sacred places, human health 44 and lives (Serdeczny 2019). The Santiago Network is part of the Warsaw International Mechanism, to 45 catalyse the technical assistance of relevant organisations, bodies, networks and experts, for the 46 implementation of relevant approaches to avert, minimise and address loss and damage at the local, 47 national and regional level, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects 48 of climate change (UNFCCC 2020c). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-69 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 There are direct links between climate mitigation efforts, adaptation and loss and damage - the higher 2 the collective mitigation ambition and the likelihood of achieving it, the lower the scale of adaptation 3 ultimately needed and the lower the scale of loss and damage anticipated. The liability of states, either 4 individually or collectively, for loss and damage is contested, and no litigation has yet been successfully 5 launched to pursue such claims. The science of attribution, however, is developing (Otto et al. 2017; 6 Skeie et al. 2017; Marjanac and Patton 2018; Patton 2021) and while it has the potential to address the 7 thorny issue of causation, and thus compensation (Stuart-Smith et al. 2021), it could also be used to 8 develop strategies for climate resilience (James et al. 2014). 9 There are also direct links between mitigation and sustainable development. The international agendas 10 for mitigation and sustainable development have shaped each other, around concepts such as common 11 but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as well as the distinction – in the UNFCCC 12 and later the Kyoto Protocol – between Annex I and non-Annex I countries (Victor 2011; Patt 2015). 13 The same implicit bargain that developing countries would support mitigation efforts in return for 14 assistance with respect to adaptation also applies to support for development (Sovacool and Linnér 15 2016). That linkage between mitigation and sustainable development has become even more specific 16 with the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, each of which explicitly 17 pursues a set of goals that encompass both mitigation and development (Schmieg et al. 2017), reflecting 18 the recognition that achieving sustainable development and climate mitigation goals are mutually 19 dependent (Gomez-Echeverri 2018). It is well-accepted that the long-term effects of climate mitigation 20 will benefit sustainable development. A more contested finding is whether the mitigation actions 21 themselves promote or hinder short-term poverty alleviation. One study, analysing the economic effects 22 of developing countries’ NDCs, finds that mitigation actions slow down poverty reduction efforts 23 (Campagnolo and Davide 2019). Other studies suggest possible synergies between low-carbon 24 development and economic development (Hanger et al. 2016; Labordena et al. 2017; Dzebo et al. 2019). 25 These studies typically converge on the fact that financial assistance flowing from developed to 26 developing countries enhances any possible synergies or lessens the conflicts. However, mitigation 27 measures can also have negative impacts on gender equality, and peace and justice (Dzebo et al. 2019). 28 The IMF has also taken on board the climate challenge and is examining the role of fiscal and 29 macroeconomic policies to address the climate challenge for supporting its members with appropriate 30 policy responses. 31 The literature also identifies institutional synergies at the international level, related to the importance 32 of addressing climate change and development in an integrated, coordinated and comprehensive manner 33 across constituencies, sectors and administrative and geographical boundaries (Le Blanc 2015). The 34 literature also stresses the important role that robust institutions have in making this happen, including 35 in international cooperation in key sectors for climate action as well for development (Waage et al. 36 2015). Since the publication of AR5, which emphasised the need for a type of development that 37 combines both mitigation and adaptation as a way to strengthen resilience, much of the literature has 38 focused on ways to address these linkages and the role institutions play in key sectors that are often the 39 subject of international cooperation – for example, environmental and soil degradation, climate, energy, 40 water resources, forestry (Hogl et al. 2016). An assessment of thematic policy coherence between the 41 voluntary domestic contributions regarding the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda should be 42 integrated in national policy cycles for sustainable and climate policy-making to identify overlaps, gaps, 43 mutual benefits and trade-offs in national policies (Janetschek et al. 2020). 44 It is only since 2008 that the relationship between climate change and human rights has become a focus 45 of international law and policy making. It is not just climate impacts that threaten the enjoyment of 46 human rights but also the mitigation responses to climate change that affect human rights (Shi et al. 47 2017). The issue of human rights–climate change linkages was first taken up by the UN Human Rights 48 Council (HRC) in 2008, but has since rapidly gained ground with UN human rights treaty bodies issuing Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-70 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 comments (e.g. (Human Rights Committee 2018)), recommendations (e.g. (Committee on the 2 Elimination of Discrimination against Women 2018)) and even a joint statement (e.g. (Office of the 3 High Commissioner for Human Rights 2019)) on the impacts of climate change on the enjoyment of 4 human rights. Climate change effects and related disasters have the potential to affect human rights 5 broadly, for instance, by giving rise to deaths, disease or malnutrition (right to life, right to health), 6 threatening food security or livelihoods (right to food), impacting upon water supplies and 7 compromising access to safe drinking water (right to water), destroying coastal settlements through 8 storm surge (right to adequate housing), and in some cases forcing relocation as traditional territories 9 become uninhabitable (UNGA 2019). In addition, the right to a healthy environment, recognized in 10 2021 as an autonomous right at the international level by the Human Rights Council (UN Human Rights 11 Council 2021), arguably extends to a right to a ‘safe climate’ shaped in part by the Paris Agreement 12 (UNGA 2019). 13 As the intersections between climate impacts and human rights have become increasingly clear, litigants 14 have begun to use human rights arguments, with a growing receptivity among courts towards such 15 arguments in climate change cases (Peel and Osofsky 2018; Savaresi and Auz 2019; Macchi and van 16 Zeben 2021). In the landmark Urgenda climate case in 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court interpreted the 17 European Convention on Human Rights in light of customary international law and the UN climate 18 change regime and ordered the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 compared to 19 1990 (The Supreme Court of the Netherlands 2019). In the Neubauer case in 2021, the German Federal 20 Constitutional Court ordered the German legislature, in light of its obligations, including on rights 21 protections, to set clear provisions for reduction targets from 2031 onward by the end of 2022 (German 22 Constitutional Court 2021). There are cases in the Global South as well (Peel and Lin 2019; Setzer and 23 Benjamin 2020), with the Supreme Court in Nepal in its 2018 decision in Shrestha, ordering the 24 government to amend its existing laws and introduce a new consolidated law to address climate 25 mitigation and adaptation as this would protect the rights to life, food, and a clean environment, and 26 give effect to the 2015 Paris Agreement (The Supreme Court of Nepal 2018). There are dozens of 27 further cases in national and regional courts, increasingly based on human rights claims. and this trend 28 is only likely to grow (Beauregard et al. 2021; Shi et al. 2017; Peel and Osofsky 2018). These cases 29 face procedural hurdles, such as standing, as well as substantive difficulties, for instance, with regard 30 to the primarily territorial scope of state obligations to protect human rights (Mayer 2021; Boyle 2018), 31 however, there are increasing instances of successful outcomes across the world. 32 14.5.1.3 Trade agreements 33 As discussed in AR5, policies to open up trade can have a range of effects on GHG emissions, just as 34 mitigation policies can influence trade flows among countries. Trade rules may impede mitigation 35 action by limiting countries’ discretion in adopting trade-related climate policies, but they also have the 36 potential to stimulate the international adoption and diffusion of mitigation technologies and policies 37 (Droege et al. 2017). 38 The mitigation impacts of trade agreements are difficult to ascertain, and the limited evidence is mixed. 39 Examining the effects of three free trade agreements (FTAs) – Mercosur, the North American Free 40 Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement – on GHG 41 emissions, (Nemati et al. 2019) find that these effects depend on the relative income levels of the 42 countries involved, and that FTAs between developed and developing countries may increase emissions 43 in the long run. However, studies also suggest that FTAs incorporating specific environmental or 44 climate-related provisions can help reduce GHG emissions (Baghdadi et al. 2013; Sorgho and Tharakan 45 2020). 46 Investment agreements, which are often integrated in FTAs, seek to encourage the flow of foreign 47 investment through investment protection. While international investment agreements hold potential to 48 increase low-carbon investment in host countries (PAGE 2018), these agreements have tended to protect Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-71 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 investor rights, constraining the latitude of host countries in adopting environmental policies (Miles 2 2019). Moreover, international investment agreements may lead to ‘regulatory chill’, which may lead 3 to countries refraining from or delaying the adoption of mitigation policies, such as phasing out fossil 4 fuels (Tienhaara 2018). More contemporary investment agreements seek to better balance the rights and 5 obligations of investors and host countries, and in theory offer greater regulatory space to host countries 6 (UNCTAD 2019), although it is unclear to what extent this will hold true in practice. 7 In their NDCs, parties mention various trade-related mitigation measures, including import bans, 8 standards and labelling schemes, border carbon adjustments (BCAs; see also Chapter 13), renewable 9 energy support measures, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and the use of international market mechanisms 10 (Brandi 2017). Some of these ‘response measures’ (Chan 2016b) may raise questions concerning their 11 consistency with trade agreements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Non-discrimination is one 12 of the foundational rules of the WTO. This means, among others, that ‘like’ imported and domestic 13 products are not treated differently (‘national treatment’) and that a WTO member should not 14 discriminate between other members (‘most-favoured-nation treatment’). These principles are 15 elaborated in a set of agreements on the trade in goods and services, including the General Agreement 16 on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on 17 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 18 (ASCM). 19 Several measures that can be adopted as part of carbon pricing instruments to address carbon leakage 20 concerns have been examined in the light of WTO rules. For instance, depending on the specific design, 21 the free allocation of emissions allowances under an ETS could be considered a subsidy inconsistent 22 with the ASCM (Rubini and Jegou 2012; Ismer et al. 2021). The WTO compatibility of another measure 23 to counter carbon leakage, BCAs, has also been widely discussed (Box 14.2). Alternatives to BCAs, 24 such as consumption charges on carbon-intensive materials (Pollitt et al. 2020), can be consistent with 25 WTO law, as they do not involve discrimination between domestic and foreign products based on their 26 carbon intensity (Ismer and Neuhoff 2007; Tamiotti 2011; Pauwelyn 2013; Holzer 2014; Ismer and 27 Haussner 2016; Cosbey et al. 2019; European Commission 2019; Mehling et al. 2019; Porterfield 2019; 28 Ismer et al. 2020). 29 30 START BOX 14.2 HERE 31 Box 14.2 Border carbon adjustments and international climate and trade cooperation 32 Analyses of the WTO compatibility of BCAs (Hillman 2013; Trachtman 2017; Ismer and Neuhoff 33 2007; Tamiotti 2011; Pauwelyn 2013; Holzer 2014; Cosbey et al. 2019; Mehling et al. 2019; Porterfield 34 2019) gained new currency following the legislative proposal to introduce a ‘carbon border adjustment 35 mechanism’ in the EU (European Commission 2021). BCAs can in principle be designed and 36 implemented in accordance with international trade law, but the details matter (Tamiotti et al. 2009). 37 To increase the likelihood that a BCA will be compatible with international trade law, studies suggest 38 that it would need to: have a clear environmental rationale (i.e. reduce carbon leakage); apply to imports 39 and exclude exports; consider the actual carbon intensity of foreign producers; account for the 40 mitigation efforts by other countries; and provide for fairness and due process in the design and 41 implementation (Trachtman 2017; Pauwelyn 2013; Cosbey et al. 2019; Mehling et al. 2019). 42 BCAs may also raise concerns regarding their consistency with international climate change agreements 43 (Hertel 2011; Davidson Ladly 2012; Ravikumar 2020). To mitigate these concerns, BCAs could include 44 special provisions (e.g. exemptions) for LDCs, or channel revenues from the BCA to developing 45 countries to support low-carbon and climate-resilient development (Grubb 2011; Springmann 2013; 46 Mehling et al. 2019). Moreover, international dialogue on principles and best practices guiding BCAs Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-72 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 could help to ensure that such measures do not hinder international cooperation on climate change and 2 trade (Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Cosbey 2021). 3 END BOX 14.2 HERE 4 5 Other regulatory measures may also target the GHG emissions associated with the production of goods 6 (Dobson 2018). These measures include bans on carbon-intensive materials, emissions standards for 7 the production process of imported goods, and carbon footprint labels (Kloeckner 2012; Holzer and 8 Lim 2020; Gerres et al. 2021). The compatibility of such measures with trade agreements remains 9 subject to debate. While non-discriminatory measures targeting the emissions from a product itself (e.g. 10 fuel efficiency standards for cars) are more likely to be allowed than measures targeting the production 11 process of a good (Green 2005), some studies suggest that differentiation between products based on 12 their production process may be compatible with WTO rules (Benoit 2011; McAusland and Najjar 13 2015). (Mayr et al. 2020) find that sustainability standards targeting the emissions from indirect land- 14 use change associated with the production of biofuels may be inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. 15 Importantly, trade rules express a strong preference for the international harmonisation of standards 16 over unilateral measures (Delimatsis 2016). 