Search

As developing economies walk a tightrope balancing economic development with environmental protection, capacity building becomes the most prominent instrument to ensure that the development needs of citizens are met within the realities of the climate change regime. Capacity building sits at the very foundation of the climate change regime, together with 'finance' and 'technology development and transfer' mechanisms. Recognizing that developing countries are on the receiving end of implementation projects, this review highlights historical understanding of the constituents of capacity building initiatives and how these can advance humanity towards the global good of decelerating, and even reversing, the adverse impacts of climate change. In particular, the article describes the institutionalization of capacity building since the establishment of the international climate change regime and highlights some of the stances of the Brazilian environmental diplomacy in this process. Furthermore, it emphasizes initiatives taken by developing countries to empower their citizens and to serve as a mainstay for enhancing South–South cooperation by sharing climate-friendly practices and capabilities. With the establishment of the Paris Committee on Capacity Building and Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency at COP21, it is clear that 'clarity' and 'tracking of progress' are the new objective tools needed to build on and supplement NDCs and related national efforts for tackling climate change. Key policy insights Capacity development projects should be tailored to the characteristics and needs of each recipient Non-Annex I country. Effective and lasting development of capabilities requires going beyond imparting technical know-how of environmentally-beneficial technologies and must include adopting a 'learning by doing' approach. National institutions of the recipient countries should be at the helm of capacity building projects to bring in necessary knowledge on national regulations, traditional skills, and resources that are vital to the success of these initiatives. Transparency in information flow and timely multistakeholder assessment of capacity building efforts are the lynchpin for enduring capacity development efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate justice has provided a normative justification for international climate change policy, but how it is to be pursued and transmitted in policymaking and policy implementation remains controversial. This study builds a theoretical link between the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an international carbon trading scheme, and local sustainable development in China. This article uses a panel data set of the attributes of 4,429 CDM projects hosted in China from 2004 to 2015, together with socio-economic factors at the provincial level. The study's findings support the contention that the dual objectives of carbon emission reduction and sustainable development benefits cannot be fulfilled simultaneously, though technology may remedy this trade-off, and the effect of the CDM on local sustainable development varies across Chinese regions. This article helps elucidate the localizing process of climate justice and contributes to justice theories and the literature while aiding public managers and practitioners in international climate governance. Emission reductions for investment countries of CDM were achieved at the expense of local SD benefits in China. CDM exacerbated the differences among Chinese regions in achieving SD goals due to uneven economic and social conditions. Technology innovation can remedy the negative impact of CDM, governments thus should attach importance to technology and use CDM projects to accelerate technological transfers and innovation. Local governments should be encouraged to formulate and use local policies and processes to guide actions on CDM and to ensure their consistence with the prospect of the international mechanism by including the essence of justice. Developing countries should improve their institutional or organizational capacity to promote sustainable social development and to better tackle climate change. Investment of CDM projects or other international mechanisms should expand the budget expenditure, not limited to simple carbon trade, for improving the climate adaptation capacity of developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of the Paris Agreement is to constrain the global temperature increase to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It is undisputed that the collective mitigation actions proposed by Parties are largely insufficient to meet this objective. All Parties are expected to revise their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) prior to the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP 26) with the aim of increasing levels of mitigation ambition. This paper focuses on Mauritius which has no climate mitigation policy and no strategy for low-carbon development. In this context, a number of policy issues are considered, and propositions are made on how the level of ambition of its updated NDC can be increased. For this, energy-related emissions pathways to 2050 are used to argue for an equity-based, effort-sharing approach to CO2 emissions reductions by capitalizing on a developing country's ability to propose a combination of unconditional and conditional mitigation contributions. Such a proactive approach will place Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and developing countries in a better position to justify and attract technology transfer, capacity building and climate finance. Further, the energy-climate mitigation nexus is examined to highlight the co-benefits of increasing mitigation ambition. It is shown that, all else being equal, increasing the percentage share of renewables in the electricity mix is necessary but not sufficient for increasing the ambition of mitigation contributions. The insights in this paper are expected to be valuable for other SIDS and small developing countries. Key policy insights A multi-criteria approach is more appropriate for assessing the level of ambition of SIDS and other small emitters than absolute share of global emissions or the percentage share of renewable energies in the energy mix. Based on this approach, the climate change mitigation policy orientation of Mauritius is not ambitious. As Mauritius updates its NDC, it should apply a systemic approach to investigate emission reduction scenarios across sectors and covering time horizons up to at least 2050, in order to better link national climate change mitigation and sustainable development goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little progress has been made in climate negotiations on technology since 1992. Yet the diffusion of climate change mitigation technologies to developing countries (non-Annex I) has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. The shift has mostly concerned emerging economies, which are now reasonably well connected to international technology flows. This is good news, as the bulk of emissions increases are expected to take place in these countries in the near future. In contrast, the least developed countries still appear to be excluded from international technology flows, mostly because of their negligible participation in the recent economic globalization. This article focuses on the policy implications of the contribution of climate negotiations to international technology diffusion. Policy relevance The discrepancy between the small amount of progress made in climate negotiations on technology since 1992 and the steady increase in the international diffusion of climate mitigation technologies leads to the perhaps controversial view that the diffusion of climate mitigation technologies does not need strong international coordination over technology issues under the UNFCCC. However, climate negotiations can play a key role in stimulating the demand for low-carbon technologies by setting ambitious emission reductions targets and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Technology transfer (TT) is not mandatory for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, yet proponents of CDM argue that TT in CDM can bring new technologies to developing countries and thus not only reduce emissions but also foster development. We review the quantitative literature on determinants of TT in CDM and estimate determinants for CDM projects in China. China is by far the largest host country of CDM projects and it is therefore crucial to understand the factors that drive TT there. To gain better interpretation, we focus on heterogeneity within a single country and results can thus be linked to specific policies of the country. Our probit estimations confirm previous international cross-country studies, indicating that larger projects and more advanced technologies are more likely to involve TT. In addition, we find evidence that agglomeration effects are more pronounced at the province level rather than larger regions. We also find a positive effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) on TT, and academic research and development (R&D) is complementary to TT. Policy relevance Technology transfer (TT) is a goal of Chinese CDM legislation, but it is not a prerequisite for project approval. Our estimations show the project specific, technological and region-specific features that encourage more TT among CDM projects. Some variables analysed such as R&D spending and FDI (both are found to have positive effects on TT) can be, to some extent, influenced by the policy-makers. Moreover, we find some evidence for the presence of negative agglomeration effects on the provincial level: the likelihood of TT is decreasing in the number of previous projects operating in the same technology and province. This finding needs to be interpreted with great caution. It may suggest the existence of a learning externality, which could serve as a justification for policy intervention. Any policy intervention requires however careful analysis of potential positive or negative externalities resulting from the agglomeration of CDM projects and a comparison of possible benefits with the costs of TT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technological capability and technology transfer both play important roles in achieving low-carbon development targets and the concepts of both have appeared in national development and climate policy debates. Yet, they differ. Improving capabilities and transfer mechanisms are two differing approaches to technological development. Technology transfer is associated with a key political dynamic within international climate policy, in that developing countries request support from industrialised countries. Whereas technological capability focuses on building internal capabilities and is often framed in the context of national industrial policy plans rather than relying on external support. We argue that technology development, a combination of these approaches, can contribute to South Africa's low-carbon development through innovation and technology-based mitigation actions that increase domestic technological capabilities. Technological capability needs to become a determinant of mitigation action to effectively contribute to achieving South Africa's low-carbon development goals. International technology transfer and cooperation should contribute to boosting domestic capabilities to advance technological development. Technology transfer based on pure sales will not contribute to achieving long-term low-carbon development goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the analysis of the prevalence of technology transfer (TT) for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects established by the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM enables developing countries' projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to earn credits that can be used by developed countries to help meet their national emissions limitation commitments. The study found that most technology used by CDM projects originated from Germany, the U.S., Japan, Denmark, and China.

