Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake - Christian Holz, Tom Athanasiou, and Sivan Kartha
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series
Equity in the Global Stocktake and
Independent Global Stocktake
Christian Holz, Tom Athanasiou, and Sivan Kartha
1Equity in the Global Stocktake and
Independent Global Stocktake
Christian Holz*, Tom Athanasiou, and Sivan Kartha
December 2019
© Climate Equity Reference Project 2019
Cite as: Holz, Christian, Tom Athanasiou, and Sivan Kartha (2019) “Equity in the Global
Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake,” iGST Designing a Robust Stocktake
Discussion Series. Berkeley, Boston, Ottawa: Climate Equity Reference Project.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2595493
* Corresponding Author: cholz@climateequityreference.org
Download the report
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2595493About the iGST initiative and this report series
The Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) is an umbrella data and advocacy initiative that
brings together climate modelers, analysts, campaigners and advocates to support the Paris
Agreement. https://www.climateworks.org/independentglobalstocktake/
The Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series envisions the contours of an ideal Global
Stocktake and suggests ways in which the independent community can help to achieve that
vision. These papers were produced by iGST partner organizations in consultation with the
broader community, but the views expressed are the authors’ own and don't necessarily reflect
those of the iGST initiative or associated partner organizations.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Jason Anderson (ClimateWorks Foundation), Guy Cunliffe (African
Climate & Development Initiative, University of Cape Town (UCT)), Kennedy Mbeva (Australian-
German Energy and Climate College, University of Melbourne), Pieter Pauw (Frankfurt School
of Finance and Management), Wolfgang Obergassel (Wuppertal Institut), Joe Thwaites and
David Waskow (World Resources Institute), Harald Winkler (Energy Research Centre, UCT), and
Vincente Yu for providing feedback on an earlier version of this paper. Any remaining omissions,
errors, and so forth are, of course, the authors’ alone. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
financial support of the ClimateWorks Foundation that made this report possible. All opinions
expressed in this paper remain the authors’ own.
Template design: ClimateWorks Foundation
3+ Contents + Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 5 + Scope of the Equity Challenge in i/GST Activities ............................................................................... 7 + Transparency and Standards of Equity Information and Benchmarks ........................................ 11 + Climate Finance and Support ................................................................................................................. 14 + Intranational Equity .................................................................................................................................. 19 + Procedural Equity in Stocktaking Activities ......................................................................................... 21 + Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 23 + References ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
+ Introduction
Equity1 is enshrined in article 14 of the Paris decision on the GST during the Katowice
Agreement (PA) as one of the two overarching climate summit in 2018, characterizing equity
principles of the Global Stocktake (GST), which as “cross-cutting” and deciding to consider it
is mandated to be conducted “in the light of “throughout the GST” [2].
equity and the best available science.” [1] The
Given equity's central importance in the
inclusion of equity in the PA’s language on
UNFCCC and the PA, it is essential to consider
the GST is not coincidental but was rather a
general principles as well as the specific
hard-won agreement in the final hours of the
elements and activities that the conduct of a
Paris climate summit,2 a fact that underlines
GST “in the light of equity” implies and requires.
its importance. As the last-minute crunch
After all, any GST that does not take equity
came down, the parties that had insisted on
into proper account would be in glaring
deprecating “equity” in the GST and elsewhere
violation of the provisions of article 14.1 and
in the PA, arguing that it was merely a blocking
thus lose legitimacy and risk failing its
device, yielded to those who insisted that,
promise as, arguably, the most important
despite all, equity remained fundamental to
element of the PA’s ambition ratcheting
ensuring that the GST would properly reflect
mechanism. It is our view that without a well-
the principles of the UNFCCC and the PA.
functioning GST, the other elements of the PA’s
Further, the way in which “equity and the best ambition mechanism (e.g. the transparency
available science” is brought into the GST regime, the NDCs, the dynamic cycles etc.)
article of the PA clearly indicates that equity is constitute a weak ambition mechanism at best
not merely to be considered as one topic area – a GST that includes a coherent equity
among others, but that the entirety of the GST assessment of pledges, actions, and support,
is to be conducted in its light. Parties to the and that lends itself to the construction of
UNFCCC explicitly endorsed this view in their politically powerful norms is required to
1 “Equity” is a broad concept that has different the success of the UNFCCC regime since it ensures,
meanings in different contexts. In the context of the among other things, that countries are not expected to
UNFCCC and, by extension, the Paris Agreement (PA), it contribute at levels that would, without support,
primarily refers to the notion that different countries, overburden them, given their level of development, while
primarily, but not exclusively, due to their different levels on the other hand seeking to ensure that countries with
of economic development, are subject to different sets of higher level of development fulfill the obligations and
obligations and expectations with regards to their make the contributions appropriate for them. Thus, equity
activities to address the various aspects of climate ensures an overall higher level of ambition through
change. This is reflected in the UNFCCC primarily through obligations and contributions appropriate to the level of
the concept of “Common But Differentiated development of parties. Or, in the words of the IPCC,
Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities” (CBDR/RC), “outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective
which was reaffirmed in the PA, and generally through the cooperation” [9].