17 Renewable energy support measures may be at odds with the ASCM, the GATT, and the WTO 18 Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures. In WTO disputes, measures adopted in Canada, 19 India, and the United States to support clean energy generation were found to be inconsistent with WTO 20 law due to the use of discriminatory local content requirements, such as the requirement to use 21 domestically produced goods in the production of renewable energy (Cosbey and Mavroidis 2014; 22 Kulovesi 2014; Lewis 2014; Wu and Salzman 2014; Charnovitz and Fischer 2015; Shadikhodjaev 2015; 23 Espa and Marín Durán 2018). 24 Some measures may both lower trade barriers and potentially bring about GHG emission reductions. 25 An example is the liberalisation of trade in environmental goods (Hu et al. 2020). In 2012, the APEC 26 economies agreed to reduce tariffs for a list of 54 environmental goods (including e.g. solar cells; but 27 excluding e.g. biofuels or batteries for electric vehicles). However, negotiations on an Environmental 28 Goods Agreement under the WTO stalled in 2016 due in part to disagreement over which goods to 29 include (de Melo and Solleder 2020). Another example is fossil fuel subsidy reform, which may reduce 30 GHG emissions (Jewell et al. 2018; Chepeliev and van der Mensbrugghe 2020; Erickson et al. 2020) 31 and lower trade distortions (Burniaux et al. 2011; Moerenhout and Irschlinger 2020). However, fossil 32 fuel subsidies have largely remained unchallenged before the WTO due to legal and political hurdles 33 (Asmelash 2015; De Bièvre et al. 2017; Meyer 2017; Steenblik et al. 2018; Verkuijl et al. 2019). 34 With limited progress in the multilateral trading system, some studies suggest that regional FTAs hold 35 potential for strengthening climate governance. In some cases, climate-related provisions in such FTAs 36 can go beyond provisions in the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, addressing for instance 37 cooperation on carbon markets or electric vehicles (Gehring et al. 2013; van Asselt 2017; Morin and 38 Jinnah 2018; Gehring and Morison 2020). However, Morin and Jinnah (2018) find that these provisions 39 are at times vaguely formulated, not subject to third-party dispute settlement, and without sanctions or 40 remedy in case of violations. Moreover, such provisions are not widely used in FTAs, and they are not 41 adopted by the largest GHG emitters. For instance, the 2019 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, 42 NAFTA’s successor, does not include any specific provisions on climate change, although it could 43 implement cooperative mitigation actions through its Commission for Environmental Cooperation 44 (Laurens et al. 2019). 45 A trend in international economic governance has been the adoption of ‘mega-regional’ trade 46 agreements involving nations responsible for a substantial share of world trade, such as the 47 Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the EU-Canada Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-73 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the Regional Comprehensive Economic 2 Partnership (RCEP) in East Asia. Given the size of the markets covered by these agreements, they hold 3 potential to diffuse climate mitigation standards (Meltzer 2013; Holzer and Cottier 2015). While CETA 4 includes climate-related provisions and parties have made a broad commitment to implement the Paris 5 Agreement (Laurens et al. 2019), and the CPTPP includes provisions promoting cooperation on clean 6 energy and low-emissions technologies, the RCEP does not include specific provisions ont climate 7 change. 8 Studies have discussed various options to minimise conflicts, and strengthen the role of trade 9 agreements in climate action, although the mitigation benefits and distributional effects of these options 10 have yet to be assessed. Some options require multilateral action, including: (1) the amendment of 11 WTO agreements to accommodate climate action; (2) the adoption of a ‘climate waiver’ that 12 temporarily relieves WTO members from their obligations; (3) a ‘peace clause’ through which members 13 commit to refraining from challenging each other’s measures; (4) an ‘authoritative interpretation’ by 14 WTO members of ambiguous WTO provisions; (5) improved transparency of the climate impacts of 15 trade measures; (6) the inclusion of climate expertise in WTO disputes; and (7) intensified institutional 16 coordination between the WTO and UNFCCC (Hufbauer et al. 2009; Epps and Green 2010; Bacchus 17 2016; Droege et al. 2017; Das et al. 2019). In addition, issue-specific suggestions have been put forward, 18 such as reinstating an exception for environmentally motivated subsidies under the ASCM (Horlick and 19 Clarke 2017). 20 Options can also be pursued at the plurilateral and regional level. Several studies suggest that climate 21 clubs (see Section 14.2.2) could employ trade measures, such as lower tariffs for climate-related goods 22 and services, or BCAs, to attract club members (Nordhaus 2015; Brewer et al. 2016; Keohane et al. 23 2017; Stua 2017a; Banks and Fitzgerald 2020). Another option is to negotiate a new agreement 24 addressing both climate change and trade. Negotiations between six countries (Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, 25 New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland) were launched in 2019 on a new Agreement on Climate Change, 26 Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS), which, if successfully concluded, would liberalise trade in 27 environmental goods and services, create new rules to remove fossil fuel subsidies, and develop 28 guidelines for voluntary eco-labels (Steenblik and Droege 2019). At the regional level, countries could 29 further opt for the inclusion of climate provisions in the (re)negotiation of FTAs (Yamaguchi 2020; 30 Morin and Jinnah 2018). Moreover, the conduct of climate impact assessments of FTAs could help 31 identify options to achieve both climate and trade objectives (Porterfield et al. 2017). In their assessment 32 of the feasibility of various options for reform, Das et al. (2019) find that the near-term feasibility of 33 options that require consensus at the multilateral level (notably amendments of WTO agreements) is 34 low. By contrast, options involving a smaller number of parties, as well as options that can be 35 implemented by WTO members on a voluntary basis, face fewer constraints. 36 For international investment agreements, various other suggestions have been put forward to 37 accommodate climate change concerns. These include incorporating climate change through ongoing 38 reform processes, such as reform of investor-state dispute settlement under the UN Commission on 39 International Trade Law (UNCITRAL); modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty; the (re)negotiation 40 of international investment agreements; and the adoption of a specific treaty to promote investment in 41 climate action (Brauch et al. 2019; Tienhaara and Cotula 2020; Yamaguchi 2020; Cima 2021). 42 14.5.1.4 South-South cooperation 43 South-South (SSC) and triangular (TrC) cooperation are bold, innovative, and rapidly developing means 44 of strengthening cooperation for the achievement of the SDGs (FAO 2018). SSC is gaining momentum 45 in achieving sustainable development and climate actions in developing countries (UN 2017b). Through 46 SSC, countries are able to map their capacity needs and knowledge gaps and find sustainable, cost- 47 effective, long-lasting and economically viable solutions (FAO 2019). In the UN Climate Change Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-74 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Engagement Strategy 2017 (UNOSC 2017), South-South Cooperation Action Plan is identified as a 2 substantive pillar to support. 3 In 2019, the role of South-South and triangular cooperation was further highlighted with the BAPA+40 4 Outcome document (UN 2019), noting outstanding contributions to alleviating global inequality, 5 promoting sustainable development and climate actions, promoting gender equality and enriching 6 multilateral mechanisms. Furthermore, the role of triangular cooperation was explicitly recognized in 7 the document reflecting its increasingly relevant role in the implementation of the SDGs (UN 2019). 8 There has been a recent resurgence of South-South cooperation. Gray and Gills (Gray and Gills 2016), 9 signalled inter alia by the South-South Cooperation Action Plan adopted by the UN as a substantive 10 pillar to support the implementation of the UN Climate Change Engagement Strategy 2017 (UNOSC 11 2017). (Liu et al. 2017a) explored prospects for South–South cooperation for large‐scale ecological 12 restoration, which is an important solution to mitigate climate change. Emphasis is given to experience 13 and expertise sharing, co-financing, and co-development of new knowledge and know‐how for more 14 effective policy and practice worldwide, especially in developing and newly industrialised countries. 15 Janus et al. (2014) explore evolving development cooperation and its future governance architecture 16 based on The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) and The United 17 Nations (UN) Development Cooperation Forum (DCF). Drawing on evidence from the hydropower, 18 solar and wind energy industry in China, Urban (2018) introduces the concept of ‘geographies of 19 technology transfer and cooperation’ and challenges the North-South technology transfer and 20 cooperation paradigm for low carbon innovation and climate change mitigation. While North-South 21 technology transfer and cooperation (NSTT) for low carbon energy technology has been implemented 22 for decades, South-South technology transfer and cooperation (SSTT) and South-North technology 23 transfer and cooperation (SNTT) have only recently emerged. Kirchherr and Urban (2018) provide a 24 meta-synthesis of the scholarly writings on NSTT, SSTT and SNTT from the past 30 years. The 25 discussion focuses on core drivers and inhibitors of technology transfer and cooperation, outcomes as 26 well as outcome determinants. A case study of transfer of low‐carbon energy innovation and its 27 opportunities and barriers, based on first large Chinese‐funded and Chinese‐built dam in Cambodia is 28 presented by Hensengerth (2017). 29 Hensengerth (2017) explore the role that technology transfer/cooperation from Europe played in 30 shaping firm level wind energy technologies in China and India and discuss the recent technology 31 cooperation between the Chinese, Indian, and European wind firms. The research finds that firm-level 32 technology transfer/cooperation shaped the leading wind energy technologies in China and to a lesser 33 extent in India. Thus, the technology cooperation between China, India, and Europe has become multi- 34 faceted and increasingly Southern-led. 35 Rampa et al. (2012) focus on the manner in which African states understand and approach new 36 opportunities for cooperation with emerging powers, especially China, India and Brazil, including the 37 crucial issue of whether they seek joint development initiatives with both traditional partners and 38 emerging powers. UN (2018) presents and analyses case studies of SSTT in Asia-Pacific and Latin 39 America and Caribbean regions. Illustrative case studies on TrC can be consulted in Shimoda and 40 Nakazawa (2012), and specific cases on biofuel SSC and TrC in UNCTAD (2012). 41 The central argument in the majority of these case studies is that South–South cooperation, which is 42 value-neutral, is contributing to sustainable development and capacity building (Rampa et al. 2012; 43 Shimoda and Nakazawa 2012; UN 2018). An important new development in SSC is that in relation to 44 some technologies the cooperation is increasingly led by Southern countries (for instance, wind energy 45 between Europe, India and China), challenging the classical North–South technology cooperation 46 paradigm. More broadly, parties should ensure the sustainability of cooperation, rather than focusing 47 on short-term goals (Eyben 2013). The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a classic example of a recent Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-75 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 SSC Initiative led by China. According to a joint study by Tsinghua University and Vivid Economics 2 the 126 countries in the BRI region, excluding China, currently account for about 28% of global GHG 3 emissions, but this proportion may increase to around 66% by 2050 if the carbon intensity of these 4 economies only decreases slowly (according to historical patterns shown by developing countries). In 5 this context it is important to highlight that China has already outlined a vision for a green BRI, and 6 recently increased its commitment through the Green Investment Principles (GIP) initiative, announcing 7 a new international coalition to improve sustainability and promote green infrastructure (Jun and Zadek 8 2019). 9 Information on triangular cooperation is more readily available than on South-South cooperation though 10 some UN organisations such as UNDP and FAO have established platforms for the latter which also 11 includes climate projects. Further, although there are many South-South cooperation initiatives 12 involving the development and transfer of climate technologies the understanding of the motivations, 13 approaches and designs is limited and not easily accessible. There is no dedicated platform for South- 14 South and triangular cooperation on climate technologies. Hence, it is still too early to fully assess the 15 achievements in the field of climate action (UNFCCC and UNOSSC 2018). In order to maximise its 16 unique contribution to Agenda 2030, southern providers recognise the benefits of measuring and 17 monitoring South–South cooperation, and there is a clear demand for better information from partner 18 countries. Di Ciommo (2017) argues that ´better data could support monitoring and evaluation, improve 19 effectiveness, explore synergies with other resources, and ensure accountability´ to a diverse set of 20 stakeholders. Besharati et al. (2017) present a framework of 20 indicators, organised in five dimensions 21 that researchers and policy makers can use to access the quality and effectiveness of SSC and its 22 contribution to sustainable development. 23 The global landscape of development cooperation has changed dramatically in recent years, with 24 countries of the South engaging in collaborative learning models to share innovative, adaptable and 25 cost-efficient solutions to their development and socio-economic-environmental challenges, ranging 26 from poverty and education to climate change. The proliferation of new actors and cross-regional 27 modalities had enriched the understanding and practice of development cooperation and generated 28 important changes in the global development architecture towards a more inclusive, effective, and 29 horizontal development agenda. South-South cooperation will grow in the future, while it is 30 complimentary to North-South cooperation. However, there are knowledge gaps in relation to the 31 precise volume, impact, effectiveness and quality of development cooperation from emerging 32 development partners. This gap needs to be plugged, and evidence on such cooperation strengthened. 33 34 14.5.2 International sectoral agreements and institutions 35 Sectors refer to distinct areas of economic activity, often subject to their own governance regimes; 36 examples include energy production, mobility, and manufacturing. A sectoral agreement could include 37 virtually any type of commitment with implications for mitigation. It could establish sectoral emission 38 targets, on either an absolute or an indexed basis. It could also require states (or particular groups of 39 states, if commitments are differentiated) to adopt uniform or harmonised policies and measures for a 40 sector, such as technology-based standards, taxes, or best-practice standards, as well as providing for 41 cooperation on technology research or deployment. 