The international policy context for mitigation actions

Coetzee, Kim; Winkler, Harald

doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.867245

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 'nationally appropriate' part of the NAMA concept is of particular interest from another perspective: The special reference to appropriateness and the further specification that NAMAs should be conducted in the context of sustainable development has led developing countries to integrate climate change mitigation policies with other sustainable development issues (Coetzee and Winkler, 2014). In this aspect the difficulty to separate the dimensions of structure becomes apparent.…”

Section: The 2°c Limit As a Normative Foundation Of Climate Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

UNFCCC before and after Paris – what's necessary for an effective climate regime?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What can reasonably be expected from the UNFCCC process and the climate conference in Paris 2015? To achieve transformative change, prevailing unsustainable routines embedded in socio-economic systems have to be translated into new and sustainable ones. This article conceptualises the UNFCCC and the associated policy processes as a catalyst for this translation by applying a structurational regime model. This model provides an analytical distinction of rules (norms and shared meaning) and resources (economic resources as well as authoritative and allocative power) and allows to conceptualise agency on various levels including beyond the nation states. The analysis concludes that the UNFCCC's narrow focus on emissions targets, which essentially is a focus on resources, has proven ineffective. In addition, the static division of industrialized and developing countries in the Convention's annexes and the consensus-based decision-making rules have impeded ambitious climate protection. The article concludes that the UNFCCC is much better equipped to provide rules for climate protection activities and should consciously expand this feature to improve its impact. Policy relevanceThe international community is negotiating a new global climate agreement, to be adopted at the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in December 2015 in Paris and to be applicable from 2020. This article analyses the successes and limitations the UN-FCCC has had so far in combating climate change and it develops recommendations how to enhance efforts within and beyond the framework of the Convention. From our analysis we derive two main recommendations for an effective and structurationally balanced treaty: First, multi-dimensional mitigation contributions going beyond emission targets could strongly improve countries' ability to tailor their contributions around national political discourses. Second, the UNFCCC regime should be complemented with another treaty outside of the UNFCCC framework. This 'Alliance of the Ambitious' would allow the pioneers of climate protection to move ahead and enjoy the benefits of co-operation. The dynamics generated through such a club approach could be fed back into the UNFCCC, leading to increased ambition by others in future commitment cycles.

show abstract

Section: The 2°c Limit As a Normative Foundation Of Climate Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact the exact formulation of this concept was the crunch issue of the 2007 COP in Bali (Ott, Sterk and Watanabe, 2008). Since then the concept has undergone substantial formalisation and institutionalisation within the UNFCCC (Coetzee and Winkler, 2014). …”

Section: The 2°c Limit As a Normative Foundation Of Climate Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UNFCCC before and after Paris – what's necessary for an effective climate regime?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a clear, unambiguous definition for "Nationally-Appropriate Mitigation Actions" (NAMAs) is still absent (despite many attempts by researchers, NGOs and others to define or clarify it [4]) NAMAs can be viewed as a means to (partially) implement LEDS at the operational level, to give a face to more abstract policy and to seek a measurable, reportable and verifiable low emission development, often in the form of a project [3]. What distinguishes an NAMA from an MA is the "nationally-appropriate" concept for which NAMAs aim to "identify and implement development actions that are less GHG intensive compared to conventional practices", essentially taking into account specific national, contextual circumstances.…”

Section: Namasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NAMAs originate from the 2007 UNFCCC COP 13, which was organized in Bali, Indonesia [4]. The plan that resulted from the COP, the BAP, called for developing country Parties to undertake NAMAs in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner.…”

Section: Namasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, they need to be appropriate given certain circumstances that apply to certain developing countries [13]. Once prepared, NAMAs can be submitted to the UNFCCC NAMA registry, which records NAMAs seeking international support or recognition, and to facilitate matching of finance, technology and capacity building efforts (typically by donor organizations in developed countries) to support these actions [4].…”

Section: Namasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experience with LEDS and NAMA Low Carbon Strategies: The Case of Georgia

Mdivani

Hoppe

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) and National Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) have the potential to support developing countries in attaining low carbon goals. In spite of the evident potential, there is a need to learn from practice. This paper explores the case of Georgia. The main research question discussed is: What experience has been gained with the development of LEDS and NAMAs in Georgia? The study reveals that both LEDS and NAMAs are subject to barriers that considerably slow development processes: there is a lack of institutional capacity, little inter-governmental goal alignment and poor coordination of actions, a lack of experienced staff and insufficient, substantial, earmarked funding. Capacity building depends on support from organizations in donor countries. This paper contributes to a growing body of knowledge of the implementation of LEDS and NAMA.

show abstract