A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement
| Autor: | Till Pistorius, Sabine Reinecke, Astrid Carrapatoso |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
Economics and Econometrics
Modalities 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences Land use Public economics Aside business.industry Compromise media_common.quotation_subject Environmental resource management Developing country 010501 environmental sciences 01 natural sciences Negotiation Political Science and International Relations Institutionalism Economics Land use land-use change and forestry business Law 0105 earth and related environmental sciences media_common |
| Zdroj: | International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 17:623-638 |
| ISSN: | 1573-1553 1567-9764 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0 |
| Popis: | In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have started an informal dialogue and discuss how to merge the fragmented accounting rules for mitigation relevant land use activities, in particular those concerning forest-sector emissions. Stressing that ‘history matters’, we use a historical institutionalist perspective to assess the institutional pathways of the different accounting rules for developed and developing countries, their mutual relationship, and in how far they are supportive or counterproductive for this endeavour. Our empirical analysis shows that Parties tend to use any modification phase in the negotiation process to water down already achieved agreements, and that negotiating modalities after targets have been agreed is not conducive either. In the efforts of specifying the Paris agreement, merging existing rules into a common accounting framework is likely to further compromise the exisiting weak rules and modalities, and potentially what negotiators consider as ‘environmental integrity’. With this, a formal negotiation of common rules for the accounting of the land use sector may yield an outcome below what has been achieved since the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement started in 2005. We conclude that politically acceptable approaches for the land use sector that also contribute to the overall objective of raising ambition should avoid reopening already agreed decisions on rules and modalities. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink