A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement
In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have star...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics law and economics, 2017-10, Vol.17 (5), p.623-638 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 638 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 623 |
container_title | International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Pistorius, Till Reinecke, Sabine Carrapatoso, Astrid |
description | In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have started an informal dialogue and discuss how to merge the fragmented accounting rules for mitigation relevant land use activities, in particular those concerning forest-sector emissions. Stressing that ‘history matters’, we use a historical institutionalist perspective to assess the institutional pathways of the different accounting rules for developed and developing countries, their mutual relationship, and in how far they are supportive or counterproductive for this endeavour. Our empirical analysis shows that Parties tend to use any modification phase in the negotiation process to water down already achieved agreements, and that negotiating modalities after targets have been agreed is not conducive either. In the efforts of specifying the Paris agreement, merging existing rules into a common accounting framework is likely to further compromise the exisiting weak rules and modalities, and potentially what negotiators consider as ‘environmental integrity’. With this, a formal negotiation of common rules for the accounting of the land use sector may yield an outcome below what has been achieved since the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement started in 2005. We conclude that politically acceptable approaches for the land use sector that also contribute to the overall objective of raising ambition should avoid reopening already agreed decisions on rules and modalities. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1938049886</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1938049886</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-f1a896441064ee64048d44d383f56109962b5a3339cbc1fe182cdf2510a93c003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKxDAUhoMoOF4ewF3ApURPLk2T5TAXFQqCOOuQSdPaodOOSUfx7U2pCzeucgjf_3POh9ANhXsKkD9ECrkSBKgkmnMgcIJmNMs5oVnGT8dZ5kTnUpyjixh3kECmYIbMHL83cehD42yLmy4OzXAcmr6zbfrGn43_wn2H9z7UTVfjYlNsFmtsuxK_rpbLu5TAFh_6OBAGDLBrm70dPLZ18H7vu-EKnVW2jf76971Em_XqbfFEipfH58W8II7pHEhFrdJSCApSeC8FCFUKUXLFq0xS0FqybWY559ptHa08VcyVFcsoWM0dAL9Et1PvIfQfRx8Hs-uPIV0RDdVcgdBKyUTRiXKhjzH4yhxCWjh8Gwpm9GgmjybpMaNHMzazKRMT29U-_Gn-N_QDtVRyiQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1938049886</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>SpringerLink_现刊</source><source>EBSCO_Political Science Complete</source><creator>Pistorius, Till ; Reinecke, Sabine ; Carrapatoso, Astrid</creator><creatorcontrib>Pistorius, Till ; Reinecke, Sabine ; Carrapatoso, Astrid</creatorcontrib><description>In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have started an informal dialogue and discuss how to merge the fragmented accounting rules for mitigation relevant land use activities, in particular those concerning forest-sector emissions. Stressing that ‘history matters’, we use a historical institutionalist perspective to assess the institutional pathways of the different accounting rules for developed and developing countries, their mutual relationship, and in how far they are supportive or counterproductive for this endeavour. Our empirical analysis shows that Parties tend to use any modification phase in the negotiation process to water down already achieved agreements, and that negotiating modalities after targets have been agreed is not conducive either. In the efforts of specifying the Paris agreement, merging existing rules into a common accounting framework is likely to further compromise the exisiting weak rules and modalities, and potentially what negotiators consider as ‘environmental integrity’. With this, a formal negotiation of common rules for the accounting of the land use sector may yield an outcome below what has been achieved since the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement started in 2005. We conclude that politically acceptable approaches for the land use sector that also contribute to the overall objective of raising ambition should avoid reopening already agreed decisions on rules and modalities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1567-9764</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1553</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Accounting ; Agreements ; Climate ; Developing countries ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Empirical analysis ; Environment ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice ; Environmental Management ; Global climate ; Institutionalization ; Land use ; LDCs ; Nature Conservation ; Negotiation ; Negotiations ; Original Paper ; Paris Agreement ; Policy making ; Political Science</subject><ispartof>International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics, 2017-10, Vol.17 (5), p.623-638</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</rights><rights>International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-f1a896441064ee64048d44d383f56109962b5a3339cbc1fe182cdf2510a93c003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-f1a896441064ee64048d44d383f56109962b5a3339cbc1fe182cdf2510a93c003</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12845,27866,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pistorius, Till</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reinecke, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrapatoso, Astrid</creatorcontrib><title>A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement</title><title>International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics</title><addtitle>Int Environ Agreements</addtitle><description>In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have started an informal dialogue and discuss how to merge the fragmented accounting rules for mitigation relevant land use activities, in particular those concerning forest-sector emissions. Stressing that ‘history matters’, we use a historical institutionalist perspective to assess the institutional pathways of the different accounting rules for developed and developing countries, their mutual relationship, and in how far they are supportive or counterproductive for this endeavour. Our empirical analysis shows that Parties tend to use any modification phase in the negotiation process to water down already achieved agreements, and that negotiating modalities after targets have been agreed is not conducive either. In the efforts of specifying the Paris agreement, merging existing rules into a common accounting framework is likely to further compromise the exisiting weak rules and modalities, and potentially what negotiators consider as ‘environmental integrity’. With this, a formal negotiation of common rules for the accounting of the land use sector may yield an outcome below what has been achieved since the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement started in 2005. We conclude that politically acceptable approaches for the land use sector that also contribute to the overall objective of raising ambition should avoid reopening already agreed decisions on rules and modalities.