Deliberative democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy 

 

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law.

While deliberative democracy is generally seen as some form of an amalgam of representative democracy and direct democracy, the actual relationship is usually open to dispute. Some practitioners and theorists use the term to encompass representative bodies whose members authentically and practically deliberate on legislation without unequal distributions of power, while others use the term exclusively to refer to decision-making directly by lay citizens, as in direct democracy.

The term "deliberative democracy" was originally coined by Joseph M. Bessette in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.

Overview

Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups. If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule.

The roots of deliberative democracy can be traced back to Aristotle and his notion of politics; however, the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area.

Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative democracies and direct democracies. In elitist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to elite societal decision-making bodies, such as legislatures and courts; in populist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are empowered to make decisions. One purpose of populist deliberative democracy can be to use deliberation among a group of lay citizens to distill a more authentic public opinion about societal issues but not directly create binding law; devices such as the deliberative opinion poll have been designed to achieve this goal. Another purpose of populist deliberative democracy can be to serve as a form of direct democracy, where deliberation among a group of lay citizens forms a "public will" and directly creates binding law. If political decisions are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called elite deliberation. According to Fishkin, this process attempts to indirectly filter the mass public opinion because representatives are better equipped with the knowledge of the common good than ordinary citizens.

Characteristics

Fishkin's model of deliberation

James Fishkin, who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy for over 15 years in various countries, describes five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:

• Information: The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue
• Substantive balance: The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives
• Diversity: The extent to which the major position in the public are represented by participants in the discussion
• Conscientiousness: The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments
• Equal consideration: The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them

In Fishkin's definition of deliberative democracy, lay citizens must participate in the decision-making process, thus making it a subtype of direct democracy.

James Fishkin and Robert Luskin suggest that deliberative discussion should be:

1. Informed (and thus informative). Arguments should be supported by appropriate and reasonably accurate factual claims.
2. Balanced. Arguments should be met by contrary arguments.
3. Conscientious. The participants should be willing to talk and listen, with civility and respect.
4. Substantive. Arguments should be considered sincerely on their merits, not on how they are made or by who is making them.
5. Comprehensive. All points of view held by significant portions of the population should receive attention.

Cohen's outline

Joshua Cohen, a student of John Rawls, outlined conditions that he thinks constitute the root principles of the theory of deliberative democracy, in the article "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" in the 1989 book The Good Polity. He outlines five main features of deliberative democracy, which include:

1. An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
2. The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
3. A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
4. The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
5. Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.

This can be construed as the idea that in the legislative process, we "owe" one another reasons for our proposals.

Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation":

1. It is free in two ways:
   1. The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
   2. The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
2. Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
3. Participants are equal in two ways:
   1. Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
   2. Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
4. Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

In Democracy and Liberty, an essay published in 1998, Cohen reiterated many of these points, also emphasizing the concept of "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all.

Gutmann and Thompson's model

Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future".

They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:

1. Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
2. Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
3. Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
4. Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.

Strengths and weaknesses

A claimed strength of deliberative democratic models is that they are more easily able to incorporate scientific opinion and base policy on outputs of ongoing research, because:

• Time is given for all participants to understand and discuss the science
• Scientific peer review, adversarial presentation of competing arguments, refereed journals, even betting markets, are also deliberative processes.
• The technology used to record dissent and document opinions opposed to the majority is also useful to notarize bets, predictions and claims.

According to proponents such as James Fearon, another strength of deliberative democratic models is that they tend, more than any other model, to generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant facts. The more these conditions are fulfilled, the greater the likelihood that the decisions reached are morally correct. Deliberative democracy takes on the role of an "epistemic democracy" in this way, as it thus has an epistemic value: it allows participants to deduce what is morally correct. This view has been prominently held by Carlos Nino.

Studies by James Fishkin and others have found that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy. Deliberative democracy produces less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds. Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. Former diplomat Carne Ross writes that in 2011 that the debates arising from deliberative democracy are also much more civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall meetings or in internet forums. For Ross, the key reason for this is that in deliberative democracy citizens are empowered by knowledge that their debates will have a measurable impact on society.

Efforts to promote public participation have been widely critiqued. There is particular concern regarding the potential capture of the public into the sphere of influence of governance stakeholders, leaving communities frustrated by public participation initiatives, marginalized and ignored.

A claimed failure of most theories of deliberative democracy is that they do not address the problems of voting. James Fishkin's 1991 work, "Democracy and Deliberation", introduced a way to apply the theory of deliberative democracy to real-world decision making, by way of what he calls the deliberative opinion poll. In the deliberative opinion poll, a statistically representative sample of the nation or a community is gathered to discuss an issue in conditions that further deliberation. The group is then polled, and the results of the poll and the actual deliberation can be used both as a recommending force and in certain circumstances, to replace a vote. Dozens of deliberative opinion polls have been conducted across the United States since his book was published.