42 14.5.2.1 Forestry, land-use and REDD+ 43 Since 2008, several, often overlapping, voluntary and non-binding international efforts and agreements 44 have been adopted to reduce net emissions from the forestry sector. These initiatives have varying levels 45 of private sector involvement and different objectives, targets, and timelines. Some efforts focus on 46 reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, while other focus on the enhancement of sinks 47 through restoration of cleared or degraded landscapes. These initiatives do not elaborate specific Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-76 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 policies, procedures, or implementation mechanisms. They set targets, frameworks, and milestones, 2 aiming to catalyse further action, investment, and transparency in conservation and consolidate 3 individual country efforts. 4 After the UN-sponsored Tropical Forestry Action Plan (Winterbottom 1990; Seymour and Busch 2016), 5 among the longest standing programs in the forestry sector are the World Bank-sponsored F Forest 6 Carbon Partnership Facility in 2007, which helps facilitate funding for REDD+ readiness and specific 7 projects, in addition to preparing countries for results-based payments and future carbon markets while 8 securing local communities’ benefits managed sub-nationally, and the UN REDD+ Programme 9 initiated in 2008, which aims to reduce forest emissions and enhance carbon stocks in forests while 10 contributing to national sustainable development in developing countries, after the 2007 COP13 in Bali 11 formally adopted REDD+ in the UNFCCC decisions and incorporated it in the Bali Plan of Action. As 12 discussed above, Article 5 of the Paris Agreement encourages parties to take action to implement and 13 support REDD+. These efforts tend to focus on reducing emissions through the creation of protected 14 areas, payments for ecosystem services, and/or land tenure reform (Pirard et al. 2019). The UNREDD+ 15 programme supports national REDD+ efforts, inclusion of stakeholders in relevant dialogues, and 16 capacity building toward REDD+ readiness in partner countries. To date the conservation and emissions 17 impacts of REDD+ remain misunderstood (Pirard et al. 2019), but while existing evidence suggests that 18 reductions in deforestation from subnational REDD+ initiatives have been limited (Bos et al. 2017) it 19 shows an increasing prominence (Maguire et al. 2021). Additionally, the Green Climate Fund has 20 carried out results-based payments within REDD+. Eight countries have so far received significant 21 funding (GCF 2021). The shift in the REDD+ focus from ecosystem service payment to domestic policy 22 realignments and incentive structure has changed the way REDD+ was developed and implemented 23 (Brockhaus et al. 2017). Large-scale market resources have not fully materialised as a global carbon 24 market system that explicitly integrates REDD+ remains under development (Angelsen 2017). Public 25 funding for REDD+ is also limited (Climate Focus 2017). Leading up to the adoption of the Paris 26 Agreement, the governments of Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom formed a partnership in 27 2014 called ‘GNU’ to support results-based financing for REDD+, with Norway emerging as one of, if 28 not the single largest major donor for REDD+ through its pledge in 2007 of approximately USD3 billion 29 annually. Norway pledged USD1 billion for Brazil in 2008 and the same for Indonesia in 2010 30 (Schroeder et al. 2020). Meanwhile, REDD+ Early Movers was established with support from 31 Germany, and the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), a collaborative partnership between the 32 European Union, Germany, Norway, France, and the United Kingdom. It supports six central African 33 countries in fighting deforestation. 34 More recently, the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition was 35 established, consisting of the governments of Norway, the UK, and the US and initially nine companies 36 in accelerating REDD+ with a jurisdictional approach. LEAF uses the Architecture for REDD+ 37 Transaction, The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (ART-TREES), is coordinated by 38 Emergent, a non-profit intermediary between tropical countries and the private sector. Three 39 jurisdictions in Brazil and two countries have already submitted concept notes to ART to receive results- 40 based payments. REDD+ initiatives with a jurisdictional approach have also been adopted in various 41 markets, such as the CORSIA (Maguire 2021). In addition to Brazil, Indonesia has attracted significant 42 interest as a host country for REDD+. Indonesia ranks second, after Brazil, as the largest producer of 43 deforestation-related GHG emissions (Zarin et al. 2016), but it has committed to a large reduction of 44 deforestation in its NDC (Government of Indonesia 2016). Australia has collaborated on scientific 45 research and emission reduction monitoring (Tacconi 2017). It took a while, however, before emission 46 reductions were witnessed (Meehan et al. 2019). The expansion of commodity plantations, however, 47 conflict with reduction ambitions (Anderson et al. 2016; Irawan et al. 2019) In addition to 48 implementation at the site and jurisdictional levels, legal enforcement (Tacconi et al. 2019) as well as 49 policy and regulatory reforms (Ekawati et al. 2019) appears to be needed. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-77 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Another relevant initiative is one under the 2015 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 2 (UNCCD), which targets land degradation neutrality i.e., ‘a state whereby the amount and quality of 3 land resources, necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security, 4 remains stable or increases within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems’ (Orr et al. 5 2017). This overarching goal was recognised as also being critical to reaching the more specific avoided 6 deforestation and degradation and restoration goals of the UNFCCC and UNCBD. The Land 7 Degradation Neutrality (LDN) initiative from UNCCD includes target setting programmes (TSP) that 8 assist countries by providing practical tools and guidance for the establishment of the voluntary targets 9 and formulate associated measures to achieve LDN and accelerate implementation of projects (Chasek 10 et al. 2019). Today, 124 countries have committed to their LDN national targets (UNCCD 2015). The 11 LDN Fund is an investment vehicle launched in UNCCD COP 13 in 2017, which exists to provide long- 12 term financing for private projects and programmes for countries to achieve their LDN targets. 13 According to the UNCCD, most of the funds will be invested in developing countries. 14 Recent efforts towards the enhancement of sinks from the forestry sector have the overarching goal of 15 reaching zero gross deforestation globally, i.e., eliminating the clearing of all natural forests. The New 16 York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) was the first international pledge to call for a halving of natural 17 forest loss by 2020 and the complete elimination of natural forest loss by 2030 (Climate Focus 2016). 18 It was endorsed at the United Nations Climate Summit in September 2014. By September 2019 the list 19 of NYDF supporters included over 200 actors: national governments, sub-national governments, multi- 20 national companies, groups representing indigenous communities, and non-government organisations. 21 These endorsers have committed to doing their part to achieve the NYDF’s ten goals, which include 22 ending deforestation for agricultural expansion by 2020, reducing deforestation from other sectors, 23 restoring forests, and providing financing for forest action (Forest Declaration 2019). These goals are 24 assessed and tracked through the NYDF Progress Assessment, which includes NYDF Assessment 25 Partners that collect data, generate analysis, and release the finding based on the NYDF framework and 26 goals. 27 The effectiveness of these agreements, which lack binding rules, can only be judged by the 28 supplementary actions they have catalysed. The NYDF contributed to the development of several other 29 zero-deforestation pledges, including the Amsterdam Declarations by seven European nations to 30 achieve fully sustainable and deforestation-free agro-commodity supply chains in Europe by 2020 and 31 over 150 individual company commitments to not source products associated with deforestation 32 (Donofrio et al. 2017; Lambin et al. 2018). Recent studies indicate that these efforts currently lack the 33 potential to achieve wide-scale reductions in clearing and associated emissions due to weak 34 implementation (Garrett et al. 2019), although in some cases in Indonesia and elsewhere the commodity 35 supply chain sustainability drive appears to contribute to lowering deforestation (Wijaya et al. 2019; 36 Chain Reaction Research 2020; Schulte et al. 2020). The NYDF may have triggered small additional 37 reductions in deforestation in some areas, particularly for soy, and to a lesser extent cattle, in the 38 Brazilian Amazon (Lambin et al. 2018), but these effects were temporary, as efforts are being actively 39 reversed and deforestation has increased again significantly. Deforestation rates have escalated in 40 Brazil, with the rate in June 2019 (the first dry-season month in the new administration) up 88% over 41 the 2018 rate in the same month (INPE 2019). Curtis et al. (2018) find global targets are clearly not 42 being met. More recent increase in deforestation rate remains to be assessed. NYDF confirms that the 43 initiative did not reach its zero-deforestation goal (NYDF Assessment Partners 2020). 44 In 2010, the parties to the CBD adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 which included 45 20 targets known as the Aichi Biodiversity targets (Marques et al. 2014). Of relevance to the forestry 46 sector, Aichi Target 15 sets the goal of enhancing ecosystem resilience and the contribution of 47 biodiversity to carbon stocks though conservation and restoration, including ‘restoration of at least 15% 48 of degraded ecosystems’ (UNCBD 2010). The plan elaborates milestones, including the development Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-78 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 of national plans for potential restoration levels and contributions to biodiversity protection, carbon 2 sequestration, and climate adaptation to be integrated into other national strategies, including REDD+. 3 In 2020, however, the CBD found that while progress was evident for the majority of the Aichi 4 Biodiversity Targets, it was not sufficient for the achievement of the targets by 2020 (CBD 2020). 5 Recent efforts toward negative emissions through restoration include the Bonn Challenge, the African 6 Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR 100) and Initiative 20X20. The Bonn Challenge, initiated 7 in 2011 by the Government of Germany and the IUCN, is intended to catalyse the existing international 8 AFOLU commitments. It aims to bring 150 million hectares (Mha) of the world’s deforested and 9 degraded land into restoration by 2020, and 350 Mha by 2030. AFR has the goal of restoring 100 Mha 10 specifically in Africa (AUDA-NEPAD 2019), while 20X20 aims to restore 20 Mha in Latin America 11 and the Caribbean (Anderson and Peimbert 2019). Increasing commitments for restoration have created 12 momentum for restoration interventions (Chazdon et al. 2017; Mansourian et al. 2017; Djenontin et al. 13 2018). To date 97 Mha has been pledged in NDCs. Yet only a small part of this goal has been achieved. 14 The Bonn Challenge Barometer – a progress-tracking framework and tool to support pledgers - indicates 15 that 27 Mha (InfoFLR 2018) are currently being restored, equivalent to 1.379 GtCO2eq sequestered 16 (Dave et al. 2019). A key challenge in scaling up restoration has been to mobilise sufficient financing 17 (Liagre et al. 2015; Djenontin et al. 2018). This underscores the importance of building international 18 financing for restoration (equivalent to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility focused on avoided 19 deforestation and degradation). 20 In sum, existing international agreements have had a small impact on reducing emissions from the 21 AFOLU sector and some success in achieving the enhancement of sinks through restoration. However, 22 these outcomes are nowhere near levels required to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goal –which 23 would require turning land use and forests globally from a net anthropogenic source during 1990-2010 24 to a net sink of carbon by 2030, and providing a quarter of emission reductions planned by countries 25 (Grassi et al. 2017). The AFOLU sector has so far contributed only modestly to net mitigation (see 26 Chapter 7). 27 14.5.2.2 Energy sector 28 International cooperation on issues of energy supply and security has a long and complicated history. 29 There exists a plethora of institutions, organisations, and agreements concerned with managing the 30 sector. There have been efforts to map the relevant actors, with authors in one case identifying six 31 primary organisations (Kérébel and Keppler 2009), in another sixteen (Lesage et al. 2010), and in a 32 third fifty (Sovacool and Florini 2012). At the same time, very little of that history has had climate 33 mitigation as its core focus. Global energy governance has encompassed five broad goals – security of 34 energy supply and demand, economic development, international security, environmental 35 sustainability, and domestic good governance – and as only one of these provides an entry point for 36 climate mitigation, effort in this direction has often been lost (van de Graaf and Colgan 2016). To take 37 one example, during the 1980s and 1990s a combination of bilateral development support and lending 38 practices from multilateral development banks pushed developing countries to adopt power market 39 reforms consistent with the Washington Consensus: towards liberalised power markets and away from 40 state-owned monopolies. The goals of these reforms did not include an environmental component, and 41 among the results was new investment in fossil-fired thermal power generation (Foster and Rana 2020). 42 As Goldthau and Witte (2010) document, the majority of governance efforts, outside of oil and gas 43 producing states, was oriented towards ensuring reliable and affordable access for oil and gas imports. 44 For example, the original rationale for the creation of the International Energy Agency (IEA), during 45 the oil crisis of 1973-74, was to manage a mechanism to ensure importing countries’ access to oil (van 46 de Graaf and Lesage 2009). On the other side of the aisle, oil exporting countries created the 47 international institution of OPEC to enable them to influence oil output, thereby stabilising prices and 48 revenues for exporting countries (Fattouh and Mahadeva 2013). For years, energy governance was seen Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-79 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 as a zero-sum game between these poles (Goldthau and Witte 2010). The only international governance 2 agency focusing on low carbon energy sources was the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a 3 dual mission of promoting nuclear energy and nuclear weapons non-proliferation (Scheinman 1987). 