The reality of the current international order makes it imperative that a just and effective climate regime should balance the historical responsibility of developed countries with the increasing absolute emissions from many developing nations. The key pillars are briefly proposed for a new international climate architecture that envisions replacing the current annex system with two new annexes: Annex α, for countries with high current emissions and historically high emissions, and Annex β, for countries with high current emissions and historically low emissions. Countries in both annexes would implement legally binding targets under this framework. Additionally, this proposal includes alterations and revisions to funding and technology transfer mechanisms to correct for weaknesses and inequities under the current Kyoto architecture. The proposed framework stems from a belief that a top-down, international approach to climate policy remains the most effective for ensuring environmental integrity. Given the slow rate of institutional learning, the reform and improvement of the current system is held as a more efficient course of action than abandoning the progress already achieved. It is argued that the proposed framework could effectively accommodate key equity, environmental integrity, and political feasibility concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology transfer is not an explicit objective of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). However, it constitutes a potential co-benefit by helping to improve living conditions in developing countries. Understanding the drivers and barriers of technology transfer in CDM projects is therefore essential to direct investment flows in host countries and enhance the current CDM framework. In this respect, the contribution of this article is twofold. First, it identifies stepping stones and stumbling blocks to technology transfer in the CDM. Higher applied tariff rates on environmental goods and services as well as burdensome administrative procedures to start a new business are found to be negatively associated with the likelihood of a technology transfer. The results are robust to the exclusion of large host countries such as China and India from the sample. Second, as an extension, the article analyses the correspondence of these supporting factors and barriers with the likelihood of a transfer of the different types of technology (equipment, knowledge, or both). The article concludes with policy recommendations for non- Annex I governments, and suggestions for improvements to the CDM to better assess technology transfer in offsetting projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has failed to deliver the rate of low-carbon technology transfer (TT) required to curb GHG emissions in developing countries. This failure has exposed the limitations of universalism and renewed interest in bilateral approaches to TT. Gaps are identified in the UNFCCC approach to climate change TT: missing links between international institutions and the national enabling environments that encourage private investment; a non-differentiated approach for (developing) country and technology characteristics; and a lack of clear measurements of the volume and effectiveness of TTs. Evidence from econometric literature and business experience on climate change TT is reviewed, so as to address the identified pitfalls of the UNFCCC process. Strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches are highlighted. International policy recommendations are offered aimed at improving the level of emission reductions achieved through TT. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Sectoral approaches have been gaining currency in the international climate debate as a possible remedy to the shortfalls of the Kyoto Protocol. Proponents argue that a sector-based architecture can more easily invite the participation of developing countries, address competitiveness issues, and enable immediate emissions reductions. However, given the numerous proposals, much confusion remains as to what sectoral approaches actually are. This article provides a simple, yet comprehensive, taxonomy of the various proposals for sectoral approaches. Based on the dual criteria of content and actors, three such types are identified and described: government targets and timetables; industry targets and timetables; and transnational technology cooperation. For each of these types, existing proposals and ongoing initiatives are discussed. In a second step, the article analyses the political landscape in which sectoral approaches are being debated, identifying the interests of their key advocates as well as the concerns of their critics. The Japanese government and energy-intensive manufacturing industries represent the main proponents of sectoral approaches to address the problems of carbon leakage and economic competitiveness. Developing countries, on the other hand, are wary of attempts to impose emissions reduction targets on their economies through sectoral target-setting. They, therefore, interpret sectoral approaches as sector-based forms of technology cooperation and technology transfer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a shift to a paradigm that is more extensive than the current narrow focus on North-South climate change technology transfers, towards a more inclusive `global' paradigm. An implication of the paradigm shift is that there should be a concomitant expansion of the policy agendas of the international climate and trade regimes. The traditional North-South paradigm of technology transfer ignores the increasing importance of developing countries as sources of advanced climate-friendly technologies, and therefore ignores South-North and South-South transfers. Further, whereas the North-South paradigm has emphasized developing countries' intellectual property rights policies as barriers to technology transfers, the `global' paradigm focuses attention on trade and investment policy barriers, including developed countries' policies that inhibit technology transfer from developing countries. The analysis is relevant to international negotiations in the post-2012 climate regime, and is also relevant to the future development of the trade regime - not only at the multilateral level in the WTO, but also at the regional and bilateral levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A sectoral approach to GHG emissions reductions in developing countries is proposed as a key component of the post- 2012 climate change mitigation framework. In this approach, the ten highest-emitting developing countries in the electricity and other major industrial sectors pledge to meet voluntary, no-lose' GHG emissions targets in these sectors. No penalties are incurred for failing to meet a target, but emissions reductions achieved beyond the target level earn emissions reduction credits (ERC5) that can be sold to industrialized nations. Participating developing countries establish initial no-lose' emissions targets, based upon their national circumstances, from sector-specific energy- intensity benchmarks that have been developed by independent experts. Industrialized nations then offer incentives for the developing countries to adopt more stringent emissions targets through a Technology Finance and Assistance Package', which helps to overcome financial and other barriers to technology transfer and deployment. These sector- specific energy-intensity benchmarks could also serve as a means for establishing national economy-wide targets in developed countries in the post-2012 regime. Preliminary modelling of a hybrid scenario, in which Annex I countries adopt economy-wide absolute GHG emissions targets and high-emitting developing countries adopt `no-lose' sectoral targets, indicates that such an approach significantly improves the likelihood that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 can be stabilized at 450 ppmv by the end of the century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The additionality' criterion for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (which is key to ensuring that CDM projects lead to real and additional emission reductions) has been a topic of much analysis and discussion. A number of different approaches, including those based on financial, barrier and market-penetration criteria, have been suggested as a test for additionality. A simple test for additionality is proposed that draws on the framework of the diffusion of innovations, especially the risk profile of adopters of new technologies or innovations. This approach has the potential to streamline the assessment for additionality, although it will require data on the rate of implementation of specific technologies or innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]