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

== 14.6 Synthesis ==

<div id="14.6.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="changing-nature-of-international-cooperation"></span>
=== 14.6.1 Changing Nature of International Cooperation ===

<div id="h2-23-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The main development since AR5 in terms of international climate cooperation has been the shift from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement as the primary multilateral driver of climate mitigation policy worldwide ( [[#14.3|Section 14.3]] ). Most ''ex-post'' assessments of the Kyoto Protocol suggest that it did lead to emissions reductions in countries with binding targets, in addition to changing investment patterns in low-carbon technologies. As noted earlier, the Paris Agreement is tailored to the evolving understanding of the climate mitigation challenge as well as shifting political imperatives and constraints. Whether the Paris Agreement will in fact be effective in supporting global action sufficient to achieve its objectives is contested, with competing arguments in the scientific literature supporting different views. To some extent these views align with the different analytic frameworks ( [[#14.2.1|Section 14.2.1]] ): the Paris Agreement does not address the free-riding issue seen as important within the global commons framing, but may provide the necessary incentives and support mechanisms viewed as important under the political and transitions framings, respectively. The strongest critique of the Paris Agreement is that current NDCs themselves fail by a wide margin to add up to the level of aggregate emissions reductions necessary to achieve the objectives of holding global average warming well below 2°C, much less 1.5°C ( [[#14.3.3|Section 14.3.3]] Figure 14.2), and that there is no legally binding obligation to achieve the NDCs. Arguments in support of Paris are that it puts in place the processes, and generates normative expectations, that nudge NDCs to become progressively more ambitious over time, including in developing countries. The growing number of countries with mid-century net-zero GHG or CO 2 targets, consistent with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, lends support to this proposition, although there is as yet no empirical literature drawing an unambiguous connection. The collective quantified goal from a floor of USD100 billion a year in transfers to developing countries, the Green Climate Fund and other provisions on finance in the Paris Agreement have also been recognised as key to cooperation (Sections 14.3.2.8 and 14.4.1). But then these arguments are met with counter arguments, that even with Paris processes in place, given the logic of iterative, rising levels of ambition over time, this is unlikely to happen within the narrow window of opportunity that exists to avert dangerous levels of global warming ( [[#14.3.3|Section 14.3.3]] ). The degree to which countries are willing to increase the ambition and secure the achievement of their NDCs over time will be an important indicator of the success of the Paris Agreement; evidence of this was expected by the end of 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the process of updating NDCs.

An increasing role is also played by other cooperative agreements, in particular (potentially) under Article 6 (Sections 14.3.2.10 and 14.4.4), transnational partnerships, and the institutions that support them. This fits both a transitions narrative that cooperation at the sub-global and sectoral levels is necessary to enable specific system transformations, and a recent emphasis in the public goods literature on club goods and a gradual approach to cooperation, also referred to as building blocks or incremental approach (Sections 14.2 and 14.5.1.4). There has been little analysis of whether these other agreements are of sufficient scale and scope to ensure that transformations happen quickly enough. This chapter, appraising them together, concludes that they are not. First, many agreements, such as those related to trade, may stand in the way of bottom-up mitigation efforts ( [[#14.5.1.3|Section 14.5.1.3]] ). Second, many sectoral agreements aimed at decarbonisation – such as within the air travel sector – have not yet adopted targets comparable in scale, scope or legal character to those adopted under the Paris Agreement ( [[#14.5.2.3|Section 14.5.2.3]] ). Third, there are many sectors for which there are no agreements in place. At the same time, there are some important bright spots, many in the area of transnational partnerships. A growing number of cities have committed themselves to adopting urban policies that will place them on a path to rapid decarbonisation, while learning from each other how to implement successful policies to realise climate goals ( [[#14.5.5|Section 14.5.5]] ). An increasing number of large corporations have committed to decarbonising their industrial processes and supply chains ( [[#14.5.4|Section 14.5.4]] ). And an ever-increasing number of non-state actors are adopting goals and initiating mitigation actions ( [[#14.5.3|Section 14.5.3]] ). These goals and actions, some argue, could bridge the mitigation gap created by inadequate NDCs, although the empirical literature to date challenges this, suggesting that there is less transparency and limited accountability for such actions, and mitigation targets and incentives are also not clear (Sections 14.3.3 and 14.5).

<div id="14.6.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="overall-assessment-of-international-cooperation"></span>
=== 14.6.2 Overall Assessment of International Cooperation ===

<div id="h2-24-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This section provides an overall assessment of international cooperation, taking into account the combined effects of cooperation within the UNFCCC process, other global agreements, as well as regional, sectoral, and transnational processes. Recent literature consistent with the transitions framing highlights that cooperation can be particularly effective when it addresses issues on a sector-by-sector basis (Geels et al. 2019). Table 14.4 below summarises the effects of international cooperation on mitigation efforts in each of the sectoral areas covered in Chapters 5 to 12 of this report. As it indicates, there are some strong areas of sector-specific cooperation, but also some important weaknesses. Formal agreements and programmes, both multilateral and bilateral, are advancing mitigation efforts in energy, AFOLU, and transportation, while transnational networks and partnerships are addressing issues in urban systems, industry, and buildings. Although many of the concerns relevant for buildings may be embedded in the energy sector with respect to their operation, and the industrial sector with respect to their materials, reinforcing the networks with more formal agreements could be vital to putting these sectors on a pathway to net zero GHG or CO 2 emissions. Several of the sectors have very little formal cooperation at the international level, and a common theme across many of them is a need for increased financial flows to achieve particular objectives.