4 More recently, however, new institutions have emerged, and existing institutions have realigned their 5 missions, in order to promote capacity building and global investment in low carbon energy 6 technologies. Collectively, these developments may support the emergence of a nascent field of global 7 sustainable energy governance, in which a broad range of global, regional, national, sub-national and 8 non-state actors, in aggregate, shape, direct and implement the low carbon transition through climate 9 change mitigation activities, which produce concomitant societal benefits (Bruce 2018). Beginning in 10 the 1990s, for example, the IEA began to broaden its mission from one concerned primarily with 11 security of oil supplies, which encompassed conservation of energy resources, to one also concerned 12 with the sustainability of energy use, including work programs on energy efficiency and clean energy 13 technologies and scenarios (van de Graaf and Lesage 2009). Scholars have suggested that it was the 14 widespread perception that the IEA was primarily interested in promoting the continued use of fossil 15 fuels, and underplaying the potential role of renewable technologies, that led a number of IEA member 16 states to successfully push for the creation of a parallel organisation, the International Renewable 17 Energy Agency (IRENA), which was then established in 2009 (van de Graaf 2013). An assessment of 18 IRENA’s activities in 2015 suggested that the agency has a positive effect related to three core activities: 19 offering advisory services to member states regarding renewable energy technologies and systems; 20 serving as a focal point for data and analysis for renewable energy; and, mobilising other international 21 institutions, such as multilateral development banks, promoting renewable energy (Urpelainen and Van 22 de Graaf 2015). The United Nations, including its various agencies such as the Committee on 23 Sustainable Energy within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, has also played a role 24 in the realignment of global energy governance towards mitigation efforts. As a precursor to SDG 7, 25 the United Nations initiated in 2011 the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, which in addition to 26 aiming for universal access to modern energy services, included the goals of doubling the rate of 27 improvement in energy efficiency, and doubling by 2030 the share of renewable energy in the global 28 energy mix (Bruce 2018). 29 Sub-global agreements have also started to emerge, examples of issue-specific climate clubs. In 2015, 30 seventy solar-rich countries signed a framework agreement dedicated towards promoting solar energy 31 development (ISA 2015). In 2017 the Powering Past Coal Alliance was formed, uniting a set of states, 32 businesses, and non-governmental organisations around the goal of eliminating coal-fired power 33 generation by 2050 (Jewell et al. 2019; Blondeel et al. 2020). Scholars have argued that greater attention 34 to supply-side agreements such as this – focusing on reducing and ultimately eliminating the supply of 35 carbon-intensive energy sources – would strengthen the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement (Collier and 36 Venables 2014; Piggot et al. 2018; Asheim et al. 2019; Newell and Simms 2020). Chapter 6 of this 37 report, on energy systems, notes the importance of regional cooperation on electric grid development, 38 seen as necessary to enable higher shares of solar and wind power penetration (RGI 2011). Finally, a 39 number of transnational organisations and activities have emerged, such as REN21, a global community 40 of renewable energy experts (REN21 2019), and RE100, an NGO led initiative to enlist multilateral 41 companies to shift towards 100% renewable energy in their value chains (RE100 2019). 42 Whether a result of the above activities or not, multilateral development banks’ lending practices have 43 shifted in the direction of renewable energy (Delina 2017), a point also raised in Chapter 15 of this 44 Assessment Report. Activities include new sources of project finance, concessional loans, as well as 45 loan guarantees, the latter through the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Multilateral 46 Investment Guarantee Agency 2019). This appears to matter. For example, Frisari and Stadelmann 47 (2015) find concessional lending by multilateral development banks to solar energy projects in Morocco 48 and India to have reduced overall project costs, due to more attractive financing conditions from Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-80 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 additional lenders, as well as reducing the costs to local governments. Labordena et al. (2017) projected 2 these results into the future, and found that with the drop in financing costs, renewable energy projects 3 serving all major demand centres in sub-Saharan Africa could reach cost parity with fossil fuels by 4 2025, whereas without the drop in financing costs associated with concessional lending, this would not 5 be the case. Similarly, Creutzig et al. (2017) suggest that greater international attention to finance could 6 be instrumental in the full development of solar energy. 7 Despite improvements in the international governance of energy, it still appears that a great deal of this 8 is still concerned with promoting further development of fossil fuels. One aspect of this is the 9 development of international legal norms. A large number of bilateral and multilateral agreements, 10 including the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty, include provisions for using a system of investor-state 11 dispute settlement (ISDS) designed to protect the interests of investors in energy projects from national 12 policies that could lead their assets to be stranded. Numerous scholars have pointed to ISDS being able 13 to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their 14 assets (Bos and Gupta 2019; Tienhaara 2018). Another aspect is finance; Gallagher et al. (2018) 15 examine the role of national development finance systems, focusing in particular on China. While there 16 has been a great deal of finance devoted to renewable energy, they find the majority of finance devoted 17 to projects associated either with fossil fuel extraction or with fossil fuel-fired power generation. 18 Ascensão et al. (2018) similarly suggest that activities associated with the Belt and Road Initiative could 19 play a role in slowing down mitigation efforts in developing countries. 20 Given the complexity of global energy governance, it is impossible to make a definitive statement about 21 its overall contribution to mitigation efforts. Three statements, do however, appear to be robust. First, 22 prior to the emergence of climate change on the global political agenda, international cooperation in the 23 area of energy was primarily aimed at expanding and protecting the use of fossil energy, and these goals 24 were entrenched in a number of multilateral organisations. Second, since the 1990s, international 25 cooperation has gradually taken climate mitigation on board as one of its goals, seeing a realignment of 26 many pre-existing organisations priorities, and the formation of a number of new international 27 arrangements oriented towards the development renewable energy resources. Third, the realignment is 28 far from complete, and there are still examples of international cooperation having a chilling effect on 29 climate mitigation, particularly through financing and investment practices, including legal norms 30 designed to protect the interests of owners of fossil assets. 31 14.5.2.3 Transportation 32 The transportation sector has been a particular focus of cooperative efforts on climate mitigation that 33 extend beyond the sphere of the UNFCCC climate regime. A number of these cooperative efforts 34 involve transnational public-private partnerships, such as the European-based Transport 35 Decarbonisation Alliance, which brings together countries, regions, cities and companies working 36 towards the goal of a ‘net-zero emission mobility system before 2050’ (TDA 2019). Other efforts are 37 centred in specialised UN agencies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and 38 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). 39 Measures introduced by the ICAO and IMO have addressed CO2 emissions from international shipping 40 and aviation. Emissions from these parts of the transportation sector are generally excluded from 41 national emissions reduction policies and NDCs because the ‘international’ location of emissions 42 release makes allocation to individual nations difficult (Bows-Larkin 2015; Lyle 2018; Hoch et al. 43 2019). The measures adopted by ICAO take the form of standards and recommended practices that are 44 adopted in national legislation. IMO publishes ‘regulations’ but does not have a power of enforcement, 45 with non-compliance a responsibility of flag states that issue a ship’s ‘MARPOL’ certificate. 46 As discussed in Chapter 2 and Figure SPM.4, international aviation currently accounts for 47 approximately 1% of global GHG emissions, with international shipping contributing 1.2% of global 48 GHG emissions. These international transport emissions are projected to be between approximately 60- Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-81 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 220% of global emissions of CO2 in 2050, as represented by the four main illustrative model pathways 2 in SR1.5 (Rogelj et al. 2018; UNEP 2020) Notably, however, the climate impact of aviation emissions 3 is estimated to be 2-4 times higher due to non-CO2 effects (Terrenoire et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2021a). 4 Increases in trans-Arctic shipping and tourism activities with sea ice loss are also forecast to have strong 5 regional effects due to ships’ gas and particulate emissions (Stephenson et al. 2018). 6 The Kyoto Protocol required Annex I parties to pursue emissions reductions from aviation and marine 7 bunker fuels by working through IMO and ICAO (UNFCCC 1997, Art. 2.2). Limited progress was 8 made by these organisations on emissions controls in the ensuing decades (Liu 2011b), but greater 9 action was prompted by conclusion of the SDGs and Paris Agreement (Martinez Romera 2016), 10 together with unilateral action, such as the EU’s inclusion of aviation emissions in its Emissions Trading 11 Scheme (ETS) (Dobson 2020). 12 The Paris Agreement neither explicitly addresses emissions from international aviation and shipping, 13 nor repeats the Kyoto Protocol’s provision requiring parties to work through ICAO/IMO to address 14 these emissions (Hoch et al. 2019). This leaves unclear the status of the Kyoto Protocol’s article 2.2 15 directive after 2020 (Martinez Romera 2016; Dobson 2020), potentially opening up scope for more 16 attention to aviation and shipping emissions under the Paris Agreement (Doelle and Chircop 2019). 17 Some commentators have suggested that emissions from international aviation and shipping should be 18 part of the Paris Agreement (Gençsü and Hino 2015; Traut et al. 2018), and shipping and aviation 19 industries themselves may prefer emissions to be treated under an international regime rather than a 20 nationally-oriented one (Gilbert and Bows 2012). In the case of shipping emissions, there is nothing in 21 the Paris Agreement to prevent a party from including international shipping in some form in its NDC 22 (Doelle and Chircop 2019) Under the Paris Rulebook, parties “should report international aviation and 23 marine bunker fuel emissions as two separate entries and should not include such emissions in national 24 totals but report them distinctly, if disaggregated data are available” (UNFCCC 2019d). 25 ICAO has an overarching climate goal to “limit or reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas 26 emissions on the global climate” with respect to international aviation. In order to achieve this, ICAO 27 has two global aspirational goals for the international aviation sector, of 2% annual fuel efficiency 28 improvement through 2050 and carbon neutral growth from 2020 onwards (ICAO 2016). In order to 29 achieve these global aspirational goals, ICAO is pursuing a ‘basket’ of mitigation measures for the 30 aviation sector consisting of technical and operational measures, such as a CO2 emissions standard for 31 new aircraft adopted in 2016, measures on sustainable alternative fuels and a market-based measure, 32 known as the Carbon Offset and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which the 33 triennial ICAO Assembly of 193 Member States resolved to establish in 2016 (ICAO 2016). In line 34 with the 2016 ICAO Assembly Resolution that established CORSIA, in mid-2018, the ICAO's 36- 35 member state governing Council adopted a series of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), 36 now contained in Annex 16, Volume IV of the Chicago Convention (1944), as a common basis for 37 CORSIA's implementation and enforcement by each state and its aeroplane operators. From 1 January 38 2019, the CORSIA SARPs require states and their operators to undertake an annual process of 39 monitoring, verification, and reporting of emissions from all international flights, including to establish 40 CORSIA’s emissions baseline (ICAO 2019). 41 Based on this emissions data, CORSIA’s carbon offsetting obligations commence in 2021, with 3-year 42 compliance cycles, including a pilot phase in 2021-2023. States have the option to participate in the 43 pilot phase and the subsequent voluntary 3-year cycle in 2024-2026. CORSIA becomes mandatory from 44 2027 onwards for states whose share in the total international revenue tonnes per kilometre (RTK) is 45 above a certain threshold (Hoch et al. 2019). Under CORSIA, aviation CO2 emissions are not capped, 46 but rather emissions that exceed the CORSIA baseline are compensated through use of ‘offset units’ 47 from emissions reduction projects in other industries (Erling 2018). However, it is unclear whether the 48 goal of carbon neutral growth and further CO2 emissions reduction in the sector will be sufficiently Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-82 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 incentivised solely through the use of such offsets in combination with ICAO's manufacturing 2 standards, programs, and state action plans, without additional measures being taken, for example, 3 constraints on demand (Lyle 2018). If countries such as China, Brazil, India and Russia do not 4 participate in CORSIA’s voluntary offsetting requirements this could significantly undermine its 5 capacity to deliver fully on the sectoral goal by limiting coverage of the scheme to less than 50% of 6 international aviation CO2 emissions in the period 2021-2026 (Climate Action Tracker 2020b; Hoch et 7 al. 2019). In addition, a wide range of offsets are approved as ‘eligible emissions units’ in CORSIA, 8 including several certified under voluntary carbon offset schemes, which may go beyond those 9 eventually agreed under the Paris Agreement Article 6 mechanism (Hoch et al. 2019). It is noted, 10 however, that ICAO applies a set of ‘Emissions Unit Eligibility Criteria’ agreed in March 2019, which 11 specify required design elements for eligible programs. In June 2020, the ICAO Council decided to 12 define 2019 emissions levels, rather than an average of 2019 and 2020 emissions, as the baseline year 13 for at least the first three years of CORSIA, although there were significant reductions (45-60%) in 14 aviation CO2 emissions in 2020 compared with 2019 as a result of reductions in air travel associated 15 with the COVID-19 pandemic (Climate Action Tracker 2020b). 16 Other measures adopted by ICAO include an aircraft CO2 emissions standard that applies to new aircraft 17 type designs from 2020, and to aircraft type designs already in production as of 2023 (Smith and Ahmad 18 2018). Overall, CORSIA and regional measures, such as the EU ETS, are estimated to reduce aviation 19 carbon emissions by only 0.8% per year from 2017-2030 (noting, however, that ‘if non-CO2 emissions 20 are included in the analysis, then emissions will increase’) (Larsson et al. 2019). Accordingly, pathways 21 consistent with the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement are likely to require more stringent 22 international measures for the aviation sector (Larsson et al. 2019). 