4 Cf. Dooley, Kate (2016): What does the Paris climate agreement mean for the rights of forests and forest populations? Brussels: FERN (www.fern.org/node/6009). At the 2014 Cop meeting in Lima, where THE CBDR-RC was also highly contested, the parties pledged to conclude an ambitious agreement in Paris, which reflects the cbdR-RC principle, given the diversity of national situations. It was the “landing zone” that was breached under the CBDR principle as a result of the joint emissions declaration between China and the United States, which therefore found its way into the Paris Agreement. To ensure effective and safe participation, a comprehensive agreement on climate change must be considered fair by the countries concerned. The Paris Agreement has moved closer to differentiating countries` responsibilities in the fight against climate change by removing the rigid distinction between developed and developing countries, by providing for “subtle differentiation” of certain subgroups of countries (e.B LDCs) on substantive issues (e.g. B climate change financing) and/or for specific procedures (for example. B calendars and reports). In this article, we analyze whether countries of self-differentiation are compatible with the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement in formulating their own climate plans or national contributions (NDC).
We find that there is a consistency for mitigation and adaptation, but not for support (climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building). Given that NPNs are the main instrument for achieving the long-term objectives of the Paris Agreement, this inconsistency needs to be addressed so that the next final stages are more ambitious. Our equity uses historical liability data from 1850 and 1950 and capacity parameters that are not below a development threshold of $7,500 per person per year to exclude the incomes of the poor from the calculation of national capacity. Our “capital margin” does not contain a 1990 benchmark. The large amount of historical emissions that have benefited many countries during decades of unrestricted CO2 development cannot be ignored, both morally and legally. Nevertheless, we made comparisons with a 1990 benchmark to show that our main results also apply to such a benchmark. Rajamani L (2015) Negotiating the 2015 climate agreement: questions of legal form and nature. Research paper 28.
Mitigation Action Plans – Scenarios, Cape Town, South Africa, p. 26 This highly contested achievement comes at a price when an agreement was reached behind closed doors in the final hours prior to the publication of the draft agreement, namely the article 51 clause of the COP decision that the parties agree “that Article 8 of the agreement does not imply or involve or compensate” CBDR was not the first difference in treatment between countries in international agreements. There were other protocols, agreements that incorporated the principle of differentiated treatment. But another perspective is that COP21 is just the beginning, and the agreement is a multilateral agreement to promote individual and collective action to deal with the climate catastrophe. A real failure would have been a failure of the Paris negotiations, on the model of Copenhagen, or an outcome that would favour developed countries only with the redesign of the agreement. At the Earth Summit, states recognized differences in economic development between developed and developing countries.