Table 14.5 provides examples of mechanisms addressing each of the assessment criteria identified in [[#14.2.3|Section 14.2.3]] . The effects of different forms of international cooperation are separated out, including not only UNFCCC and other multilateral processes, but also sub-global and sectoral agreements. Several points stand out. First, the Paris Agreement has the potential to significantly advance the UN climate regime’s transformative potential. Second, the international market mechanisms under Article 6 – should an agreement on implementation deals be reached – allow a shift from projects and programmes to policy-based and sectoral generation of emissions credits. Moreover, the sectoral agreement CORSIA also makes use of such credits. Third, there is a lack of attention to both distributive outcomes and institutional support within sectoral agreements, representing a serious gap in efforts to harmonise mitigation with equity and sustainable development. Fourth, there are transnational partnerships and initiatives, representing the actions of non-state actors, addressing each of the assessment criteria, with the exception of economic effectiveness.

'''Table 14.4 | Effects of international cooperation on sectoral mitigation efforts.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Sector

! Key strengths

! Key gaps and weaknesses

|-
| Demand, services, social aspects

| Adoption of SDGs addressing social inequities and sustainable development in the context of mitigation

| Little international attention to demand-side mitigation issues

|-
| Energy

| Greater incorporation of climate goals into sectoral agreements and institutions; formation of new specialised agencies (e.g., IRENA, SE4All) devoted to climate-compatible energy

| Need for enhanced financial support to place low-carbon energy sources on an equal footing with carbon-emitting energy in developing countries; investor–state dispute settlement mechanisms designed to protect the interests of companies engaged in high-carbon energy supply from national policies; ensuring just transition; and, addressing stranded assets

|-
| AFOLU

| Bilateral support for REDD+ activities; transnational partnerships disincentivising use of products from degraded lands

| Need for increased global finance for forest restoration projects and REDD+ activities; failure of national governments to meet internationally agreed upon targets with respect to deforestation and restoration; no cooperative mechanisms in place to address agricultural emissions

|-
| Urban systems

| Transnational partnerships enhancing the capacity of municipal governments to design and implement effective policies

| Need for increased financial support for climate-compatible urban infrastructure development

|-
| Buildings

| Transnational initiative aimed at developing regional roadmaps

| Need for formal international cooperation to enhance mitigation activities in buildings

|-
| Transport

| Sectoral agreements in aviation and shipping begin to address climate concerns

| Need to raise the level of ambition in sectoral agreements consistent with the Paris Agreement and complete decarbonisation, especially as emissions from international aviation and shipping continue to grow, unaccounted for in NDCs

|-
| Industry

| Transnational partnerships and networks encouraging the adoption of zero-emission supply chain targets

| No formal multilateral or bilateral cooperation to address issues of decarbonisation in industry

|-
| Cross-sectoral, including CDR and SRM

| International agreements addressing risks of ocean-based CDR

| Lack of cooperative mechanisms addressing risks and benefits of SRM; lack of cooperative mechanisms addressing financial and governance aspects of land- and technology-based CDR

|}

'''Table 14.5 | Illustrative examples of multi-level governance addressing criteria of effectiveness.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Environmental effectiveness

! Transformative potential

! Distributive outcomes

! Economic effectiveness

! Institutional strength

|-
| UNFCCC

| Stabilisation goal, and quasi-targets for industrialised countries

| Financial mechanism; technology mechanism, provisions for capacity building

| Financial mechanism, transfers from developed to developing countries; leadership role for industrialised countries listed in Annex 1

|
| Reporting requirements; capacity building for national climate change offices

|-
| Kyoto Protocol

| Binding national targets for industrialised countries

|
| Adaptation Fund; targets restricted to industrialised countries

| Market-based mechanisms

| Emissions accounting and reporting requirements; institutional capacity building

|-
| Paris Agreement

| NDCs and the global stocktake

| Mechanisms for capacity building and technology development and transfer

| Furthering financial commitments under the UNFCCC, including enhanced transparency on finance

| Voluntary cooperation

| Mechanism for enhanced transparency

|-
| Other multilateral agreements

(Montreal Protocol, SDG 7, etc.)

| Phase out of ozone-depleting substances with high global warming potential; significant effects on GHG mitigation

| Ozone Fund; technology transfer; development and sharing of knowledge and expertise

| SDGs embedding mitigation in sustainable development

|
| Processes for adjustment and amendment; reporting requirements

|-
| Multilateral and regional economic agreements and institutions

| Harmonised lending practices of MDBs; mainstreaming climate change into IMF practices; liberalisation of trade in climate-friendly goods and services; negative effect from regulatory chill

|
| Concessional financing agreements

|
| Potentially negative results from dispute settlement processes

|-
| Sectoral agreements and institutions

| Climate mitigation targets and actions in AFOLU, energy, and transport

| Institutions devoted to developing and deploying zero-carbon energy technologies (e.g., IRENA)

|
| Use of carbon offsets to reduce growth in emissions from aviation

|
|-
| Transnational networks and partnerships

| Youth climate movement raising mitigation and fossil fuel divestment on political agendas and in financial sector

| Non-state actor commitments to renewable energy-based supply chains

| Climate justice legal initiatives

|
| City networks providing information exchange and technical support

|}

<div id="14.7" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="knowledge-gaps"></span>