23 Similar to ICAO, the IMO has a stated vision of remaining committed to reducing greenhouse gas 24 emissions from international shipping and, as a matter of urgency, aims to phase them out as soon as 25 possible in this century. IMO has considered a range of measures to monitor and reduce shipping 26 emissions. In 2016, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) approved an 27 amendment to the MARPOL Convention Annex VI for the introduction of a Mandatory Global Data 28 Collection scheme for fuel oil consumption of ships (Dobson 2020). Other IMO measures have focused 29 on energy efficiency (Martinez Romera 2016). The IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), 30 which is mandatory for new ships, is intended, over a ten-year period, to improve energy efficiency by 31 up to 30% in several categories of ships propelled by diesel engines (Smith and Ahmad 2018). In May 32 2019, the MEPC approved draft amendments to the MARPOL Convention Annex VI, which if adopted, 33 will bring forward the entry into force of the third phase of the EEDI requirements to 2022 instead of 34 2025 (IMO 2019; Joung et al. 2020). 35 However, it is unlikely that the EEDI and other IMO technical and operational measures will be 36 sufficient to produce ‘the necessary emissions reduction because of the future growth in international 37 seaborne trade and world population’ (Shi and Gullett 2018). Consequently, in 2018, the IMO adopted 38 an initial strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships (IMO 2018). This includes a goal for 39 declining carbon intensity of the sector by reducing CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average 40 across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, and pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, 41 compared to 2008 levels (IMO 2018, para. 3.1). The strategy also aims for peaking of total annual GHG 42 emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and a reduction by at least 50% by 2050 43 compared to 2008 levels, whilst pursuing efforts towards phasing them out ‘as soon as possible in this 44 century’ as a point ‘on a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement 45 temperature goals’ (IMO 2018, para. 2, 3.1). The shipping industry is on track to overachieve the 2030 46 carbon intensity target but not its 2050 target (Climate Action Tracker 2020c). The initial IMO strategy 47 is to be kept under review by the MEPC with a view to adoption of a revised strategy in 2023. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-83 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 The IMO’s initial strategy identifies a series of candidate short-term (2018-2023), medium-term (2023- 2 2030) and long-term (beyond 2030) measures for achieving its emissions reduction goals, including 3 possible market-based measures in the medium-to-long term (IMO 2018, paras. 4.7-4.9). Further 4 progress on market-based measures faces difficulty in light of conflicts between the CBDRRC principle 5 of the climate regime and the traditional non-discrimination approach and principle of no more 6 favourable treatment enshrined in MARPOL and other IMO conventions (Zhang 2016). Both the 7 CBDRRC and non-discrimination principles are designated as ‘principles guiding the initial strategy’ 8 (IMO 2018, para. 3.2). The challenges encountered in introducing global market-based measures for 9 shipping emissions under the IMO have prompted regional initiatives such as the proposed extension 10 of the EU ETS to emissions from maritime activities (Christodoulou et al. 2021), which was announced 11 on 14 July 2021 by the EU Commission as part of its ‘Fit for 55’ legislative package (European 12 Commission 2021). 13 While the IMO strategy is viewed as a reasonable first step that is ambitious for the shipping industry, 14 achieving the ‘vision’ of alignment with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement requires concrete 15 implementation measures and strengthened targets in the next iteration in 2023 (Doelle and Chircop 16 2019; Climate Action Tracker 2020c). As a step towards this, in 2020, the IMO’s MEPC put forward 17 draft amendments to the MARPOL convention that would require ships to combine a technical and an 18 operational approach to reduce their carbon intensity. These amendments were formally adopted by the 19 Committee at its session in June 2021. 20 21 14.5.3 Civil society and social movements 22 Transnationally organised civil society actors have had long-standing involvement in international 23 climate policy, with a particular focus on consulting or knowledge-sharing where they are present in 24 transnational climate governance initiatives (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017). The term ‘civil 25 society’ generally denotes ‘the voluntary association of individuals in the public sphere beyond the 26 realms of the state, the market and the family’ (de Bakker et al. 2013, p. 575). Whereas civil society 27 organisations are usually involved in lobbying or advocacy activities in a public arena, social 28 movements focus on mobilisation and action for social change (Daniel and Neubert 2019). Examples 29 of civil society groups involved in international climate policy include non-governmental organisations 30 (NGOs) such as Greenpeace International, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Environmental 31 Defence Fund, the World Resources Institute, Friends of the Earth and Earthjustice among many others, 32 as well as NGO networks such as the Climate Action Network (CAN), which has over 1300 NGO 33 members in more than 130 countries, working to promote government and individual action to limit 34 human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels (Climate Action Network 35 International 2020). The influence of civil society engagement in global climate governance is well- 36 acknowledged, with these organisations’ globally dispersed constituencies and non-state status offering 37 perspectives that differ in significant ways from those of many negotiating states (Derman 2014). 38 Historically, the issue of climate change did not give rise to intense, organised transnational protest 39 characteristic of social movements (McAdam 2017). During the 1990s and early 2000s, the activities 40 of the global climate movement were concentrated in developed countries and largely sought to exercise 41 influence through participation in UNFCCC COPs and side events (Almeida 2019). The mid-2000s 42 onwards, however, saw the beginnings of use of more non-institutionalised tactics, such as simultaneous 43 demonstrations across several countries, focusing on a grassroots call for climate justice that grew out 44 of previous environmental justice movements (Almeida 2019). Groups representing Indigenous, youth, 45 women, and labour rights brought to the fore new tools of contention and new issues in the UNFCCC, 46 such as questions of a just transition and gender equity (Allan 2020). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-84 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Climate justice has been variously defined, but centres on addressing the disproportionate impacts of 2 climate change on the most vulnerable populations and calls for community sovereignty and functioning 3 (Schlosberg and Collins 2014; Tramel 2016). Contemporary climate justice groups mobilise multiple 4 strands of environmental justice movements from the Global North and South, as well as from distinct 5 indigenous rights and peasant rights movements, and are organised as a decentralised network of 6 semiautonomous, coordinated units (Claeys and Delgado Pugley 2017; Tormos-Aponte and García- 7 López 2018). The climate justice movement held global days of protest in most of the world’s countries 8 in 2014 and 2015, and mobilised another large campaign in 2018 (Almeida 2019). The polycentric 9 arrangement of the global climate movement allows simultaneous influence on multiple sites of climate 10 governance, from the local to the global levels (Tormos-Aponte and García-López 2018). 11 Prominent examples of new climate social movements that operate transnationally are Extinction 12 Rebellion and Fridays for Future, which collectively held hundreds of coordinated protests across the 13 globe in 2019-2021, marking out ‘the transnational climate justice movement as one of the most 14 extensive social movements on the planet’ (Almeida 2019). Fridays for Future is a children’s and youth 15 movement that began in August 2018, inspired by the actions of then 15-year old Greta Thunberg who 16 pledged to strike in front of the Swedish parliament every Friday to protest against a lack of action on 17 climate change in line with the Paris Agreement targets (Fridays for Future 2019). Fridays for Future 18 events worldwide encompass more than 200 countries and millions of strikers. The movement is 19 unusual for its focus on children and the rights of future generations, with children’s resistance having 20 received little previous attention in the literature. Fridays for the Future is regarded as a progressive 21 resistance movement that has quickly achieved global prominence (for example, Thunberg was invited 22 to address governments at the UN Climate Summit in New York in September 2019) and is credited 23 with helping to support the discourse about the responsibility of humanity as a whole for climate change 24 (Holmberg and Alvinius 2019). Whereas Fridays for Future has focused on periodic protest action, 25 Extinction Rebellion has pursued a campaign based on sustained non-violent direct citizen action that 26 is focused on three key demands: declaration of a ‘climate emergency’, acting now to halt biodiversity 27 loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025, and creation of a citizen’s assembly on 28 climate and ecological justice (Booth 2019; Extinction Rebellion 2019). The movement first arose in 29 the United Kingdom (UK) – where it claimed credit for adoption of a climate emergency declaration 30 by the UK government – but now has a presence in 45 countries with some 650 groups having formed 31 globally (Gunningham 2019). 32 The Paris Agreement’s preamble explicitly recognises the importance of engaging “various actors” in 33 addressing climate change, and the decision adopting the Agreement created the Non-State Actor Zone 34 for Climate Action platform to aid in scaling up these efforts. Specific initiatives have also been taken 35 to facilitate participation of particular groups, such as the UNFCCC’s Local Communities and 36 Indigenous Peoples Platform, which commenced work in Katowice in 2019. Climate movements based 37 in the Global South, as well as in Indigenous territories, are playing an increasingly important role in 38 transnational negotiations through networks such as the Indigenous Peoples Platform. These groups 39 highlight the voices and perspectives of communities and peoples particularly affected by climate 40 change. For instance, the Pacific Climate Warriors is a grassroots network of young people from various 41 countries in the Pacific Islands region whose activities focus on resisting narratives of future 42 inevitability of their Pacific homelands disappearing, and re-envisioning islanders as warriors defending 43 rights to homeland and culture (McNamara and Farbotko 2017). Youth global climate activism, 44 particularly involving young Indigenous climate activists, is another notable recent development. 45 Although there remains little published literature on Indigenous youth climate activism (MacKay et al. 46 2020), analysis of online sources indicates the emergence of several such groups, including the Pacific 47 Climate Warriors and Te Ara Whatu from Aotearoa New Zealand (Ritchie 2021), as well as Seed Mob 48 in Australia. Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-85 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Transnational civil society organisations advocating for climate justice in global governance have 2 articulated policy positions around rights protections, responsibility-based approaches to climate 3 finance, and the need for transparency and accountability (Derman 2014). Another recent area of 4 activity, which overlaps with that of emerging investor alliances (discussed further in Section 14.5.4), 5 is the sustainability of capital investment in fossil fuel assets. Efforts to shift away from fossil fuels led 6 by civil society include the Beyond Coal Campaign (in the US and Europe) and the organisation for a 7 Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty. 350.org has supported mobilisation of youth and university 8 students around a campaign of divestment that has grown into a global movement (Gunningham 2019). 9 As Mormann (2020) notes, as of November 2020 ‘more than 1,200 institutional investors managing 10 over USD14 trillion of assets around the world have committed to divest some or all of their fossil fuel 11 holdings’ (Mormann 2020). Studies suggest that the direct impacts of the divestment movement have 12 so far been small, given a failure to differentiate between different types of fossil fuel companies, a lack 13 of engagement with retail investors, and a lack of guidance for investors on clean energy re-investment 14 (Osofsky et al. 2019; Mormann 2020). The movement has had a more significant impact on public 15 discourse by raising the profile of climate change as a financial risk for investors (Bergman 2018). 16 Blondeel et al. (2019) also find that broader appeal of the divestment norm was achieved when moral 17 arguments were linked to financial ones, through the advocacy of economic actors, such as Bank of 18 England’s governor. 19 Climate justice campaigns by transnational civil society organisations increasingly embrace action 20 through the courts. Chapter 13 discusses the growth and policy impact of such ‘climate litigation’ 21 brought by civil society actors in domestic courts, which is attracting increasing attention in the 22 literature (Setzer and Vanhala 2019; Peel and Osofsky 2020). Transnational and international court 23 actions focused on climate change, by contrast, have been relatively few in number (Peel and Lin 2019). 24 This reflects—at least in part—the procedural hurdles to bringing such claims, as in many international 25 courts and tribunals (outside of the area of human rights or investor-state arbitration) litigation can only 26 be brought by states (Bruce 2017). However, there have been active discussions about seeking an 27 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on states’ international obligations 28 regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Sands 2016; Wewerinke-Singh and Salili 2020), 29 or bringing a case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on marine pollution harms caused 30 by climate change (Boyle 2019). In September 2021 the Government of Vanuatu announced a campaign 31 to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. The aim of climate litigation more generally is to supplement 32 other regulatory efforts by filling gaps and ensuring that interpretations of laws and policies are aligned 33 with climate mitigation goals (Osofsky 2010). 34 The overall impact of transnationally-organised civil society action and social movements for 35 international cooperation on climate change mitigation has not been comprehensively evaluated in the 36 literature. This may reflect the polycentric organisation of the movement, which poses challenges for 37 coordinating between groups operating in different contexts, acting with different strategies and around 38 multiple issues, and lobbying multiple decision-making bodies at various levels of government in a 39 sustainable way (Tormos-Aponte and García-López 2018). There is some literature emerging on 40 environmental defenders and their need for protection against violence and repression, particularly in 41 the case of Indigenous environmental defenders who face significantly higher rates of violence 42 (Scheidel et al. 2020). Scheidel et al. (2020) also find that combining strategies of preventive 43 mobilisation, protest diversification and litigation can enhance rates of success for environmental 44 defenders in halting environmentally destructive projects. In the area of climate litigation, 45 commentators have noted the potential for activists and even researchers to suffer retaliation through 46 the courts as a result of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP) and lawsuits against 47 researchers brought by fossil fuel interests (Setzer and Byrnes 2019; Setzer and Benjamin 2020). 