Chapter 14: International Cooperation
[...]
14.3 The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement
[...]
14.3.2 Elements of the Paris Agreement Relevant to Mitigation
[...]
14.3.2.10 Capacity Building
Under the Paris Agreement, capacity-building can take a range of forms, including: facilitating technology development, dissemination and deployment; access to climate finance; education, training and public awareness; and the transparent, timely and accurate communication of information (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.1) (Section 14.3.2.4). Principles guiding capacity-building support are that it should be: country-driven; based on and responsive to national needs; fostering country ownership of Parties at multiple levels; guided by lessons learned; and an effective, iterative process that is participatory, cross-cutting and gender-responsive (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.2). Parties undertaking capacity building for developing country Parties must ‘regularly communicate on these actions or measures’. Developing country Parties have a soft requirement (‘should’) to communicate progress made on implementing capacitybuilding plans, policies, actions or measures to implement the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015a, Art. 11.4).
Article 11.5 provides that capacity-building activities ‘shall be enhanced through appropriate institutional arrangements to support the implementation of this Agreement, including the appropriate institutional arrangements established under the Convention that serve this Agreement’. The COP decision accompanying the Paris Agreement established the Paris Committee on Capacity-building, with the aim to ‘address gaps and needs, both current and emerging, in implementing capacity-building in developing country Parties and further enhancing capacity-building efforts, including with regard to coherence and coordination in capacity-building activities under the Convention’ (UNFCCC 2016a, para. 71). The activities of the Committee are discussed further in Section 14.4.3 below. The relevant COP decision also established the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (UNFCCC 2016a, para. 84), which is managed by the GEF and designed to support developing country Parties in meeting the reporting and transparency requirements under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement (Robinson 2018). (...)
14.5 Multi-level, Multi-actor Governance
[...]
14.5.1 International Cooperation at Multiple Governance Levels
[...]
14.5.1.2 Linkages with Sustainable Development, Adaptation, Loss and Damage, and Human Rights
There are also direct links between mitigation and sustainable development. The international agendas for mitigation and sustainable development have shaped each other, around concepts such as ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, as well as the distinction – in the UNFCCC and later the Kyoto Protocol – between Annex I and non-Annex I countries (Victor 2011; Patt 2015). The same implicit bargain that developing countries would support mitigation efforts in return for assistance with respect to adaptation also applies to support for development (Sovacool and Linnér 2016). That linkage between mitigation and sustainable development has become even more specific with the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, each of which explicitly pursues a set of goals that encompass both mitigation and development (Schmieg et al. 2017), reflecting the recognition that achieving sustainable development and climate mitigation goals are mutually dependent (Gomez-Echeverri 2018). It is well accepted that the long-term effects of climate mitigation will benefit sustainable development. A more contested finding is whether the mitigation actions themselves promote or hinder short-term poverty alleviation. One study, analysing the economic effects of developing countries’ NDCs, finds that mitigation actions slow down poverty reduction efforts (Campagnolo and Davide 2019). Other studies suggest possible synergies between low-carbon development and economic development (Hanger et al. 2016; Labordena et al. 2017; Dzebo et al. 2019). These studies typically converge on the fact that financial assistance flowing from developed to developing countries enhances any possible synergies or lessens the conflicts. However, mitigation measures can also have negative impacts on gender equality, and peace and justice (Dzebo et al. 2019). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has also taken on board the climate challenge and is examining the role of fiscal and macroeconomic policies to address the climate challenge for supporting its members with appropriate policy responses.
14.5 Multi-level, Multi-actor Governance
[...]
14.5.1 International Cooperation at Multiple Governance Levels
[...]
14.5.1.4 South-South cooperation
South-South cooperation (SSC) and triangular cooperation (TrC) are bold, innovative, and rapidly developing means of strengthening cooperation for the achievement of the SDGs (FAO 2018). SSC is gaining momentum in achieving sustainable development and climate actions in developing countries (UN 2017b). Through SSC, countries are able to map their capacity needs and knowledge gaps and find sustainable, cost-effective, long-lasting and economically viable solutions (FAO 2019). In the UN Climate Change Engagement Strategy 2017 (UNOSSC 2017), South-South Cooperation Action Plan is identified as a substantive pillar to support.
In 2019, the role of South-South and triangular cooperation was further highlighted with the BAPA+40 Outcome document (UN 2019), noting outstanding contributions to alleviating global inequality, promoting sustainable development and climate actions, promoting gender equality and enriching multilateral mechanisms. Furthermore, the role of triangular cooperation was explicitly recognised in the document reflecting its increasingly relevant role in the implementation of the SDGs (UN 2019). There has been a recent resurgence of South-South cooperation (Gray and Gills 2016). The South-South Cooperation Action Plan was adopted by the UN as a substantive pillar to support the implementation of the UN Climate Change Engagement Strategy 2017 (UNOSSC 2017). Liu et al. (2017a) explored prospects for South–South cooperation for large-scale ecological restoration, which is an important solution to mitigate climate change. Emphasis is given to experience and expertise sharing, co-financing, and co-development of new knowledge and know-how for more effective policy and practice worldwide, especially in developing and newly industrialised countries.
14.5.3 Civil Society and Social Movements
Transnationally organised civil society actors have had long-standing involvement in international climate policy, with a particular focus on consulting or knowledge-sharing where they are present in transnational climate governance initiatives (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017). The term ‘civil society’ generally denotes ‘the voluntary association of individuals in the public sphere beyond the realms of the state, the market and the family’ (de Bakker et al. 2013, p. 575). Whereas civil society organisations are usually involved in lobbying or advocacy activities in a public arena, social movements focus on mobilisation and action for social change (Daniel and Neubert 2019). Examples of civil society groups involved in international climate policy include non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace International, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Resources Institute, Friends of the Earth and Earthjustice among many others, as well as NGO networks such as the Climate Action Network, which has over 1300 NGO members in more than 130 countries, working to promote government and individual action to limit humaninduced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels (Climate Action Network International 2020). The influence of civil society engagement in global climate governance is well acknowledged, with these organisations’ globally dispersed constituencies and nonstate status offering perspectives that differ in significant ways from those of many negotiating states (Derman 2014).
Historically, the issue of climate change did not give rise to intense, organised transnational protest characteristic of social movements (McAdam 2017). During the 1990s and early 2000s, the activities of the global climate movement were concentrated in developed countries and largely sought to exercise influence through participation in UNFCCC COPs and side events (Almeida 2019). The mid-2000s onwards, however, saw the beginnings of use of more non-institutionalised tactics, such as simultaneous demonstrations across several countries, focusing on a grassroots call for climate justice that grew out of previous environmental justice movements (Almeida 2019). Groups representing indigenous peoples, youth, women, and labour rights brought to the fore new tools of contention and new issues in the UNFCCC, such as questions of a just transition and gender equity (Allan 2020).
