CB BureauGovernments should affirm the goal of a new legally binding
climate change agreement, but focus for now on incremental steps that can
deliver stronger action, resources and transparency even in the absence of
binding commitments, says a new report by the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change released December 7 at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún,
Mexico.
The report, The
Evolution of Multilateral Regimes: Implications
for Climate Change, examines why and how most international regimes evolve
gradually, rather than through dramatic step-changes.It outlines evolutionary pathways within and
outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that can promote
stronger near-term action while building a sturdier foundation for a future
binding agreement.
‘The big-bang approach is not working and it’s time for a
more pragmatic paradigm. We need to accept that many major economies aren’t
ready for binding commitments and won’t be for some time.An evolutionary approach lets us move forward
now with concrete steps that strengthen the global effort and make a binding
agreement more likely down the road,’ said Eileen Claussen, president of the
Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
The report examines well-established regimes such as the
World Trade Organization, the Montreal Protocol, the European Convention on
Human Rights, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
to identify patterns and dimensions of regime evolution.It traces the evolution of the climate regime
to date, and outlines several lines along which it may evolve in the
future.
Within the UNFCCC, an evolutionary path would prioritize
institutional development that would help set the stage for a later legal
agreement, the report argues.Key
incremental steps include a stronger support system for mitigation and
adaptation in developing countries, and a more fully elaborated system for
measuring, reporting, and verifying countries’ actions. Advancing these
elements could greatly strengthen the UNFCCC’s role as an international forum
for action, as opposed to negotiation.
Complementing evolution within the UNFCCC, the report
outlines how the broader climate regime may also develop through forums such as
the Montreal Protocol, International Maritime Organization, and International
Civil Aviation Organization. By helping to diversify the portfolio of
international climate change efforts, non-UNFCCC actions would help to reduce
the risk of policy failure.
The report is authored by Daniel Bodansky, professor at
Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, and Elliot
Diringer, the Pew Center’s vice president for international strategies.
The full report is available at www.pewclimate.org/publications/report/evolution-multilateral-regimes-implications-climate-change.