Jonathan Pickering

On the concept of climate debt: its moral and political value

A range of developing countries and international advocacy organizations have argued that wealthy countries, as a result of their greater historical contribution to human-induced climate change, owe a ‘climate debt’ to poor countries. Critics of this argument have claimed that it is incoherent or morally objectionable. In this essay we clarify the concept of climate debt and assess its value for conceptualizing responsibilities associated with global climate change and for guiding international climate negotiations. We conclude that the idea of a climate debt can be coherently formulated, and that while some understandings of the idea of climate debt could lead to morally objectionable conclusions, other accounts would not. However, we argue that climate debt nevertheless provides an unhelpful frame for advancing global justice through international climate negotiations – the only existing means of resolving political conflict over the collective action problems posed by human-induced climate change – due to its retrospective and potentially adversarial emphasis, and to problems of measurement.

Sharing the Global Climate Finance Effort Fairly with Limited Coordination

Mobilizing climate finance for developing countries is crucial for achieving a fair and effective global climate regime. To date, developed countries retain wide discretion over their national contributions. We explore how different degrees of international coordination may influence the fairness of the global financing effort, and we present quantitative scenarios, for both the metrics used to distribute the collective effort among countries contributing funding, and the number of contributing countries. We find that an intermediate degree of coordination—combining nationally determined financing pledges with a robust international review mechanism—may reduce distortions in relative efforts as well as shortfalls in overall funding, while reflecting reasonable differences over what constitutes a fair share. A broader group of contributors may do little to improve adequacy or equity unless it can converge on credible measures of responsibility and capacity. Our analysis highlights the importance of building common understandings about effort sharing.

The impact of the US retreat from the Paris Agreement: Kyoto revisited?

ABSTRACT The United States’ decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement (pending possible re-engagement under different terms) may have significant ramifications for international climate policy, but the implications of this decision remain contested. This commentary illustrates how comparative analysis of US participation in multilateral environmental agreements can inform predictions and future assessments of the decision. We compare and contrast US non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, focusing on four key areas that may condition the influence of US treaty decisions on international climate policy: (i) global momentum on climate change mitigation; (ii) the possibility of US non-participation giving rise to alternative forms of international collaboration on climate policy; (iii) the timing and circumstances of the US decision to exit; and (iv) the influence of treaty design on countries’ incentives to participate and comply. We find that differences across the two treaties relating to the first three factors are more likely to reduce the negative ramifications of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement compared to the Kyoto Protocol. However, the increased urgency of deep decarbonization renders US non-participation a major concern despite its declining share of global emissions. Moreover, key design features of the Paris Agreement suggest that other countries may react to the US decision by scaling back their levels of ambition and compliance, even if they remain in the Agreement. Key policy insights Increasing global momentum on mitigation since 1997 means that US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is potentially less damaging than its non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol Despite the declining US share of global emissions, greater urgency of deep decarbonization means that the non-participation of a major player, such as the US, remains problematic for global cooperation and achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals Differences in the design of the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement suggest that US non-participation is more likely to prompt reluctant countries to stay within the Paris framework but reduce levels of ambition and compliance, rather than exit the Agreement altogether

Erratum to: What drives national support for multilateral climate finance? International and domestic influences on Australia’s shifting stance

The fulfilment of wealthy countries’ commitment to mobilise

Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance

100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 will hinge on maintaining domestic political support in contributor countries. Predictability in flows of climate finance is likely to enhance the overall stability of the climate finance system and the broader climate regime. However, at present it remains unclear how the 2020 target will be achieved and little is known about what drives fluctuations in support among contributor countries. This article explores domestic and international factors that may explain fluctuations in national support through a case study of Australia’s climate finance from 2007 to 2015. Drawing on documentary analysis and interviews with officials and stakeholders, the paper tracks two domestic factors that may influence support for climate finance—the government’s political orientation and public concern about climate change—and two international factors—commitment to multilateral agreements and international peer pressure. While some accounts view climate policy choices as being driven primarily by domestic factors, we find that the government’s political orientation on domestic climate policy and aid explains some but not all variations in Australia’s stance on climate finance. International peer group effects have moderated the positions of two governments that were otherwise reluctant to act on climate change. National policy reforms combined with improved multilateral oversight and more established replenishment cycles could bolster support in contributor countries and thereby strengthen the capacity of the climate finance system.

Development co-operation: New perspectives from developing countries – Introduction for special issue of Development Policy Review

Climate finance occupies the lion’s share of funding under international environmental agreements (UNEP 2012: 467–469), and its volume is likely to increase substantially if current multilateral targets are fulfilled. At the landmark summit under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris in 2015, countries recognized the ‘‘urgent need to enhance the provision of finance’’ to assist developing

Ecological reflexivity: characterising an elusive virtue for governance in the Anthropocene

The nature of development co-operation has changed rapidly in recent years. Developing countries have access to a more diverse range of financing sources, including non-traditional providers of bilateral development co-operation, new or emerging multilateral and regional institutions, philanthropic organizations and private investors. These changes raise pressing questions about how the policies and practices of external providers of development finance must evolve, both to meet changing development priorities and to ensure that the overall development assistance effort from all providers is optimal. This article introduces a special issue of Development Policy Review that presents new perspectives from developing countries on the roles that development finance should play. This introduction highlights commonalities and differences among the articles contained in the special issue, and concludes with next steps for research and policy.

How should development co-operation evolve? Views from developing countries

ABSTRACT Reflexivity – the capacity of an agent, structure or process to change in the light of reflection on its performance – has attracted widespread support among political theorists as a virtue for environmental governance. Dryzek argues that a distinctively ecological form of reflexivity becomes crucial for governing in the Anthropocene. But there remains a need to clarify the conceptual scope of ecological reflexivity and to ascertain whether it has distinctive analytical value. A new conceptual framework for ecological reflexivity is outlined, comprising three components: recognition, rethinking and response. Through a comparative analysis of reflexivity and four related concepts – adaptive and transformative governance, experimental governance, social learning and anticipatory governance – ecological reflexivity is shown to be especially well equipped to take account of political contestation over the nature and direction of change required to respond to ecological risks.

Acting on Climate Finance Pledges: Inter-Agency Dynamics and Relationships with Aid in Contributor States

This article provides evidence on what developing country governments expect to be their main challenges within five to 10 years, and how they want their relationships with development assistance providers to evolve in order to meet these challenges. The results, based on a survey commissioned by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of 40 partner country governments, indicate that demand for official development assistance (ODA) is likely to remain strong in the medium term, but that partner countries are actively diversifying providers in order to spread risk. Countries want ODA providers to shift to a more enabling role in the coming years, providing vital finance, but in support of government-led sector programmes, delivering more and better technical and policy support, and leveraging more private finance.