48 Influence of social movements may be enhanced through taking advantage of ‘movement spillover’ 49 (the involvement of activists in more than one movement) (Hadden 2014) and coordination of activities Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-86 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 with a range of ‘non-state governors,’ including cities, sub-national governments, and investor groups 2 (Gunningham 2019). Studies of general societal change suggest that once 3.5% of the population are 3 mobilised on an issue, far-reaching change becomes possible (Gladwell 2002; Chenoweth and 4 Belgioioso 2019) – a tipping point that may be approaching in the case of climate change (Gunningham 5 2019). As noted in Chapter 5, in the particular case of low-carbon technologies, ‘if 10-30% of the 6 population were to demonstrate commitment to low-carbon technologies, behaviours, and lifestyles, 7 new social norms would be established.’ 8 9 14.5.4 Transnational business and public-private partnerships and initiatives 10 Combined national climate commitments fall far short of the Paris Agreement's long term temperature 11 goals. Similar political ambition gaps persist across various areas of sustainable development. Many 12 therefore argue that actions by nonstate actors, such as businesses and investors, cities and regions, and 13 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are crucial. However, nonstate climate and sustainability 14 actions may not be self-reinforcing but may heavily depend on supporting mechanisms. Governance 15 risk-reduction strategies can be combined to maximize nonstate potential in sustainable and climate- 16 resilient transformations (Chan et al. 2019). 17 An important feature of the evolving international climate policy landscape of the recent years is the 18 entrepreneurship of UN agencies such as UNEP and UNDP, as well as international organizations such 19 as the World Bank in initiating public-private partnerships (PPPs). Andonova (2017) calls this 20 ‘governance entrepreneurship’. Such partnerships can be defined as ‘voluntary agreements between 21 public actors (IOs, states, or sub-state public authorities) and non-state actors (non-governmental 22 organizations (NGOs), companies, foundations, etc.) on a set of governance objectives and norms, rules, 23 practices, and/or implementation procedures and their attainment across multiple jurisdictions and 24 levels of governance’ (Andonova 2017). Partnerships may carry out different main functions: first, 25 policy development, establishing new agreements on norms, rules, or standards among a broader set of 26 governmental and non-governmental actors; second, enabling implementation and delivery of services, 27 by combining resources from governmental and non-governmental actors; and, third, knowledge 28 production and dissemination, to e.g. the evolution of relevant public policies. 29 An example of a prominent PPP in the area of climate mitigation is the Renewable Energy Network 30 (REN21 2019), which is a global multi-stakeholder network focused on promoting renewable energy 31 policies in support of the transition to renewable energy through knowledge, established 2004. It 32 includes members from industry, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, and science and academia. 33 Another example is the Green Economy Coalition founded in 2009 to bring to bear the perspectives of 34 workers, business, poor people, the environment community, and academics in the transition to greener 35 and more sustainable economy. Another example is that in 2015 Peru in collaboration with France and 36 the UNFCCC Secretariat launched the ‘Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action’ (NAZCA), an online 37 platform to showcase commitments to climate action by companies, cities, regions and investors (Chan 38 et al. 2016; Bertoldi et al. 2018). More recently, the UNFCCC ‘Race to Zero’ initiative led by High- 39 level Climate Champions Nigel Topping and Gonzalo Muñoz seeks to mobilize actors beyond national 40 governments to join the Climate Ambition Alliance and pursue net zero CO2 targets. Its membership 41 includes 454 cities, 23 regions, 1,391 businesses, 74 of the biggest investors, and 569 universities. 42 PPPs may also be developed to assist with implementation and support of states’ climate mitigation 43 commitments. For instance, UNEP has initiated a number of PPPs for climate change finance. These 44 are designed to increase financing for the purposes of disseminating low-carbon technologies to tackle 45 climate change and promote clean energy in many parts of developing countries (UNEP 2018b; 46 Charlery and Traerup 2019). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-87 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 In the same vein, in 2010 FAO delivered the Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest 2 Governance. The Framework draws on several approaches currently in use or under development in 3 major forest governance-related processes and initiatives, including the World Bank’s Framework for 4 Forest Governance Reform. The Framework builds on the understanding that governance is both the 5 context and the product of the interaction of a range of actors and stakeholders with diverse interests 6 (FAO 2010). For example, UNFCCC and UN-REDD program focus on REDD+ and UNEP focus on 7 TEEB (a global initiative focusing on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity) institutional 8 mechanisms have been conceptualized as a ‘win-win-win’ for mitigating climate, protecting 9 biodiversity and conserving indigenous culture by institutionalizing payments on carbon sequestration 10 and biodiversity conservation values of ecosystems services from global to local communities. These 11 mechanisms include public-private partnership, and non-governmental organization participation. 12 REDD+ and TEEB allocation policies will be interventions in a highly complex system, and will 13 inevitably involve trade-offs; therefore, it is important to question the ‘win-win-win’ discourse (Zia and 14 Kauffman 2018; Goulder et al. 2019). The initial investment and the longer periods of recovery of 15 investment are sometimes barriers to private investment. In this sense, it is important to have 16 government incentives and encourage public-private investment (Ivanova and Lopez 2013). 17 18 The World Bank has also established several partnerships since 2010, mainly in the field of carbon 19 pricing. Prominent examples are the Networked Carbon Markets initiative (established 2013; spanning 20 both governmental actors and experts; now entering a phase II) and the Carbon Pricing Leadership 21 Coalition, established in 2015 and spanning a wide range of governmental and non-governmental 22 actors, not least within business (World Bank 2018, 2019; Wettestad et al. 2021). These partnerships 23 deal with knowledge production and dissemination and seek to enable implementation of carbon pricing 24 policies. The leadership role of the international ‘heavyweight’ World Bank gives these partnerships 25 additional comparative political weight, meaning also a potentially greater involvement of powerful 26 finance ministries/ministers generally involved in Bank matters and meetings. 27 PPPs for cooperation on climate mitigation goals have emerged at multiple levels of governance beyond 28 the realm of international organizations. For example, PPP funding for cities expanded rapidly in the 29 1990s and outpaced official external assistance almost tenfold. Most of the PPP infrastructure 30 investment has been aimed at telecommunications, followed by energy. However, with the exception 31 of the telecommunications sector, PPP investments have generally bypassed low-income countries 32 (Ivanova 2017). It is therefore not surprising that PPPs have added relatively little to the financing of 33 urban capital in developing countries over the past two decades (Bahl and Linn 2014). Liu and Waibel 34 (2010) argue that the inherent risk of urban investment is the main obstacle to increasing the flow of 35 private capital. Nevertheless, there have been cases where PPP investments have exceeded official 36 external aid flows even for water and sanitation, and highly visible projects have been funded with PPPs 37 in selected metropolitan areas of developing countries, including urban rail projects in Bangkok, Kuala 38 Lumpur, and Manila (Liu and Waibel 2010). 39 Local governments are also creating cross-sector social partnerships (CSSPs) at the sub-national level; 40 entities created for addressing social, economic, and/or environmental issues with partner organizations 41 from the public, private and civil society sectors (Crane and Seitanidi 2014). In particular, with support 42 from international networks such as ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, C40, Global 43 Covenant of Mayors, and Global 100% Renewable Energy, local governments around the world are 44 committing to aggressive carbon reduction targets for their cities (Ivanova et al. 2015; Clarke and 45 Ordonez-Ponce 2017; Kona et al. 2018). Research on CSSPs implementing community sustainability 46 plans shows that climate change is one of the four most common issues, after waste, energy and water 47 (which are also highly relevant to climate mitigation) (MacDonald et al. 2017). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-88 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Community climate action plans consider all GHGs emitted within the local geographic boundaries, 2 including from industry, home heating, burning fuel in vehicles, etc. It is these community plans that 3 require large multi-stakeholder partnerships to be successful. Partners in these partnerships generally 4 include the local government departments, other government departments, utilities, large businesses, 5 Chamber of Commerce, some small and medium sized enterprises, universities, schools, and local civil 6 society groups (Clarke and MacDonald 2016). Research shows that the partnership’s structural features 7 enable the achievement of plan outcomes, such as reducing GHG emissions, while also generating value 8 for the partners (Austin and Seitanidi 2012; Clarke and MacDonald 2016; Clarke and Ordonez-Ponce 9 2017). Stua (2017b) explores the Mitigation Alliances (MAs) on the national level. The internal 10 governance model of MAs consists of overarching authorities mandated to harmonize the overall 11 organizational structure These authorities guarantee an effective, equitable and transparent functioning 12 of the MA’s pillars (the demand, supply, and exchange of mitigation outcomes), in line with the 13 principles and criteria of the Paris Agreement. This hybrid governance model relies upon its unique 14 links with international climate institutions (Stua 2017a). 15 Transnational business partnerships are a growing feature of the landscape of multi-level, multi-actor 16 governance of climate change. Many business leaders embraced the ethos of ‘‘business cannot succeed 17 in societies that fail’’. Examples of this line of reasoning are: poverty limits consumer spending, 18 political instability disrupts business activity, and climate change threatens the production and 19 distribution of goods and services. Such situations endanger MNE investments, global asset 20 management funds, and the core business of international insurance companies and pension funds (van 21 Tulder et al. 2021). 22 A leading example is the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a global, 23 CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a 24 sustainable world. Member companies come from all business sectors and all major economies, 25 representing a combined revenue of more than USD8.5 trillion and with 19 million employees. The 26 WBCSD aims to enhance ‘the business case for sustainability through tools, services, models and 27 experiences’. It includes a Global Network of almost 70 national business councils across the globe. 28 The overall vision is to create a world where more than 9 billion people are all living well and within 29 the boundaries of our planet, by 2050. Vision 2050, released in 2010, explored what a sustainable world 30 would look like 2050, how such a world could be realized, and the role that business can play in making 31 that vision a reality. A few years later, Action2020 took that Vision and translated it into a roadmap of 32 necessary business actions and solutions (WBCSD 2019). WBCSD focuses on those areas where 33 business operates and can make an impact. They identify six transformation systems that are critical in 34 this regard: Circular Economy, Climate and Energy, Cities and Mobility, Food and Nature, People and 35 Redefining Value. All have an impact on climate. An important initiative launched in September of 36 2008 – the ‘natural climate solutions’, has the objective of leveraging business investment to capture 37 carbon out of the atmosphere. This initiative has built strong cross-sectoral partnerships and is intended 38 to tap into this immense emissions reduction solution potential through natural methods with the help 39 of private investment. 40 The Global Methane Initiative is a multilateral partnership launched in 2010 by the United States 41 Environmental Protection Agency along with thirty-six other countries to generate a voluntary, non- 42 binding agenda for global collaboration to decrease anthropogenic methane releases. The GMI builds 43 on the Methane to Market (M2M) Partnership, an international partnership launched in 2004. In addition 44 to the GMI’s own financial assistance, the initiative receives financial backing from the Global Methane 45 Fund (GMF) for methane reduction projects. The GMF is a fund created by governments and private 46 donors (Leonard 2014). 47 Another potentially influential type of transnational business partnership is investor coalitions or 48 alliances formed for the purpose of pushing investee companies to adopt stronger measures for stranded Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-89 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 asset management and climate change mitigation. MacLeod & Park (2011, p. 55) argue that these 2 transnational groups ‘attempt to re-orient and “regulate” the behaviour of business by holding 3 corporations accountable via mechanisms of information sharing, monitoring of environmental impacts, 4 and disclosure of activities related to the corporate climate footprint’. This favours a theory of active 5 ownership (investor engagement with corporate boards) over capital divestment as the optimal pathway 6 to shape the behaviour of corporate actors on climate risk (Kruitwagen et al. 2017; Krueger et al. 2020). 7 Transnational cooperative action by investors on climate mitigation has been facilitated by international 8 standard-setting on issues of climate risk and disclosure. For example, in 2017 the Financial Stability 9 Board’s Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) adopted international 10 recommendations for climate risk disclosure (TCFD 2017). These recommendations, which apply to all 11 financial-sector organizations, including banks, insurance companies, asset managers, and asset owners, 12 have received strong support from investor coalitions globally, including Climate Action 100+ (with 13 300 investors with more than USD33 trillion in assets under management), the Global Investor 14 Coalition on Climate Change (a coalition of regional investor groups across Asia, Australia, Europe and 15 North America) and the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). One of the key 16 recommendations of the TCFD calls for stress-testing of investment portfolios taking into consideration 17 different climate-related scenarios, including a 2° C or lower scenario. Broad adoption of the TCFD 18 recommendations could provide a basis for decisions by investors to shift assets away from climate- 19 risk exposed assets such as fossil fuel extraction projects (Osofsky et al. 2019). There is strong evidence 20 showing the urgent need for scaling-up climate finance to mitigate greenhouse gases in line with pursuit 21 of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, and to support adaptation to 22 safeguard the international community from the consequences of a changing climate. While public 23 actors have a responsibility to deploy climate finance, it is clear that the contribution from the private 24 sector needs to be significant (Gardiner et al. 2016). 