Permanent URL to this publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-52819
All major climate policy agreements - the UN Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and recently the Cancun Agreements- have stated that climate finance for developing countries will be ”new and additional”. However, the term “new and additional” has never been properly defined.
Agreeing a system to measure a baseline from which “new and additional” funding will be calculated will be central to building trust and realising any post-Kyoto agreement. We explore eight different options for a baseline, and assess each according to several criteria: novelty to existing pledges, additionality to development assistance, environmental effectiveness, distributional consequences, and institutional and political feasibility. Only two baseline options do well on these criteria and are therefore viable: "new sources only" and "above pre-defined business as usual level of development assistance".
|Item Type:||Journal Article, refereed, original work|
|Communities & Collections:||06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Political Science|
|DDC:||320 Political science|
|Uncontrolled Keywords:||climate finance, Copenhagen Accord, Development assistance, Additionality, UNFCCC|
|Deposited On:||08 Dec 2011 08:26|
|Last Modified:||06 Dec 2013 07:05|
|Publisher:||Earthscan, Taylor & Francis|
|Citations:||Web of Science®. Times Cited: 4|
Scopus®. Citation Count: 5
Users (please log in): suggest update or correction for this item
Repository Staff Only: item control page