</description><subject>Accounting</subject><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Developing countries</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Global climate</subject><subject>Institutionalization</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Nature Conservation</subject><subject>Negotiation</subject><subject>Negotiations</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Paris Agreement</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Political Science</subject><issn>1567-9764</issn><issn>1573-1553</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKxDAUhoMoOF4ewF3ApURPLk2T5TAXFQqCOOuQSdPaodOOSUfx7U2pCzeucgjf_3POh9ANhXsKkD9ECrkSBKgkmnMgcIJmNMs5oVnGT8dZ5kTnUpyjixh3kECmYIbMHL83cehD42yLmy4OzXAcmr6zbfrGn43_wn2H9z7UTVfjYlNsFmtsuxK_rpbLu5TAFh_6OBAGDLBrm70dPLZ18H7vu-EKnVW2jf76971Em_XqbfFEipfH58W8II7pHEhFrdJSCApSeC8FCFUKUXLFq0xS0FqybWY559ptHa08VcyVFcsoWM0dAL9Et1PvIfQfRx8Hs-uPIV0RDdVcgdBKyUTRiXKhjzH4yhxCWjh8Gwpm9GgmjybpMaNHMzazKRMT29U-_Gn-N_QDtVRyiQ</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Pistorius, Till</creator><creator>Reinecke, Sabine</creator><creator>Carrapatoso, Astrid</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement</title><author>Pistorius, Till ; Reinecke, Sabine ; Carrapatoso, Astrid</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-f1a896441064ee64048d44d383f56109962b5a3339cbc1fe182cdf2510a93c003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accounting</topic><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Developing countries</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Global climate</topic><topic>Institutionalization</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Nature Conservation</topic><topic>Negotiation</topic><topic>Negotiations</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Paris Agreement</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pistorius, Till</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reinecke, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrapatoso, Astrid</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Political Science Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pistorius, Till</au><au>Reinecke, Sabine</au><au>Carrapatoso, Astrid</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement</atitle><jtitle>International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics</jtitle><stitle>Int Environ Agreements</stitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>623</spage><epage>638</epage><pages>623-638</pages><issn>1567-9764</issn><eissn>1573-1553</eissn><abstract>In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have started an informal dialogue and discuss how to merge the fragmented accounting rules for mitigation relevant land use activities, in particular those concerning forest-sector emissions. Stressing that ‘history matters’, we use a historical institutionalist perspective to assess the institutional pathways of the different accounting rules for developed and developing countries, their mutual relationship, and in how far they are supportive or counterproductive for this endeavour. Our empirical analysis shows that Parties tend to use any modification phase in the negotiation process to water down already achieved agreements, and that negotiating modalities after targets have been agreed is not conducive either. In the efforts of specifying the Paris agreement, merging existing rules into a common accounting framework is likely to further compromise the exisiting weak rules and modalities, and potentially what negotiators consider as ‘environmental integrity’. With this, a formal negotiation of common rules for the accounting of the land use sector may yield an outcome below what has been achieved since the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement started in 2005. We conclude that politically acceptable approaches for the land use sector that also contribute to the overall objective of raising ambition should avoid reopening already agreed decisions on rules and modalities.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1567-9764 |
ispartof | International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics, 2017-10, Vol.17 (5), p.623-638 |
issn | 1567-9764 1573-1553 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1938049886 |
source | PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Business Source Complete; SpringerLink_现刊; EBSCO_Political Science Complete |
subjects | Accounting Agreements Climate Developing countries Earth and Environmental Science Empirical analysis Environment Environmental Economics Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice Environmental Management Global climate Institutionalization Land use LDCs Nature Conservation Negotiation Negotiations Original Paper Paris Agreement Policy making Political Science |
title | A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T10%3A39%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20historical%20institutionalist%20view%20on%20merging%20LULUCF%20and%20REDD+%20in%20a%20post-2020%20climate%20agreement&rft.jtitle=International%20environmental%20agreements%20:%20politics,%20law%20and%20economics&rft.au=Pistorius,%20Till&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=623&rft.epage=638&rft.pages=623-638&rft.issn=1567-9764&rft.eissn=1573-1553&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10784-016-9330-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1938049886%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1938049886&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |