• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Climate clubs and the UNFCCC Oscar Widerberg
 

Climate clubs and the UNFCCC Oscar Widerberg

on

  • 223 views

Presentation based on the report Climate Change Clubs and the UNFCCC. The report may be downloadede here: http://fores.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ClimateClubsAndTheUNFCCC-FORES-Study-2013-3.pdf

Presentation based on the report Climate Change Clubs and the UNFCCC. The report may be downloadede here: http://fores.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ClimateClubsAndTheUNFCCC-FORES-Study-2013-3.pdf

Statistics

Views

Total Views
223
Views on SlideShare
216
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 7

https://twitter.com 7

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • So this <br />

Climate clubs and the UNFCCC Oscar Widerberg Climate clubs and the UNFCCC Oscar Widerberg Presentation Transcript

  • CLIMATE CLUBS AND THE UNFCCC complement, bypass or conflict? Oscar Widerberg, FORES Frukostseminarium, Stockholm, 28 November 2013.
  • The global climate governance architecture Bi-lateral initiatives Private climate initiative UNFCCC CBD Montreal Protocol CLIMATE CLUBS Other UN (e.g. UNSEC) Sub-national action Trade institutions (WTO) 2
  • Examples of clubs  G20  Major Economies Forum (MEF)  Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM)  Energy+ CLIMATE CLUBS  Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC)  LEDS Partnership  Global Bioenergy Partnership  Etc... 3
  • Research question Are climate clubs conducive to the UNFCCC? 4
  • Research approach  17 Climate clubs*  5 Assessment criteria • Core norms > Caps on GHG emissions > Common but differentiated responsibilities • Participation of major emitters • Goverance gaps • Implementing UNFCCC agenda  Qualitative scoring * from Weischer et al, 2012 5
  • The results 6
  • State clubs  Exclusive groups based on wealth and • G8 importance • G20  Large potential to address climate issues • Major Economies Forum (MEF)  Risk of treating climate change as an ad hoc agenda item  Major Economies Forum (MEF) the most relevant and clearly conducive to the UNFCCC  No conflictive relation 7
  • Energy clubs  Many energy clubs, similar goals • IEA Multilateral Technology Agreements • REEEP • Spread renewable energy • Increase energy efficiency • Capacity building, information, analysis • REN 21  Climate change is but one goal • Energy+  Differences in how to what extent they align • CEM • APP themselves with UNFCCC  No conflictive relations 8
  • Implementation clubs  Diverse group in terms of aim, members, • CSLF • Global Bioenergy Partnership • REDD+ Partnership • Global Methane Partnership • GGGI affiliation with UNFCCC, capacity  Biofuels, CCS, Green economy, REDD+, Low Emission Development Strategies, Monitoring Reporting and Verificaiton  REDD+, LEDS, MRV strong links with the UNFCCC • M-MRV  CCAC promising bridging function? • LEDS GP  No conflicting • CCAC 9
  • Lessons learned 1. While clubs aren’t challenging the current goverance architecture, some are more conducive to the UNFCCC than others 2. No conflict found, only contender could be the state clubs, however, these often treat climate as an ad hoc agenda item 3. General shift in narrative towards more flexibility (e.g. from ”targets and timetables” to ”pledge and review”) 4. The implications of the shift in narrative are highly uncertain 10
  • Policy implications  We are positive to clubs  Clubs can create ”enabling conditions” on a domestic level to reach international agreement  There is a UNFCCC paradox 11
  • Thanks! oscar.widerberg@vu.nl 12