differentiation between developed and developing 2 This is evidenced by personal accounts of the authors
countries in both the UNFCCC and the PA that is applied as well as those of negotiators at the conference, and by
throughout both treaties, generally placing more stringent the fact that in the late draft version of the PA text (the
obligations and expectations on the former while first “Proposal by the President”), “and equity” is still in
affording more flexibility to the latter. For example, the square brackets [15], which indicates that there was no
former have obligations to support the latter in the agreement at that stage of the negotiations and that the
implementation of their contributions, are expected to inclusion of “equity” in the GST language was an element
peak and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions earlier, of the final bargaining over the whole Paris package and
and to comply with more demanding reporting and therefore a deliberate inclusion.
transparency rules, and so on. The importance of equity
in this sense is central to the functioning and, ultimately,
iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series 5Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
animate the overall ambition mechanism. The assessments with respect to specific
GST in principle has the potential to fulfil this normative benchmarks should probably be
function, though it will depend on its ultimate relegated to other fora, where proper
design whether it can live up to that promise. ownership can be taken of the ethical-
normative underpinnings of benchmark
During parties’ deliberations leading up to the
construction, as discussed further below4).
PA as well as after its adoption, it became
clear that certain activities and perspectives In this spirit, we will focus here on the
on equity are currently out of reach of parties’ question of how the iGST can be the best
collective political will (even though they possible role model for the treatment of
might not necessarily be inconsistent with equity in the formal GST (i.e., how it could be
the text of article 14). For example, the long- “modelling equity”5), and we will indicate
standing consensus among parties clearly where current constraints might limit the
does not include the assessment of individual application of our suggestions in the formal
parties’ contributions, including with respect GST. In our view, the importance of the iGST
to equity considerations.3 However, our view and similar initiatives – to model a proper
is that such assessment is essential, and assessment of the pledges and actions for the
because the iGST (as a process that is benefit of parties (and other observers) – is
undertaken by research institutions and other clear, especially given that there will be no
non-governmental entities, and not the parties formal negotiations on the GST until the first
of the UNFCCC) is not subject to the same GST commences in late 2021 or early 2022. In
constraints as the formal GST process under Katowice6, parties decided, however, that they
the UNFCCC, it should absolutely venture into will be able to provide “voluntary submissions
this territory. It can do so, for example, by […] to inform equity considerations under the
illuminating principles for assessing pledges global stocktake” [2]. Thus, the iGST and similar
against normatively-derived equity initiatives can provide important frames and
benchmarks (though actually conducting such information that parties could utilize when
3 Not having an individual party focus was agreed early are explicitly and transparently normative. Any
on in the Paris COP negotiations of the GST (the word undertakings that explicitly or implicitly claim
“collective” was in square brackets in the version of the independence and/or neutrality, such as the Independent
Paris Agreement Draft forwarded to the COP from the Ad- Global Stocktake, or scholarly undertakings, cannot
hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform, but had the effectively and properly take ownership of such ethical-
brackets already removed in the first document version normative standpoints. Lahn [19] provides an insightful
issued by the COP president). The Katowice CMA discussion of the profound and consequential differences
decision on the GST explicitly states that the inputs for the that arise from explicitly taking a normative position (as
GST “will consider information at a collective level” (para in the Civil Society Equity Review) as opposed to
31) and that the outcomes “should … have no individual ostensibly presenting results as “apolitical facts” (as in the
party focus” (para 14) [2], However, it is worth noting that, example of the “Bali Box” in the IPCC’s Fourth
since COP20 in Lima in 2014, there is an explicit Assessment report), even if the underlying analysis is, in
expectation that parties explain why they believe their reality and “behind the scenes,” also based on normative
contribution is “fair and ambitious.” [16] This expectation positions. (In the interest of transparency, the authors
was reiterated at COP21 in Paris and, most recently, in the wish to disclose that they were and remain centrally
Katowice CMA decision regarding the “Information to involved in the Civil Society Equity Review, and that their
facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding of Climate Equity Reference Project serves as its technical
nationally determined contributions” [12]. The "fairness and analytical hub.)
considerations" are explicitly a source of input for the 5 In this report, we use the verb “model” mainly in the
GST, as per the Katowice CMA decision on the GST [2]. sense of the iGST demonstrating, i.e. modelling, how
4 One example of such a potential forum is the Civil certain aspects of the GST could be carried out in an ideal
Society Equity Review [7], [17], [18], where a large coalition world. This is different from “modelling equity” in the
of civil society organizations have negotiated and agreed sense of using mathematical models to calculate, i.e.
upon a specific ethical-normative standpoint from which model, quantitative implications of ethical positions.
to undertake equity assessments. The coalition members 6 Winkler offers a good discussion of the equity
thus “own” the ethical-normative underpinnings of the dimensions of the Katowice decision on the GST [20].
benchmark construction and the resultant assessments
6 iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion SeriesEquity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
preparing such submissions.7 Just as amenable for a wider public” [3] and could thus
importantly, by treating equity more serve to support domestic efforts to raise
expansively than the GST, the iGST can ambition in those countries. Furthermore, by
influence public discourse around ambition highlighting equity concerns in public
and equity in civic domains – some of which documents, i/GST exercises could tap into the
are exceedingly important – that extend agenda setting function of the GST [3] and
beyond the GST’s political and institutional ensure that equity concerns are properly
constraints. included in domestic discourses. This also
reflects the reality that decisions to increase
All this has practical implications. For example,
countries’ ambition will not be made at
the GST negotiations between Paris and
UNFCCC negotiation sessions (where the GST
Katowice indicated that a catalogue of
will take place) but in national contexts.
questions might guide the GST: negotiators
began work on such a catalogue, but it was In what follows, we will discuss equity in five
ultimately not adopted because they did not related subject areas: 1) scope of the equity
agree that this was a priority for their work and challenge in i/GST8 activities, 2) transparency
left the formulation of guiding questions to the and standards of equity information and
chairs of the SBs instead, who were tasked with benchmarks, 3) climate finance, including
presiding over the GST. Insofar as the iGST means of implementation and support,
also aims to develop such questions, they 4) intranational equity, and 5) procedural
should reflect the equity challenges discussed equity. In the interest of limiting the length of
in this text. Furthermore, the GST, and even this paper, we will refrain from providing any
more so unofficial initiatives like the iGST, have introductory overview of the GST or iGST
the potential of creating materials, including processes, though we will highlight our
the collective assessment upon which interpretations of the relevant language in the
appraisals of the fairness and ambition of PA text and the Katowice decision on the GST
individual countries’ actions and pledges could (including the dynamics of the negotiations
be contextualized, and that are “in a format leading to these texts), where relevant.
+ Scope of the Equity Challenge in i/GST
Activities
Equity in relation to “scope” is relevant in two considerations are included in these
ways, first in terms of equity in the scope of the stocktaking activities.
stocktaking activities in general, and second in
In the first sense, it is important to recall that
terms of the scope of which equity
several scope elements are mandated directly
7 There is evidence that at least some parties have such equity considerations to the issue of further or
embraced this dynamic. For example, a group of enhanced action and support that need to take place” [21].
developing country UNFCCC negotiators who had been 8 In this paper, when raising points that apply to both
involved in the GST negotiations recently released, in their the GST and the iGST, we will refer to both processes
personal capacities, a paper on equity in the GST wherein collectively as the “i/GST,” otherwise we will be specific in
they conclude that “countries for whom the concept of which of the two we are talking about. The phrases
equity in the GST is important should ensure that they are “stocktaking exercises,” “stocktaking efforts” and so on
able to provide solid inputs into the GST process. Such refer to both the iGST and the GST as well as any other
inputs should highlight not only the equity considerations similar initiatives that might be undertaken by other
that they wish to highlight but also the linkage between actors.
iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series 7Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
in article 14 of the PA, namely “mitigation, the fact that different levels of support enable
adaptation and the means of implementation different levels of mitigation activities, while
and support” as well as the progress towards treating them together allows, inter alia, a
achieving the PA’s long term goals, arguably closer examination of all the ways in which
captured in article 2.1 (a-c). Parties clarified increasing support can strengthen mitigation
their position in Katowice [2] by explicitly action. Likewise, different levels of mitigation
referencing article 2.1 (a-c) as relevant long ambition clearly have an impact on the
term goals and characterizing mitigation, adaptive capacity of societies and thus on both
adaptation and means of implementation and adaptation need as well as L&D implications,
support as “thematic areas” for the GST, while both with profound equity implications, which
also explicitly acknowledging that the GST may a separate treatment of these thematic areas
take into account the issues areas of Response would fail to recognize.
Measures (RM) and Loss and Damage (L&D).
The importance of resisting both the primacy
Parties also agreed that the thematic areas
of mitigation in iGST activities and the siloing
should be addressed in a balanced manner,
of thematic areas (and the sidelining of L&D
including via balanced time allocations. This is
and RM) cannot be overstated. Besides having
relevant for equity since the inequitable
the opportunity to model the best possible GST
treatment of these thematic areas has long
for parties and publics, an iGST that strives to
been lamented by developing country
be seen as a legitimately independent initiative
negotiators, who argue that mitigation
should strongly resist aligning itself with a
receives the bulk of attention in the activities
position that is closely associated with one
of the UNFCCC in contrast to adaptation and
group of parties (i.e. developed country parties’
support (as well as RM and L&D), which are
emphasis on mitigation to the detriment of
very high priorities in developing countries.
other issue areas, or even their exclusion in the
Increasingly, developing country negotiators
case of RM and L&D) as opposed to the agreed
have been successful in asserting the more
compromise. In the current ongoing phase of
equal treatment of the areas, including during
the iGST project, some siloing will inevitably
the negotiations that led to the Katowice
occur due to the way the work of this phase is
decision on the GST.
organized, with individual iGST partners
For the iGST, this means minimally that iGST leading on generating specific outputs under
activities as a whole should also strive to separate work items. However, in our view this
represent a balance of treatment of the means that the current work should make a
thematic areas, including RM and L&D. particular effort to anticipate and highlight links
Additionally, the iGST has the opportunity to between those thematic silos and that the next
model how the thematic areas can be dealt phase should resist reproducing such a setup.
