Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-14 (section)

=== 14.2.3 Assessment Criteria ===

<div id="h2-5-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This section identifies a set of criteria for assessing the effectiveness of international cooperation, which is applied later in the chapter. Lessons from the implementation of other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) can provide some guidance. There is considerable literature on this topic, most of which predates AR5, and which will therefore not be covered in detail. Issues include ways to enhance compliance, and the fact that a low level of compliance with an MEA does not necessarily mean that the MEA has no effect ( [[#Downs--1996|Downs et al. 1996]] ; [[#Victor--1998|Victor et al. 1998]] ; Weiss and Jacobson 1998). Recent research examines effectiveness from the viewpoint of the extent to which an MEA influences domestic action, including the adoption of implementing legislation and policies ( [[#Brandi--2019|Brandi et al. 2019]] ).

Many have pointed to the Montreal Protocol, addressing stratospheric ozone loss, as an example of a successful treaty because of its ultimate environmental effectiveness, and relevance for solving climate change. Scholarship emerging since AR5 emphasises that the Paris Agreement has a greater ‘bottom-up’ character than many other MEAs, including the Montreal or Kyoto Protocols, allowing for more decentralised ‘polycentric’ forms of governance that engage diverse actors at the regional, national and sub-national levels ( [[#Ostrom--2010|Ostrom 2010]] ; [[#Jordan--2015|Jordan et al. 2015]] ; [[#Falkner--2016b|Falkner 2016b]] ; [[#Victor--2016|Victor 2016]] ). Given the differences in architecture, lessons drawn from studies of MEA regimes need to be supplemented with assessments of the effectiveness of cooperative efforts at other governance levels and in other forums. Emerging research in this area proposes methodologies for this task ( [[#Hsu--2019a|Hsu et al. 2019a]] ). Findings highlight the persistence of similar imbalances between developed and developing countries as at the global level, as well as the need for more effective ways to incentivise private sector engagement in transnational climate governance ( [[#Chan--2018|Chan et al. 2018]] ).

While environmental outcomes and economic performance have been long-standing criteria for assessment of effectiveness, the other elements deserve some note. It is the case that the achievement of climate objectives, such as limiting global average warming to 1.5°C–2°C, will require the transition from high- to low-carbon technologies and the transformation of the sectors and social environments within which those technologies operate. Such transformations are not linear processes, and hence many of the early steps taken – such as supporting early diffusion of new renewable energy technologies – will have little immediate effect on GHG emissions ( [[#Patt--2015|Patt 2015]] ; [[#Geels--2017|Geels et al. 2017]] ). Hence, activities that contribute to transformative potential include technology transfer and financial support for low-carbon infrastructure, especially where the latter is not tied to immediate emissions reductions. Assessing the transformative potential of international cooperation takes these factors into account. Equity and distributive outcomes are of central importance to the climate change debate, and hence for evaluating the effects of policies. Equity encompasses the notion of distributive justice which refers to the distribution of goods, burdens, costs and benefits, as well as procedural-related issues ( [[#Kverndokk--2018|Kverndokk 2018]] ).

Finally, the literature on the performance of other MEAs highlights the importance of institutional strength, which can include regulative quality, mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability, and administrative capacity. Regulative quality includes guidance and signalling ( [[#Oberthür--2017|Oberthür et al. 2017]] ), as well as clear rules and standards to facilitate collective action ( [[#Oberthür--2016|Oberthür and Bodle 2016]] ). The literature is clear that legally-binding obligations (which require the formal expression of state consent) and non-binding recommendations can each be appropriate, depending on the particular circumstances ( [[#Skjærseth--2006|Skjærseth et al. 2006]] ), and indeed it has been argued that for climate change non-binding recommendations may better fit the capacity of global governance organisations ( [[#Victor--2011|Victor 2011]] ). Mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability are essential to collect, protect, and analyse relevant data about Parties’ implementation of their obligations, and to identify and address challenges in implementation ( [[#Kramarz--2016|Kramarz and Park 2016]] ; [[#Kinley--2020|Kinley et al. 2020]] ). Administrative capacity refers to the strength of the formal bodies established to serve the Parties to the regime and help ensure compliance and goal attainment ( [[#Andler--2009|Andler and Behrle 2009]] ; [[#Bauer--2017|Bauer et al. 2017]] ).

In addition to building on the social science theory just described, we recognise that it is also important to strike a balance between applying the same standards developed and applied to international cooperation in AR5 and maintaining consistency with other chapters of this report (primarily Chapters 1, 4, 13 and 15). Table 14.2 presents a set of criteria that do this, and which are then applied later in the chapter.

'''Table 14.2 | Criteria for assessing effectiveness of international cooperation.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Criterion'''

! '''Description'''

|-
| Environmental outcomes

| To what extent does international cooperation lead to identifiable environmental benefits, namely the reduction of economy-wide and sectoral emissions of greenhouse gases from pre-existing levels or ‘business as usual’ scenarios?

|-
| Transformative potential

| To what extent does international cooperation contribute to the enabling conditions for transitioning to a zero-carbon economy and sustainable development pathways at the global, national, or sectoral levels?

|-
| Distributive outcomes

| To what extent does international cooperation lead to greater equity with respect to the costs, benefits, and burdens of mitigation actions, taking into account current and historical contributions and circumstances?

|-
| Economic performance

| To what extent does international cooperation promote the achievement of economically efficient and cost-effective mitigation activities?

|-
| Institutional strength

| To what extent does international cooperation create the institutional framework needed for the achievement of internationally agreed-upon goals, and contribute to national, sub-national, and sectoral institutions needed for decentralised and bottom-up mitigation governance?

|}

<div id="14.3" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="the-unfccc-and-the-paris-agreement"></span>