Search

Assessing finance needs for a transition to a low greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-resilient development – including building the necessary adaptive and mitigative capacity to do so – differs fundamentally from the much more restricted process of calculating the finance associated with discrete project-based mitigation or adaptation activities, which are associated with marginal shifts, not transformation. A needs-based approach to finance requires an understanding of not only the specific actions and their finance implications, but also of the appropriate institutions, instruments and mechanisms by which delivery and use of finance could be effectively carried out. As a starting point, an understanding of the required finance consistent with the 1.5°C mitigation pathway, and the associated costs for achieving resilience at that temperature goal, would not only be crucial for the GST but also for the ongoing discussion on setting a new quantified collective goal.

A needs-based approach is rooted in the recognition that adequate climate action hascontext-specific requirements and that identifying and addressing these is necessary to enable implementation efforts towards diverse climate goals. In this approach a need is anything that is concretely required to enable adequate and timely climate action in ways that align with commitments towards achieving universal access to sustainable development, which is itself necessary to building the required adaptive and mitigative capacity. Needs may include finance but finance is a means and not an end in itself. Many other needs – including institution building, political mobilization and capacity building – are also required to actually enable climate action on the ground and will be dependenton the specific requirements experienced in each locale. A needs-based approach is appropriate for guiding loss and damage in the Global Stocktake and beyond because it prioritizes the protection of those vulnerable to climatechange and recognizes the specific contextual factors facing particular people, communities, and Parties. This approach focuses attention on the concrete requirements for action adequate for meeting the objectives of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement and addressing the very real implications of already existing and mounting loss and damage from climate change. A needs-based approach is also inherently sensitive to uneven access to sustainable development, as what is required to address climate change and reduce poverty will vary.

Following the Bonn intersessional meetings in June 2022, the Joint Contact Group for the Global Stocktake (GST) invited Parties and non-Party stakeholders to hold GST related eventsto generate additional inputs for the technical dialogue progress focused specifically onhow the goals of the Paris Agreement could be achieved. As a direct result of this generalinvitation the iGST Equity Working Group hosted a workshop themed “Enabling a Needs-Based and Equitable Climate Regime -Inputs into the GST” on October 19-20, 2022. The workshop was attended by about 40 negotiators; representatives of civilsociety, academia, and think-tanks; and other leading experts involved in the GSTprocess. This negotiator brief was drafted by the coordinators of the Equity Working Groupof the iGST. It emerged from this workshop and outlines the core elements of how a needs-based assessment could be used to guide the GST and support efforts towards theachievement of the core objectives of the Convention and the Paris Agreement. All participants were invited to contribute. While this is not necessarily a consensus document, no objections were raised to the key messages.

The fair shares idea is no longer novel. But as the crisis deepens, its profile is changing. Humanity is facing a civilizational emergency – a “polycrisis” with both climate and injustice at its core – and we need big ideas that can help guide us out of it. This briefing is focused on one such idea: fair shares. Its purpose is to contribute to CAN discussion and strategizing, with the immediate goal of supporting analysis of and campaigns for equitable national mitigation contributions, including – very explicitly – greatly increased international mitigation finance. To this end, as one concrete manifestation of the fair shares idea, we also briefly discuss the ethical principles that underlie the Climate Equity Reference Framework, and its nuts and bolts, and how CAN member groups and nodes around the world have applied it in their work. The fair shares idea, of course, has implications beyond mitigation, and in this report, we do discuss other climate equity challenges. But, importantly, these other challenges – which include adaptation and loss & damage – resist the kind of straightforward quantitative analysis appropriate to mitigation, for they involve even more complex and sprawling national and international efforts. At any rate, the equity challenge has great relevance in virtually all dimensions of our global climate response, which also means that it cannot be set aside while we concentrate on “implementation.” This is the case for the simple reason that – despite all the benefits and promises of the climate transition – any adequately rapid global decarbonization process, if not carefully managed, could be extremely disruptive and in many cases painful. A rapid global climate transition can, in principle, be achieved – we have (all) the money and (most of) the technology we need – but it’s hard to see how this will be possible if it is not done fairly. In other words, if we intend to succeed, then not only benefits and promises but also unavoidable pain and disruption must be shared amongst the people of this world in a way that is widely accepted as being fair enough. We can not follow, yet again, the all too often repeated pattern in which most of the benefits are captured by those who are already wealthy and powerful, while most of the pain and suffering is born by those already marginalized and oppressed. This report is a bit long. It has to be, because while the fair shares idea is familiar in a vague way, crucial aspects of the global climate justice challenge are often misunderstood. Thus, this summary will begin by spotlighting a few of the key arguments this report will develop, before going on to very briefly summarize its chapters and lay out a few key recommendations.