with not only in a balanced by also in a holistic
In a recent paper, Klinsky and Winkler forcefully
manner,9 by resisting the siloing of thematic
argued that any assessment of the equity
considerations and instead treating them in
implications of any climate policy actions
relation to each other, especially with regards
would fall short if it does not assess that
to equity considerations. The opportunities for
policy's implications for mitigation, impacts
such work are numerous. For example, treating
and adaptation, and loss and damage while
mitigation in isolation from climate finance and
also being sensitive to the implications for
technology transfer would fail to account for
9 “Holistic and comprehensive” are the other two ways means of implementation and support, L&D, and RM are
(in addition to “balanced”) in which parties decided in integral and linked parts of a whole and have to be
Katowice to treat thematic areas in the GST. The term assessed in relation to, and not in isolation from, each
“holistic” was chosen to express the view of the parties other.
that championed the term that mitigation, adaptation,
8 iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion SeriesEquity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
human development and poverty, among other since legitimate equity concerns, when left
principles [4], which supports our cautioning unaddressed, can result in lower ambition,
against siloing thematic areas. It also suggests which points to the promise of the i/GST to
careful consideration of the equity basis of any elaborate ways in which proper treatment of
set of indicators for assessing contributions. those concerns can overcome related barriers.
In the second sense of the scope question, as In addition, there are other important equity
full a scope as possible of equity issues issues that ought to be addressed in order to
should be included in i/GST exercises. ensure that i/GST activities can fulfill their
Recalling that equity is to be considered in a ambition-raising promise. Chief among these
cross-cutting manner, in other words, in all of are sustainable development and efforts to
the activities of the GST, different elements of eradicate poverty, the primacy of which is
the full possible scope of equity considerations explicit in the UNFCCC and has been reiterated
apply to different thematic areas and to their by the PA (in its articles 2 and 4). Relatedly, we
overlaps. Equity issues arise, both between argue that the issue of intranational equity
countries and within them as well as for (which will be discussed in further detail below)
specific groups of people, in relation to the is of central importance, since ambition raising
agreed-upon thematic issue areas of the GST, can be severely limited if it is seen (or
for example, in relation to historical construed) to be implemented at the expense
responsibility for emissions when considering of socio-economically disadvantaged strata of
the adaptation need of parties, in relation to countries’ societies (or, for that matter, those
financial and technological capacity when who are anxious about their socio-economic
considering parties’ potential for mitigation, as status and security). It should be noted that
well as in relation to means of implementation inequality within countries is an absolutely
and support, including for addressing RM and central aspect of the equity challenge, and that,
L&D. at the same time, it is very, very difficult to deal
with in a multilateral treaty context like the
The equity issues in several of these thematic
UNFCCC (and that this would probably remain
areas have long been studied, though more
true even if these negotiations were far
work is needed, with the level of understanding
healthier than they are today). This, in turn,
reflecting the aforementioned imbalance
indicates the absolute necessity of addressing
between mitigation and other issue areas. For
intranational equity in non-formal stocktaking
example, with regards to L&D, thorough
processes outside the UNFCCC like the iGST.
consideration of equity questions is generally
lacking. And the same is true when it comes to Furthermore, the PA highlights, inter alia in its
of RM, even though “Just Transition” has preamble, a host of additional concerns that
emerged over the last few years as an are relevant to reflecting equity for particular
important area of concern where inequitable groups of people or perspectives, including
impacts can be clearly observed. This is “human rights, the right to health, the rights of
particularly the case because fossil carbon indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants,
extraction must be curbed no less precipitously children, persons with disabilities and people in
than fossil carbon emissions themselves [5]. vulnerable situations and the right to development,
Given that many of these equity concerns as well as gender equality, empowerment of women
and intergenerational equity”, and “for some, the
could be addressed through appropriate policy
interventions and support, they should concept of ‘climate justice.’” [1] It is our view
constitute a focus of GST activities on RM and that such considerations should inform all
L&D. Incidentally, this is an area where equity- activities of the i/GST in order to ensure that
related considerations have a direct bearing on they are properly conducted “in the light of
the objective of the GST to enhance ambition, equity.”
iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series 9Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
To make this second scope-related point in a and Katowice COPs, negotiators of some
more general manner: stocktaking efforts developed countries suggested that the “in the
should make every effort to include all light of equity” stipulation of article 14 could be
aspects of equity that are actually affecting fully met by paying attention to equity concerns
policy discourses and policy decisions in “the within countries, such as those related to
real world,” which in some cases will be Indigenous rights, human rights, gender, rights
specific to specific countries, thematic areas or of migrants, just transition etc., as enumerated
particular circumstances, in others it will be in the preamble to the PA. While we agree that
fairly generalizable to many or all parties. This a more holistic treatment of equity (i.e.
will enable stocktaking efforts to help address including equity within countries and for
equity-related barriers to increased ambition or specific groups of people) is desirable in order
help highlight opportunities associated with to fulfill the ambition-raising promise of the
overcoming such barriers. For example, in the GST, this must not come at the expense of a
emerging field of supply-side policy proper treatment of equity between countries.
interventions, equity concerns have quickly
It is clear that several of these issues are
arisen about which countries (or communities)
currently out of reach for the formal GST
have ethical claims to continue extracting
activities since the prevalent interpretation of
fossil fuel and which ought to be first to “leave
article 14’s stipulation to consider “collective
it in the ground.” Such equity concerns are not
effort” holds that this stipulation prevents the
well developed and, unaddressed, they limit the
consideration of individual parties’
potential of supply side approaches [5], [6]. 10
contributions and circumstances and that the
Many other examples exist.
consideration by multilateral processes of
The overarching point here is that the “true parties’ internal affairs, such as internal income
scope” of equity is very expansive and very distribution or Just Transitions, violate parties’
challenging. As such, it is a practical sovereignty. While we hold that such
necessity to limit its scope. However, this interpretations (and concerns about
should be done consciously, carefully, and sovereignty) do not literally follow from the text
explicitly, while aspiring to the broadest of the PA and the Katowice decision, they do
scope possible and proactively reflect the limited collective political will that
acknowledging what is missing, in the case of the consensus of the parties can currently
the iGST and similar efforts, while actively muster. Hence, some of the issues raised here
resisting and interrogating the political have little chance of being fully considered in
constraints that parties’ collective political the formal GST, save perhaps for a treatment
will has placed upon the official GST process. in party submissions pursuant to paragraph 37
(g) of the Katowice decision11. However, as
Finally, it is important to recall that “equity” in
stated above, it is our view that this should not
the context of the UNFCCC and the PA means
be understood as a signal to also ignore these
in the first instance considerations of equity
issues in contexts like the iGST but, on the
between countries. This is apparent from the
contrary, as a challenge to the iGST to
context in which the concept of equity is
demonstrate how they can be treated – in
introduced in the texts of these treaties. During
the negotiations on the GST between the Paris
10 Though dissenting voices to this interpretation have parties, which in turn implies that at least at some level
been raised ever since scholars and analysts first started individual consideration would have to be undertaken.
to think about the newly created institution of the GST. For 11 “37. Decides that the sources of input for the global
example, Holz and Ngwadla [22] argue that the structure stocktake include: […] (g) Voluntary submissions from
of the GST as set up by article 14 clearly implies inputs Parties, including on inputs to inform equity
from individual parties and outcomes for individual considerations under the global stocktake…” [2]
10 iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion SeriesEquity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
formal negotiations or in national debates – in prevalent interpretation that only aggregate
a manner that is both fair and helpful. information should be considered by the
formal GST there is an immanent need for
For the formal GST, given the expressed needs
creative thinking about alternative means of
of the parties, a balanced treatment of the
differentiating expectations of countries in
thematic areas is paramount, which should
radically differing circumstances. Part of this
include considerations of the interactions
may entail devising helpful aggregates that
between thematic areas (e.g. relating to the
overcome static interpretations of the
fact that less overall ambition on mitigation
developed/developing countries dichotomy as,
leads to more climate change and thus higher
for example, it was captured in the Annexes of
adaptation needs and higher limits to
the UNFCCC.12 Helpful aggregation could, for
adaptation, while, vice versa, when parties
example, consider the shared circumstances
dedicate more of their limited resources to
of countries with large fossil fuel exports, of
adaptation, they will have fewer resources at
countries with agrarian economies, of
their disposal to engage in mitigation
countries at similar levels of development, of
activities). Further, the issue of equity between
countries with particular, shared adaptation
countries must be included, although given the
challenges, and so forth.
+ Transparency and Standards of Equity
Information and Benchmarks
Given the prevalent interpretations that the Review” [7] undertook such an exercise, and a
“collective effort” language in article 14 consortium of European institutes operating as
precludes individual party level assessments, it the “Climate Action Tracker” [8] is also in the
is currently unclear how the official GST business of assessing countries’ climate
process will be able to use national-level pledges against equity benchmarks. Several
information (and if so, which ones) to clarify the other such initiatives exist.
progress of individual parties towards
The use of equity benchmarks is not only a
implementation of their contributions towards
“fact on the ground,” it is also in our view an
the long-term goals of the PA. As stated above,
important, useful and desirable tool for en-
aggregation of parties in groups other than
couraging discourse, mutual understanding,
developed vs. developing countries may help
and, ultimately, enhanced ambition, for
overcome this limitation.
example by demonstrating in which area (e.g.
The availability of such information could be mitigation, adaptation, or support), and at
helpful, because it is clear that there will be what scale, additional ambition can fairly be
initiatives that will assess the contributions of expected and how countries’ contributions
parties and groups of parties against specific compare to each other in light of specific
normative benchmarks, including benchmarks benchmarks. Importantly, equity assessments
that are derived, or purport to be derived, from against normative benchmarks also offer very
specific equity positions. For example, in the useful tools for national campaigns for higher
lead up to the Paris climate summit and ambition.
annually since, a global “Civil Society Equity
12 Though the Annexes still have important meaning and when it comes to the explicit finance obligations of Annex
functions, including in relation to the GST, for example II parties.
iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series 11Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
However, in order to be widely seen as technology, assumptions about climate
legitimate, equity benchmarking should impacts, including discounting, etc. [4]) that are
observe some minimal standards with regard implied in such a selection. And of course, it
to their construction and transparency. The also includes the selection of the fairness
overarching point here is that the derivation principles that are used to derive national
of equity benchmarks is always and benchmarks from global pathways (or carbon
necessarily a normative exercise and that budgets). The ethical positions that underpin
presenting any equity benchmarking exercise the selection must be clear to the audience, as
as value-neutral is patently misleading. From must be the implications of a particular
this it follows that initiatives that strive, for selection over alternatives.
very good reasons, to present themselves as
While not only relevant there, these principles
value-neutral research or research-aggrega-
matter in particular when it comes to the kind
tion initiatives, like the iGST, ought to refrain
of equity assessment that seeks to evaluate
from engaging in equity benchmarking
countries contributions (i.e., chiefly, their NDCs,
proper, though discussion of standards and
but also their finance contributions) in fair
principles of such benchmarking could be a
shares terms. The bottom line is that equity
very useful contribution to further the
models that claim to evaluate the fairness or
understanding of equity assessment, as can
unfairness of parties’ contributions must be
the provision of information and data relating
ethically transparent, so that they themselves
to equity consequences of national
can be evaluated, specifically with regards to
contributions. For example, and related to the
any implicit or even explicit biases, and how
discussion on scope above, iGST participants
these effect the final assessment results that
could agree that any equity assessments of
the models are reporting.
mitigation pledges that only consider a
country’s domestic mitigation and fail to This has special importance for assessments
consider the provision (or receipt) of means of that are derived from aggregations or
implementation for mitigation are defective statistical syntheses of multiple normative
due to their incompleteness. benchmarks, and that are presented as being
representative of the universe of equity
It further follows, that audiences for the results
perspectives in an inclusive and exhaustive
of benchmarking exercises must be able to
way. The key point here is that this is not and
understand and decide whether or not they
cannot be a strictly technical process,
agree with the normative positions taken in
because it inherently entails normative
constructing the benchmarks, in order to
choices, and thus any such effort must be
assess whether or not they can accept the
extremely transparent. The path from the
findings of the benchmarking. In order to make
underlying ethical positions of the individual
these determinations, users must be as
equity perspectives to the ultimate
transparently and completely as possible
assessment vis-à-vis the synthesized
informed about all the ethically-informed
benchmarks must be easily traceable, and if
decisions that went into the construction of the
other positions would have led to other
benchmark. For example, for mitigation
assessments, this too must be clear.
benchmarks this includes the selection of the
mitigation pathway and the trade-offs between It must be particularly clear which ethical
near-term ambition and mid to long-term risks positions are being selected for representation
(e.g. with regards to the impacts of and which are being excluded, why they are
temperature overshoots, negative emissions being excluded and what the implications of
assumptions, economic and population this exclusion are. This is true even if the
growth assumptions, assumptions about reasons that salient ethical positions are
12 iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion SeriesEquity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
excluded are methodological or practical, for based benchmarks could not be considered
example because no quantified data reflecting equitable, or that for the proper assessment of
these ethical positions have been calculated countries’ mitigation effort, the sum of their
and/or published. It is worth noting that the domestic mitigation and the mitigation impact
IPCC, in the Fifth Assessment Report [9], noted of their climate finance contribution should be
several equity dimensions that are relevant for considered in total.
equity assessment of NDCs but have not yet
Unavoidably, the many technical, analytical,
been expressed via quantified models. These
or taxonomic choices made in developing any
include the different kind of responsibility
synthesized equity benchmark entail
associated with production- versus
judgements that themselves are normative
consumption-based or with survival versus
(which equity perspectives are included,
luxury emissions, egalitarianism versus
which are excluded, how are equity
prioritarianism, regressive versus progressive
perspectives represented quantitatively,
distribution of the costs (and benefits) of
what specific values are chosen for free
climate action, and the ethical primacy of the
parameters, etc.). These judgements,
eradication of poverty and the associated
moreover, are consequential, and
importance of the right to development. In
substantively affect results. For these
these cases, indications should be provided
reasons, no quantitative assessment relative
with regards to how the inclusion of such
to equity benchmarks can claim to be
positions would have altered the assessment.
“neutral” or “objective.” All that is possible to
Also, the specific approach for aggregating
claim is transparency.
across benchmarks must be clear, along with
its implications relative to other options. Expressed in a more general form, all
approaches – political, policy, quantitative, etc.
Such a degree of transparency is quite
– that make equity claims about the shared
demanding, and yet it is indispensable. Without
climate response, must be constructed and
it, the meaning of the consequent judgments
communicated in ways that allow their ethical
cannot be clear. Its goal is a situation in which
and moral presuppositions to be clearly
the logic of the ethical-political positions
identified and interrogated, so that is becomes
represented by specific benchmarks, as
easy to either agree with them or dismiss them.
opposed to other possible benchmarks, is
clearly visible, so that it too can be evaluated Importantly, this principle does not only apply
against the demands of the climate transition, to assessment efforts that seek to evaluate
which will be severe. parties’ mitigation contributions against
normatively-derived benchmarks, but also
As we mentioned above, unofficial stocktaking
extends to other thematic areas as well. Here,
exercises could advance the discourse on
it is important to recall our earlier cautioning
benchmarking by articulating principles for
against siloing thematic areas and failing to
normatively-based benchmark setting. Besides
take interactions between areas into proper
the importance of full transparency, it is
account. For example, an initiative that is
imaginable that such stocktaking undertakings
assessing mitigation contributions against
could also succeed in facilitating open and
equity benchmarks cannot be properly
productive discourses that result, in the right
scrutinized without information on the
context, in increased consensus with regards
assumptions about financial and other support
to the outer boundaries of a defensible range of
(to be provided or received) that are made by
views with regards to which normative
benchmarks can be considered to constitute
“equity.” For example, such a consensus could
include agreement that any “grandfathering-“
iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series 13Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
the initiative.13 Nor can it be assessed properly why they consider their contributions to be fair
unless the selected benchmarks also are (and ambitious) as tasked to do by the Lima
meaningful measures of both mitigation and COP decision (and reiterated in Paris and
support. Likewise, it is impossible to properly since). Winkler et al. found that virtually all
assess adaptation without transparency and parties failed against even low standards of
clarity about assumptions on the level of transparency and coherence in this regard,
mitigation, or support and climate finance though they also found that there was some
available for adaptation activities. convergence around a number of indicators
that parties used to speak to the question of
The role of the iGST and associated activities
fairness and ambition [11]. The Katowice
in modeling clarity and transparency in regard
decision on information to facilitate clarity,
to the ethical and moral underpinnings and
transparency and understanding of NDCs
technical, economic and political assumptions
(Annex I to decision 4/CMA.1) [12] also fails to
of equity-related information is also very
provide useful guidance to parties in this
important. While self-differentiation in
regard. Hence, unofficial, independent
countries' NDCs broadly reflects the subtle
stocktaking such as the iGST can help
differentiation in the PA towards developing
assemble relevant information, and provides a
countries and LDCs and SIDS in particular
reservoir of relevant data on which equity
when it comes to mitigation and adaptation
benchmarking exercises can draw, and can
responsibilities [10], it is clear from the first
serve the role of modeling the type of
round of NDC submissions that parties have
transparency, clarity and understanding that
not been very successful in clearly and
parties ought to apply to their NDCs.
transparently explaining the reasoning behind
+ Climate Finance and Support
The Katowice decision on the GST resolved the scope while also reiterating that article 14,
tension between interpretations of article 14 when talking about “means of implementation
that the finance-related topics of the GST and support” was indeed referring to climate
would mainly evolve around making financial finance, technology transfer and capacity
flows consistent with a low-emissions and building provided by developed country parties
climate-resilient development pathway14 on (and others who have voluntarily chosen to do
one hand and interpretations that sought to so) in the traditional understanding first
highlight “traditional” understanding of climate established in the UNFCCC itself (articles 4.3-
finance and broader support, e.g. in the sense 4.5)
of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the PA. The Katowice
It is self-evident that efforts to make financial
decision (decision 19/CMA.1, paragraph 6 (b))
flows consistent with low greenhouse gas
embraces both interpretations and thus clearly
emissions and climate-resilient development
brings finance flows consistency into the GST
13 For example, questions such as whether poorer 14 This interpretation holds that shifting financial flows
countries’ mitigation contributions are assessed under is a long-term goal of the PA (pursuant to article 2.1 (c))
the assumption that they will receive support to and since the mandate of the GST is to assess progress
implement them or not; or whether wealthier countries’ towards the long-term goals, the other relevant phrase of
contributions are only considered to consist of their article 14 – “considering … means of implementation and
domestic effort or if they must necessarily be assessed support” – should also be understood mainly in the
together with the mitigation that their support enables in context of article 2.1 (c) as opposed to, for example,
other countries, or whether contributions are thought to article 9 on climate finance or article 10 on technology
include international offsets, etc. transfer.
14 iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion SeriesEquity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
touch on a host of equity questions, both account the support provided by developed
between countries and within them, that arise countries and received by developing
when large-scale financial flows shift away countries, it is impossible to assess whether
from certain economic activities, regions, countries’ overall contributions to mitigation
countries, or socio-economic groups and are appropriately fair and ambitious.17 The
towards others. Nonetheless, the equity analogue applies to adaptation. This applies at
considerations of shifting financial flows will both the individual country level and in the
not be discussed here; we will instead focus on aggregate. Likewise, at both individual and
the “traditional” understanding of means of aggregate levels, any assessment that is based
implementation and support as climate on criteria that are focused on mitigation and
finance, capacity building and technology does not consider the support as part of a
transfer (collectively, in this report, “support”) country’s overall contribution would be utterly
provided by developed countries to developing incomplete. Incidentally, this also applies to
countries.15 This is purely for practical reasons globally aggregated assessments: if support is
since a proper treatment of the equity issues not taken into account, an assessment of the
relevant to shifting financial flows is a major global collective effort in, for example,
undertaking warranting a dedicated report and mitigation would risk missing important equity-
is beyond the scope of the present paper. It is related barriers and opportunities to higher
nonetheless our view that consistency of ambition.
financial flows is a centrally important issue
More bluntly, many equity-related
that should play a major role in the i/GST since
considerations regarding support come back
it is inconceivable to meet the Paris Agreement
to the central observation that “the money's in
goals as long as hundreds of billions or trillions
the wrong place. Even if countries are trying to
of dollars in investment are directed to new
do as much as they can, many simply can't do
fossil fuel infrastructure.16
enough without real support.” [13] This applies
Climate finance and support are in and of to both mitigation, because much of the
themselves central to equity and ambition. This current and future mitigation potential lies in
is one of the reasons we argued earlier against countries with smaller financial and
siloing of thematic areas: for example, with technological capacity to implement this
regards to mitigation, without taking into potential,18 as well as in adaptation, where the
15 While we acknowledge that article 9.2 of the PA also scale. This observation would be impossible without
encourages “other Parties” to provide support, we will taking the support provided into account.
