Correlating negotiation hotspot issues,Paris climate agreement and the international climate policy regime |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Regional Institute for Population Studies, and Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon LG96, Ghana;2. School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa;3. Department of Geography, Geo-Informatics and Climatic Sciences, School of Forestry, Environmental and Geographical Sciences, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda;1. Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, 285 Mercer Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY, 10003, USA;2. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, Columbia University, Jerome Greene Hall, 435 West 116th Street, New York, NY, 10027, USA;3. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Clark Hall, 291 McCormick Road, P.O. Box 400123, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA;4. The Fletcher School/Global Development and Environment Institute, 44 Teele Avenue, Medford, MA 02155, USA;5. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria;1. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, New Zealand;2. Landcare Research – Manaaki Whenua, Lincoln, New Zealand;1. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA;2. Codiga Resource Recovery Center, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA;3. Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | The concerns over climate change negotiation, decision texts and links to domestic policy interests of countries to keep warming within an acceptable limit have become the ‘hotspot issues’ of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Hotspot issues are the human – political economy factors which have evolved over time from negotiation texts or phrases, principles or behaviors with tendencies to influence climate negotiations yet cannot be identified with the scientific literature. Whilst big emitters have been accused as having hegemony over the negotiations, the effects of disunity amongst the parties over domestic policy interests have been overlooked. Hence the article examines the emergence of hotspot issues and how they manifest within the international climate policy regime. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of 130 countries submitted before the Paris agreement, were analyzed using the following texts: Adaptation, Mitigation, Co-benefits, Finance, Land use, Food security, Poverty, Resilience, Green growth, Green economy, Sustainable development, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services and Conservation. Of these, ‘adaptation’ was cited 2780 times, 1956 for ‘mitigation’ and 32 for ‘ecosystem services’ in the nature conservation category. Ten phases of the climate policy regime and historical hotspot issues were identified for the period 1980–2030. ‘Adaptation’ and mitigation appeared more frequently in the INDCs and correlated with each other (r = 0.56), as the two correlated further with ‘land use’ (0.50 < r < 0.60), and similarly with sustainable development (0.40 < r < 0.70) where ‘r’ is the Pearson Rank Correlation. Therefore the success of the ‘ambitious targets’ for mitigation will depend on similar ambitious goals for adaptation, land use and sustainable development. Several differences existed in the correlation of the hotspot issues within the regional geographical blocs (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America) and split along the hotspot issues yet Europe mostly oriented towards mitigation and land use, and Oceania on resilience building. These differences provide favorable conditions for increased cooperation and true multilateralism if they are properly diagnosed. |
| |
| Keywords: | Adaptation Ambitious targets COP Ghana Mitigation Multilateralism |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