Ce rapport publié par le Réseau Action Climat France vise à évaluer la juste part de la France dans la réponse mondiale à l'enjeu des changements climatiques, en commençant par la reconnaître que l'équité est un principe important - nécessaire - pour répondre aux changements climatiques. Le rapport se concentre sur l'atténuation, bien qu'une approche équitable à l'adaptation, les pertes et dommages, la transition juste et ainsi de suite soient tout aussi importants. Le rapport utilise un cadre de référence flexible et transparent pour un partage équitable de l'effort qui est tiré directement des principes clés de la Convention cadre des Nations Unies pour les changements climatiques (CCNUCC). L'analyse est effectuée en utilisant laClimate Equity Reference Calculator, un outil et une base de données en ligne qui permet aux utilisateurs de sélectionner des réglages spécifiques liés à l'équité en ce qui concerne la responsabilité, la capacité et d'autres paramètres clés, et d'ensuite utiliser des indicateurs quantitatifs simples et standard pour calculer les parts justes nationales de l'effort mondial d'atténuation qui en découlent. L'analyse est basée sur un spectre de sélection d'intrants alternatives informées par des considérations éthiques et empiriques qui sont discutées en plus de détails dans le rapport. Cette approche permet au rapport de contraster l’objectif d'atténuation de la France avec sa juste part, et d'articuler ce que la France devrait faire en plus de ses engagements existants pour être alignée avec ses obligations morales. Ce document est une traduction de:Christian Holz, Tom Athanasiou, andSivan Kartha(2022)France's Climate Fair Share. In Climate Equity Reference Project Working Paper Series WP007. Zenodo. [doi:10.5281/zenodo.2595502]

This report provides evidence that the building of 1500MW of new coal power generating capacity– as specified in the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity update (IPR 2019) – is inconsistentwith South Africa’s efforts to undertake its fair share of the global mitigation required to adhere tothe Paris Agreement temperature goal. We draw on results obtained from the Climate Equity Reference Framework, a fair share analysisframework supported by a wide range of civil society groups, including several in South Africa. This framework presents an ethically coherent method by which one can dynamically calculatenational fair shares for all countries, whatever their development status. It defines a country’s fairshare of the global effort in proportion to its share of global capacity for addressing the problem andhistoric responsibility for causing it. These are the two foundational ethical principles of the RioDeclaration and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This analysis concludes that while South Africa has a strong claim to international financial,technological, and institutional support to undertake mitigation, it is also obliged to invest thenecessary policy attention and material resources in reducing domestic emissions such that theyfall below the 274 – 376 MtCO2eq range in 2030. In contrast, as shown in accompanying analysis (Merven et al, 2021), forcing 1500 MW of new coal capacity into an otherwise least-cost power sector future raises emissions to 455 MtCO2eq in2030, which is 103 to 180 MtCO2eq above the emission range implied by South Africa’s fair share ofa global 1.5°C mitigation trajectory and 78 to 144 MtCO2eq above its fair share of a 1.8°C globaltrajectory. Thus, this report concludes that forcing in 1500 MW of new coal runs counter to effortsto achieve South Africa’s fair share, introducing unnecessary emissions and raising energy costs.

The Paris Agreement establishes the Global Stocktake as a central component of its ambition raising mechanism and stipulates that the Global Stocktake is to be undertaken "in the light of equity." This paper discusses several of the many aspects of equity that are relevant to either the official Global Stocktake, or to any of the unofficial stocktaking initiatives that are expected to be carried out to complement or inform the official Global Stocktake. The latter includes the Independent Global Stocktake, an emerging such initiative, to which the current paper is a contribution. In this paper, we discuss specifically 1) the scope of the equity challenge in stocktaking activities, 2) transparency and standards of equity information and benchmarks, 3) climate finance, including means of implementation and support, 4) intranational equity, and 5) procedural equity.

The Climate Equity Reference Project (CERP) framework allocates responsibility for greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation based on individual responsibility for historical emissions and capacity to act. The Climate Equity Reference Calculator (CERc) is a web-based tool for exploring how specic quan- titative expressions of the CERP framework aect allocations. This paper documents the calculations that the calculator implements.

This report appliesa generalized and transparent equity reference framework to quantitatively examine the problem of national fair shares in a global effort to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis in this report starts from a recognition that equity an equitable international agreement is necessary if we are to preserve a stable climate system. This is because equity is the key to cooperation, and cooperation is indispensable in solving any commons problem. The authors use the Climate Equity Reference Calculator, which they developed, to determine whatcould be considered a country’s “fair share” of the global mitigation effort, using flexibly defined national “responsibility and capacity indicators”. The framework is explicitly designed to reflect the core equity principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It can be applied using a range of possible assumptions, and whatever values are chosen, they are applied to all countries, in a dynamic fashion that reflects the changing global economy. The report presents results for 12 representative countries and a selected set of illustrative “cases.” Each case begins with the selection of a reference mitigation pathway; this choice corresponds to a certain level of ambition and level of risk of exceeding 2°C. The mitigation pathway also implies an annual global mitigation effort, which drives society to diverge rapidly from business-as-usual emissions growth. Each country’s share of global responsibility and capacity determines its fair share of the global mitigation effort. In all of this, this report aims to provide input to the review of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) that are now being tabled under the UNFCCC. It derives a defensible range for each country’s fair share of a given global climate effort. This provides a way to assess a given country’s position relative to the requirements of equity and science – that is, whether that country is a leader or a laggard.