nonetheless continue to use the phrase “developed 18 This observation also suggests that carbon markets
countries” to refer to the parties providing support, in the and cooperative approaches under Article 6 of the PA are
interest of simplicity and because existing financial potentially relevant to this issue. Article 6 and carbon
commitments like the $100bn goal explicitly refer to trading in general is subject to a whole host of other
developed countries. Likewise, we will use “support” to equity-related considerations, deserving their own
encompass all of climate finance, capacity building and dedicated paper and thus go beyond the scope of the
technology transfer. present publication. Judging from the CDM and voluntary
16 A dedicated paper on issues related to climate finance carbon market experiences, such equity-related issue
and financial flows is available in this discussion series, would include human-rights issues such as displacement
however, it treats equity considerations only in a cursory of traditional communities from land sought for
fashion [23]. mitigation projects (e.g. [24]), the biased distribution of
17 For example, if a developed country undertook a project activities across host countries, the low or absent
domestic emissions reduction of a certain scale and sustainable development benefit of projects, and the
supported additional reductions in other countries, say, at issuance of reduction credits not actually reflecting
a scale equivalent to their domestic efforts, the total emissions reductions, to name a few of the most
contribution to mitigation of that country would be larger pertinent issues. Additionally, where they act as
than that of a country that only undertook the domestic mechanisms for offsetting, carbon markets risks
action of the same scale, or even or a somewhat larger lowering overall ambition, while other potential functions
of Article 6 mechanisms, including as mechanisms for
iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion Series 15Equity in the Global Stocktake and Independent Global Stocktake — December 2019
largest adaptation need is not well matched Hence, two obvious equity considerations are
with the capacity to meet that need (similar related to equitable effort sharing of the
observations can be made about L&D and, provision of support on one hand (including the
depending on the case, RM). Hence, this central question which countries should share in this
observation, and its implications, deserves provision of support)21,22, and the adequacy of
some considered attention. this support on the other hand. Additionally, on
the receiving side, an additional question arises
Equity principles regarding the provision of
about whether support is fairly distributed
support are well established under the
among recipient countries, or even with
UNFCCC. Article 4.3 of the UNFCCC explicitly
regards to specific sub-groups within these
recognizes “the importance of appropriate
countries. In this context, recall the provisions
burden sharing among the developed country
of the PA and the UNFCCC that specifically
parties” with regards to the provision of climate
highlight, for example the circumstances and
finance [14], which is implicitly reaffirmed by
needs of parties “that are particularly
the PA through its recognition (in article 9.1) of
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate
the obligations with regards to finance of
change,” such as least developed countries and
developed countries under the Convention.
small island developing states, indicating that
The Convention, in article 4.3, establishes there ought to be recognition of specific
further important equity principles by explicitly circumstances in the context of the provision
recognizing “the need for adequacy and of support.
predictability in the flow of funds” and by
It is important to note, though, that these
explicitly setting the expectation that
questions cannot be treated in isolation. For
“adequacy” of funds would refer to the “agreed
example, if contributor countries were to
full incremental costs”19 of undertaking climate
perfectly fairly share (according to some
action. Further, article 4.3 of the Convention is
normative benchmark) the effort of providing a
clear that provision of climate finance by
certain amount of support, but if that amount
developed countries is a commitment20 (as
falls far below the level of support required by
opposed to a voluntary pledge).
developing countries for adequate levels of
climate action, equity concerns about the
provision of support would remain. Specifically,
results-based climate finance, could overcome this UNFCCC and the PA (i.e. developed countries), can fairly
potential limitation. be expected to contribute to climate finance and at what
19 In the determination of the “incremental costs,” for level. For one possible way of answering this question via
example for mitigation, it would be appropriate to take a a dynamic (i.e. responsive to countries’ changing
realistic approximation of any co-benefits of the activities circumstances over time) effort-sharing regime,
into account. As such, it is plausible that in some cases, specifically, our Climate Equity Reference framework, see
the incremental costs may be zero or negative. See below [25], which analyses which countries could be considered
for a more detailed discussion of this matter. support providers or recipients, respectively, based on a
number of different methodological assumptions (e.g.
20 Article 4 is titled “commitments” and article 4.3 with regards to baselines) and specific ethical-normative
specifically uses the “shall” verb to convey legal positions.
bindingness of the provision of climate finance
commitment. 22 Note that the availability of forward-looking
information on provision and mobilization of finance is
21 Importantly, the Paris Agreement introduces the very limited. Specifically, developed countries have long
notion that it is not just developed countries that are resisted including such information in their NDCs and
obliged to provide financial resources, but that “other elsewhere. The biennial reports of the Standing
parties” are also, on a voluntary basis, encouraged to do Committee on Finance include some forward-looking
so (Article 9.2 Paris Agreement). While expressed in the information but there is nonetheless a major data issue.
text of the PA as a fairly weak expectation (“encourage” For a more thorough discussion of these limitations, see
and “voluntarily”), from an equity perspective this also the dedicated finance paper in this discussion paper
provision importantly raises the question which countries, series [23].
in addition to those already obliged to do so by the
16 iGST – Designing a Robust Stocktake Discussion SeriesYou can also read