25 As most of these partnerships are of recent vintage an assessment of their effectiveness is premature. 26 Instead, partnerships can be assessed on the basis of the three main functions introduced earlier. Starting 27 with policy development, i.e. establishing new agreements on norms, rules, or standards among a 28 broader set of governmental and non-governmental actors, this is not the most prominent aspect of 29 partnerships so far, although both the cities’ networks and risk disclosure recommendations include 30 some elements of this. The second element, enabling implementation and delivery of services, by 31 combining resources from governmental and non-governmental actors, seems to be a more prominent 32 part of the partnerships (Ivanova et al. 2020). Both UNEP financing, the World Business Council on 33 Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the REDD+ and TEEB mechanisms, and PPP funding for cities 34 are examples here. Finally, the third element, knowledge production and dissemination, for example, 35 contributing to the evolution of relevant public policies, is the most prominent part of these partnerships, 36 with the majority including such activities. 37 There is a relatively large volume of literature that assesses PPPs in general. Much of this applies to 38 partnerships which, either by design or not, advance climate goals. This literature provides a good 39 starting point for assessing these partnerships as they become operational. These can help assess 40 whether such partnerships are worth the effort in terms of their performance and effectiveness (Liu et 41 al. 2017b), their economic and social value added (Quélin et al. 2017), their efficiency (Estache and 42 Saussier 2014) and the possible risks associated with them (Darrin, Grimsey and Mervyn 2002). 43 What is less common, but gradually growing, is an important and more relevant literature on criteria to 44 assess sustainability and impact on climate and development goals. Michaelowa and Michaelowa assess 45 109 trans-national partnerships and alliances based on four design criteria: existence of mitigation 46 targets; incentives for mitigation; definition of a baseline; and existence of a monitoring, reporting, and 47 verification procedure (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017). About half of the initiatives do not meet 48 any of these criteria, and not even 15% satisfy three or more. A recent study using a systematic review Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-90 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 of business and public administration literature on PPPs concludes that research in the past rarely 2 incorporates sustainability concepts. The authors propose a research agenda and a series of success 3 factors that, if appropriately managed can contribute to sustainable development, and in so doing 4 contribute to a more solid scientific evaluation of PPPs (Pinz et al. 2018). There is evidence that with 5 the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), many of which are directly linked to 6 climate goals, PPPs will become even more prominent as they will be called upon to provide resources, 7 knowledge, expertise, and implementation support in a very ambitious agenda. PPT in the developing 8 world needs to take into account different cultural and social decision making processes, language 9 differences, and unfamiliar bureaucracy (Gardiner et al. 2016). Having more evidence on what norms 10 and standards in relation to sustainability are used and their governance is essential (Axel 2019). The 11 issue of double counting should be revised. GHGs are accounted both at the national and sub-national 12 level or company level (Schneider et al. 2014). Some recent studies aim to provide systems to assess 13 the impact of PPPs beyond the much-used notion of value for money. One of these recent studies 14 proposes a conceptual model that addresses six dimensions relevant to economic, social and 15 environmental progress. These include resilience and environment, access of services to the population, 16 scalability and replicability, economic impact, inclusiveness, and finally, degree of engagement of 17 stakeholders (Berrone et al. 2019). These systems will most likely continue to evolve. 18 19 14.5.5 International co-operation at the sub-national and city levels 20 Local and regional governments have an important role to play in global climate action, something 21 recognised by the Paris Agreement, and also assessed in Chapter 13 of this report, sections 13.3.2 and 22 13.3.4. There are several ways they can be useful. First, subnational governments can contribute insights 23 and experience that provide valuable lessons to national governments, as well as offering needed 24 implementation capacity (GIZ 2017; Leffel 2018). A great deal of policymaking has occurred at the 25 level of city governments in particular. Cities have been responsible for more than 70% of global 26 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and generate over 80% of global income (World Bank 2010), and 27 many of them have started to take their own initiative in enacting and developing mitigation policies 28 (CDP 2015). Most of these activities aim at the reduction of GHG emissions in the sectors of energy, 29 transportation, urban land use and waste (Bulkeley 2010; Xuemei 2007), and are motivated by concerns 30 not only over climate, but also a consideration of local co-benefits (Rashidi et al. 2017, 2019). Second, 31 sub-national governments can fill the void in policy leadership in cases where national governments are 32 ineffectual, even to the point of claiming leadership and authority with respect to foreign affairs (Leffel 33 2018). International cooperation plays a role in such action. Several international networks , such as 34 C40, ICLEI, Mayors for Climate Protection, and the Covenant of Mayors have played an important role 35 in defining and developing climate-policy initiatives at the city level (Fünfgeld 2015). While the 36 networks differ from each other, they generally are voluntary and non-hierarchical, intended to support 37 the horizontal diffusion of innovative climate policies through information sharing platforms linked to 38 specific goals that member cities make (Kern and Bulkeley 2009). The literature has addressed the 39 questions of why cities join the networks (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Pitt 2010), what recognition 40 benefits cities can expect (Buis 2009; Kern and Bulkeley 2009), and how memberships can provide 41 visibility to leverage international funding (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Heinrichs et al., 2013). 42 Membership in the networks has been found to be a significant predictor of cities’ adoption of mitigation 43 policies, even when controlling for national-level policies that may be in place (Rashidi and Patt 2018). 44 Kona et al. (2018) find that cities belonging to the Covenant of Mayors are engaging in emissions 45 reductions at a rate consistent with achieving a 2°C global temperature target. Kona et al. (2021) 46 document this trend continuing. 47 With respect to their role in formal international cooperation, however, it is unclear what authority, as 48 a non-state actor, they actually have. Cities, for example, are members of transnational initiatives aimed Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-91 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 at non-state actors, such as Global Climate Action, originally the Non-state Actor Zone for Climate 2 Action, under the UNFCCC. While there is reason to believe that such membership can add value to 3 mitigation efforts, one study suggests that the environmental effects have yet to be reliably quantified 4 (Hsu et al. 2019a). By contrast, Kuramochi et al. (2020) provide evidence that non-state actors are 5 leading to significant emission reductions beyond what countries would otherwise be achieving. In 6 terms institutional strength, Michaelowa and Michaelowa (2017) suggest that few such networks fulfil 7 governance criteria, and hence challenge their effectiveness. Several researchers suggest that their role 8 is important in informal ways, given issues about the legitimacy of non-state actors (Nasiritousi et al. 9 2016; Chan et al. 2016). Bäckstrand et al. (2017) advance the concept of ‘hybrid multilateralism’ as a 10 heuristic to capture this intensified interplay between state and non-state actors in the new landscape of 11 international climate cooperation. The effectiveness of such non-state government actors should be 12 measured not only by their contribution to mitigation, but also by their success to enhance the 13 accountability, transparency and deliberative quality of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement (Busby 14 2016; Hale et al. 2016; Chan et al. 2015). In the post-Paris era, effectiveness also revolves around how 15 to align non-state and intergovernmental action in a comprehensive framework that can help achieve 16 low carbon futures (Chan et al. 2016). Stua (2017b) suggests that networks involving non-state actors 17 can play an important role in enhancing transparency. Such effectiveness has to be complemented also 18 by normative questions, applying a set of democratic values: participation, deliberation, accountability, 19 and transparency (Bäckstrand and Kuyper 2017). Such concepts of polycentric governance offer new 20 opportunities for climate action, but it has been argued that it is too early to judge its importance 21 and effects (Jordan et al. 2015). 22 23 24 14.6 Synthesis 25 14.6.1 Changing nature of international cooperation 26 The main development since AR5 in terms of international climate cooperation has been the shift from 27 the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement as the primary multilateral driver of climate mitigation policy 28 worldwide (Section 14.3). Most ex-post assessments of the Kyoto Protocol suggest that it did lead to 29 emissions reductions in countries with binding targets, in addition to changing investment patterns in 30 low-carbon technologies. As noted earlier, the Paris Agreement is tailored to the evolving understanding 31 of the climate mitigation challenge as well as shifting political imperatives and constraints. Whether the 32 Paris Agreement will in fact be effective in supporting global action sufficient to achieve its objectives 33 is contested, with competing arguments in the scientific literature supporting different views. To some 34 extent these views align with the different analytic frameworks (Section 14.2.1): the Paris Agreement 35 does not address the free-riding issue seen as important within the global commons framing, but may 36 provide the necessary incentives and support mechanisms viewed as important under the political and 37 transitions framings, respectively. The strongest critique of the Paris Agreement is that current NDCs 38 themselves fail by a wide margin to add up to the level of aggregate emissions reductions necessary to 39 achieve the objectives of holding global average warming well below 2°C, much less 1.5°C (see Section 40 14.3.3 and Figure 14.2), and that there is no legally binding obligation to achieve the NDCs. Arguments 41 in support of Paris are that it puts in place the processes, and generates normative expectations, that 42 nudge NDCs to become progressively more ambitious over time, including in developing countries. 43 The growing number of countries with mid-century net zero GHG or CO2 targets, consistent with 44 Article 4 of Paris, lends support to this proposition, although there is as yet no empirical literature 45 drawing an unambiguous connection. The collective quantified goal from a floor of USD100 billion a 46 year in transfers to developing countries, the Green Climate Fund and other provisions on finance in 47 the Paris Agreement have also been recognised as key to cooperation (Sections 14.3.2.8 and 14.4.1). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-92 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 But then these arguments are met with counter arguments, that even with Paris processes in place, given 2 the logic of iterative, rising levels of ambition over time, this is unlikely to happen within the narrow 3 window of opportunity that exists to avert dangerous levels of global warming (Section 14.3.3). The 4 degree to which countries are willing to increase the ambition and secure the achievement of their NDCs 5 over time will be an important indicator of the success of the Paris Agreement; evidence of this was 6 expected by the end of 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the process of updating NDCs. 7 An increasing role is also played by other cooperative agreements, in particular (potentially) under 8 Article 6 (Sections 14.3.2.10 and 14.4.4), trans-national partnerships, and the institutions that support 9 them. This fits both a transitions narrative that cooperation at the sub-global and sectoral levels is 10 necessary to enable specific system transformations, and a recent emphasis in the public goods literature 11 on club goods and a gradual approach to cooperation, also referred to as building blocks or incremental 12 approach (Sections 14.2 and 14.5.1.4). There has been little analysis of whether these other agreements 13 are of sufficient scale and scope to ensure that transformations happen quickly enough. This chapter, 14 appraising them together, concludes that they are not. First, many agreements, such as those related to 15 trade, may stand in the way of bottom-up mitigation efforts (Section 14.5.1.3). Second, many sectoral 16 agreements aimed at decarbonisation – such as within the air travel sector – have not yet adopted targets 17 comparable in scale, scope or legal character to those adopted under the Paris Agreement (Section 18 14.5.2.3). Third, there are many sectors for which there are no agreements in place. At the same time, 19 there are some important bright spots, many in the area of trans-national partnerships. A growing 20 number of cities have committed themselves to adopting urban policies that will place them on a path 21 to rapid decarbonisation, while learning from each other how to implement successful policies to realise 22 climate goals (Section 14.5.5). An increasing number of large corporations have committed to 23 decarbonising their industrial processes and supply chains (Section 14.5.4). And, an ever-increasing 24 number of non-state actors are adopting goals and initiating mitigation actions (Section 14.5.3). These 25 goals and actions, some argue, could bridge the mitigation gap created by inadequate NDCs, although 26 the empirical literature to date challenges this, suggesting that there is less transparency and limited 27 accountability for such actions, and mitigation targets and incentives are also not clear (Sections 14.3.3 28 and 14.5). 29 30 14.6.2 Overall assessment of international cooperation 31 This section provides an overall assessment of international cooperation, taking into account the 32 combined effects of cooperation within the UNFCCC process, other global agreements, as well as 33 regional, sectoral, and transnational processes. Recent literature consistent with the transitions framing 34 highlights that cooperation can be particularly effective when it addresses issues on a sector-by-sector 35 basis (Geels et al. 2019). Table 14.4 below summarises the effects of international cooperation on 36 mitigation efforts in each of the sectoral areas covered in Chapter 5 – 12 of this Assessment Report. As 37 it indicates, there are some strong areas of sectoral-specific cooperation, but also some important 38 weaknesses. Formal agreements and programs, both multilateral and bilateral, are advancing mitigation 39 efforts in energy, AFOLU, and transportation, while transnational networks and partnerships are 40 addressing issues in urban systems, industry, and buildings. Although many of the concerns relevant 41 for buildings may be embedded in the energy sector with respect to their operation, and the industrial 42 sector with respect to their materials, reinforcing the networks with more formal agreements could be 43 vital to putting these sectors on a pathway to net zero GHG or CO2 emissions. Several of the sectors 44 have very little formal cooperation at the international level, and a common theme across many of them 45 is a need for increased financial flows to achieve particular objectives. 46 Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-93 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 Table 14.4 Effects of international cooperation on sectoral mitigation efforts Sector Key strengths Key gaps and weaknesses Demand, Adoption of SDGs addressing Little international attention to demand-side mitigation services, social inequities and sustainable issues. social development in the context of aspects mitigation. Energy Greater incorporation of climate Need for enhanced financial support to place low-carbon goals into sectoral agreements and energy sources on an equal footing with carbon emitting institutions; formation of new energy in developing countries; investor-state dispute specialised agencies (e.g. IRENA, settlement mechanisms designed to protect the interests SE4All) devoted to climate- of companies engaged in high-carbon energy supply compatible energy. from national policies; ensuring just transition; and, addressing stranded assets. AFOLU Bilateral support for REDD+ Need for increased global finance for forest restoration activities; transnational projects and REDD+ activities; failure of national partnerships disincentivising use governments to meet internationally agreed upon targets of products from degraded lands. with respect to deforestation and restoration; no cooperative mechanisms in place to address agricultural emissions Urban Transnational partnerships Need for increased financial support for climate systems enhancing the capacity of compatible urban infrastructure development. municipal governments to design and implement effective policies. Buildings Transnational initiative aimed at Need for formal international cooperation to enhance developing regional roadmaps. mitigation activities in buildings. Transport Sectoral agreements in aviation Need to raise the level of ambition in sectoral agreements and shipping begin to address consistent with the Paris Agreement and complete climate concerns. decarbonisation, especially as emissions from international aviation and shipping continue to grow, unaccounted for in NDCs. Industry Transnational partnerships and No formal multilateral or bilateral cooperation to address networks encouraging the issues of decarbonisation in industry. adoption of zero emission supply chain targets. Cross- International agreements Lack of cooperative mechanisms addressing risks and sectoral, addressing risks of ocean-based benefits of SRM; lack of cooperative mechanisms including CDR addressing financial and governance aspects of land- and CDR and technology-based CDR. SRM 2 3 Table 14.5 provides examples of mechanisms addressing each of the assessment criteria identified in 4 Section 14.2.3. The effects of different forms of international cooperation are separated out, including 5 not only UNFCCC and other multilateral processes, but also sub-global and sectoral agreements. 6 Several points stand out. First, the Paris Agreement has the potential to significantly advance the UN Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-94 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 climate regime’s transformative potential. Second, the international market mechanisms under Article 2 6 – should an agreement on implementation deals be reached – allow a shift from projects and programs 3 to policy-based and sectoral generation of emissions credits. Moreover, the sectoral agreement CORSIA 4 also makes use of such credits. Third, there is a lack of attention to both distributive outcomes and 5 institutional support within sectoral agreements, representing a serious gap in efforts to harmonise 6 mitigation with equity and sustainable development. Fourth, there are transnational partnerships and 7 initiatives, representing the actions of non-state actors, addressing each of the assessment criteria, with 8 the exception of economic effectiveness. 9 10 Table 14.5 Illustrative examples of multi-level governance addressing criteria of effectiveness Environmental Transformative Distributive Economic Institutional effectiveness potential Outcomes effectiveness strength UNFCCC Stabilisation Financial Financial Reporting goal, and quasi- mechanism; mechanism, requirements; targets for technology transfers from capacity industrialised mechanism, developed to building for countries provisions for developing; national capacity leadership role climate change building for offices. industrialised countries listed in Annex 1 Kyoto Protocol Binding Adaptation Market-based Emissions national targets Fund; targets mechanisms accounting and for restricted to reporting industrialised industrialised requirements, countries countries institutional capacity building Paris NDCs and the Mechanisms for Furthering Voluntary Mechanism for Agreement global stocktake capacity financial cooperation enhanced building and commitments transparency technology under the development UNFCCC, and transfer including enhanced transparency on finance Other Phase out of Ozone Fund, SDGs Processes for multilateral Ozone technology embedding adjustment and agreements depleting transfer; mitigation in amendment, substances development sustainable reporting (Montreal (ODS) with and sharing of development requirements protocol, and high global knowledge and SDG 7, etc) warming expertise potential - significant effects on GHG mitigation Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-95 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII Multilateral Harmonised and regional lending Concessional Potentially economic practices of financing negative results agreements and MDBs; agreements from dispute institutions mainstreaming settlement climate change processes into IMF practices; liberalisation of trade in climate-friendly goods and services; negative effect from regulatory chill Sectoral Climate Institutions Use of carbon agreements and mitigation devoted to offsets to institutions targets and developing and reduce growth actions in deploying zero- in emissions AFOLU, carbon energy from aviation energy, and technologies transport (e.g. IRENA). Transnational Youth climate Non-state actor Climate justice City networks networks and movement commitments to legal initiatives providing partnerships raising renewable information mitigation and energy-based exchange and fossil fuel supply chains technical divestment on support political agendas and in financial sector 1 2 3 14.7 Knowledge Gaps 4 Any assessment of the effectiveness of international cooperation is limited by the methodological 5 challenge of observing sufficient variance in cooperation in order to support inference on effects. There 6 is little in the way of cross-sectional variance, given that most of the governance mechanisms assessed 7 here are global in their geographical coverage. One exception is with respect to the effects of the Kyoto 8 Protocol, which we have reported. Time series analysis is also challenging, given that other 9 determinants of climate mitigation, including technology costs and the effects of national and sub- 10 national level policies, are rapidly evolving. Thus, this chapter primarily reviews scholarship that 11 compares observations with theory-based counter-factual scenarios. 12 Many of the international agreements and institutions discussed in this chapter, in particular the Paris 13 Agreement, are new. The logic and architecture of the Paris Agreement, in particular, breaks new 14 ground, and there is limited evaluation of prior experience in the form of analogous treaties to draw on. 15 Such instruments have evolved in response to geo-political and other drivers, that are changing rapidly, 16 and will continue to shape the nature of international cooperation under it and triggered by it. The Paris 17 Agreement is also, in common with other multilateral agreements, a ‘living instrument’ evolving Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-96 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 through interpretative and operationalising rules, and forms of implementation, that parties continue to 2 negotiate at conferences year on year. It is a constant ‘work in progress’ and thus challenging to assess 3 at any given point in time. The Paris Agreement also engages a larger set of variables – given its 4 privileging of national autonomy and politics, integration with the sustainable development agenda, and 5 its engagement with actions and actors at multiple levels – than earlier international agreements, which 6 further complicates the task of tracing causality between observed effects and international cooperation 7 through the Paris Agreement. 8 Understanding of the effectiveness of international agreements and institutions is driven entirely by 9 theory driven prediction of how the world will evolve, both with these agreements in place and without 10 them. The former predictions in particular are problematic, because governance regimes are complex 11 adaptive systems, making it impossible to predict how they will evolve over time, and hence what their 12 effects will be. Time will cure this in part, as it will generate observations of the world with the new 13 regime in place, which we can compare to the counterfactual situation of the new regime’s being absent, 14 which may be a simpler situation to model. But even here our modelling capacity is limited: it may 15 simply never be possible to know with a high degree of confidence whether international cooperation, 16 such as that embodied in the Paris Agreement, is having a significant effect, no matter how much data 17 are accumulated. 18 Given the importance of theory for guiding assessments of the past and likely future impacts of policies, 19 it is important to note that among the alternative theoretical frameworks for analysis, some have been 20 much more extensively developed in the literature than others. This chapter has noted in particular the 21 partial dichotomy between a global-commons framing of climate change and a transitions framing, 22 which include different indicators to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of policies. The latter framing 23 is particularly under-developed. Greater development of theories resting in social science disciplines 24 such as economic geography, sociology, and psychology could potentially provide a more complete 25 picture of the nature and effectiveness of international cooperation. 26 27 28 Frequently Asked Questions 29 FAQ 14.1: Is international cooperation working? 30 Yes, to an extent. Countries’ emissions were in line with their internationally agreed targets: the 31 collective Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation target for Annex I countries in the UNFCCC to return to 32 their 1990 emissions by 2000, and their individual targets in the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-12. Numerous 33 studies suggest that participation in the Kyoto Protocol led to substantial reductions in national GHG 34 emissions, as well increased levels of innovation and investment in low-carbon technologies. In this 35 latter respect, the Kyoto Protocol set in motion some of the transformational changes that will be 36 required to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. It is too soon to tell whether the processes 37 and commitments embodied in the Paris Agreement will be effective in achieving its stated goals with 38 respect to limiting temperature rise, adaptation, and financial flows. There is, however, evidence that 39 its entry into force has been a contributing factor to many countries’ adopting mid-century targets of 40 net-zero GHG or CO2 emissions. 41 FAQ 14.2: What is the future role of international cooperation in the context of the Paris 42 Agreement? 43 Continued international cooperation remains critically important both to stimulate countries’ enhanced 44 levels of mitigation ambition, and through various means of support to increase the likelihood that they 45 achieve these objectives. The latter is particularly the case in developing countries, where mitigation Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-97 Total pages: 155 Final Government Distribution Chapter 14 IPCC AR6 WGIII 1 efforts often rely on bilateral and multilateral cooperation on low-carbon finance, technology support, 2 capacity building, and enhanced South-South cooperation. The Paris Agreement is structured around 3 nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that are subject to an international oversight system, and 4 bolstered through international support. The international oversight system is designed to generate 5 transparency and accountability for individual emission reduction contributions, and regular moments 6 for stock-taking of these efforts towards global goals. Such enhanced transparency may instil 7 confidence and trust, and foster solidarity among nations, with theory-based arguments that this will 8 lead to greater levels of ambition. Together with other cooperative agreements at the sub-global and 9 sectoral levels, as well as a growing number of transnational networks and initiatives, the 10 implementation of all of these mechanisms are likely to play an important role in making political, 11 economic, and social conditions more favourable to ambitious mitigation efforts in the context of 12 sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. 13 FAQ 14.3: Are there any important gaps in international cooperation, which will need to be filled 14 in order for countries to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement, such as holding 15 temperature increase to ‘well below 2°C’ and pursuing efforts towards ‘1.5°C’ above pre- 16 industrial levels? 17 While international cooperation is contributing to global mitigation efforts, its effects are far from 18 uniform. Cooperation has contributed to setting a global direction of travel, and to falling greenhouse 19 gas emissions in many countries and avoided emissions in others. It remains to be seen whether it can 20 achieve the kind of transformational changes needed to achieve the Paris Agreement’s long-term global 21 goals. There appears to be a large potential role for international cooperation to better address sector- 22 specific technical and infrastructure challenges that are associated with such transformational changes. 23 Finalising the rules to pursue voluntary cooperation, such as through international carbon market 24 mechanisms and public climate finance in the implementation of NDCs, without compromising 25 environmental integrity, may play an important role in accelerating mitigation efforts in developing 26 countries. Finally, there is room for international cooperation to more explicitly address transboundary 27 issues associated with Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 14-98 Total pages: 155