The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has criticized deliberative democracy on four grounds: (i) the rules for deliberation that deliberative theorists affirm interfere with, rather than facilitate, good practical reasoning; (ii) deliberative democracy is ideologically biased in favor of liberalism as well as republican over parliamentary democratic systems; (iii) deliberative democrats assert a too-sharp division between just and rational deliberation on the one hand and self-interested and coercive bargaining or negotiation on the other; and (iv) deliberative democrats encourage an adversarial relationship between state and society, one that undermines solidarity between citizens.

A criticism of deliberation is that potentially it allows those most skilled in rhetoric to sway the decision in their favour. This criticism has been made since deliberative democracy first arose in Ancient Athens.

History

Consensus-based decision making similar to deliberative democracy is characteristic of the hunter gather band societies thought to predominate in pre-historical times. As some of these societies became more complex with developments like division of labour, community-based decision making was displaced by various forms of authoritarian rule. The first example of democracy arose in Greece as Athenian democracy during the sixth century BC. Athenian democracy was both deliberative and largely direct: some decisions were made by representatives but most were made by ″the people″ directly. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322BC. When democracy was revived as a political system about 2000 years later, decisions were made by representatives rather than directly by the people. In a sense, this revived version was deliberative from its beginnings; for example, in 1774 Edmund Burke made a famous speech where he called Great Britain's parliament a deliberative assembly. Similarly, the Founding Fathers of the United States considered deliberation an essential part of the government they created in the late 18th century.

The deliberative element of democracy was not widely studied by academics until the late 20th century. Although some of the seminal work was done in the 1970s and 80s, it was only in 1990 that deliberative democracy began to attract substantial attention from political scientists. According to Professor John Dryzek, early work on Deliberative Democracy was part of efforts to develop a theory of Democratic legitimacy. Theorists such as Carne Ross advocate deliberative democracy as a complete alternative to representative democracy. The more common view, held by contributors such as James Fishkin, is that direct deliberative democracy can be complementary to traditional representative democracy. Since 1994, hundreds of implementations of direct deliberative democracy have taken place throughout the world. For example, lay citizens have used deliberative democracy to determine local budget allocations in various cities and to undertake major public projects, such as the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Association with political movements

Call for the establishment of deliberative democracy on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

 

Deliberative democracy recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen participating, those affected or victimized by the process being undertaken, and the group-entity that organizes the decision. Thus it usually involves an extensive outreach effort to include marginalized, isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and to extensively document dissent, grounds for dissent, and future predictions of consequences of actions. It focuses as much on the process as the results. In this form it is a complete theory of civics. 

On the other hand, many practitioners of deliberative democracy attempt to be as neutral and open-ended as possible, inviting (or even randomly selecting) people who represent a wide range of views and providing them with balanced materials to guide their discussions. Examples include National Issues Forums, Choices for the 21st Century, study circles, deliberative opinion polls, the Citizens' Initiative Review, and the 21st-century town meetings convened by AmericaSpeaks, among others. In these cases, deliberative democracy is not connected to left-wing politics but is intended to create a conversation among people of different philosophies and beliefs.

In Canada, there have been two prominent applications of deliberative democratic models. In 2004, the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform convened a policy jury to consider alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral systems. In 2007, the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform convened to consider alternative electoral systems in that province. Similarly, three of Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) have referred their budget priorities to a policy jury for advice and refinement.

The Green Party of the United States refers to its particular proposals for grassroots democracy and electoral reform by this name. Although not always the case, participation in deliberation has often been found to shift participants opinions in favour of Green positions, and can even cause a favourable change of voting intention. For example, with Europolis 2009, at the time one of the largest deliberative assemblies ever held, which set out to assess the public's view on a wide range of issues and included representatives from all 27 EU member nations, the share of citizens intending to vote for the Greens increased from 8% to 18%.

Academic contributors

According to Professor Stephen Tierney, perhaps the earliest notable example of academic interest in the deliberative aspects of democracy occurred in John Rawls 1971 work A Theory of Justice.

Joseph M. Bessette coined the term "deliberative democracy" in his 1980 work "Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government", and went on to elaborate and defend the notion in "The Mild Voice of Reason" (1994). Others contributing to the notion of deliberative democracy include Carlos Nino, Jon Elster, Roberto Gargarella, John Gastil, Jürgen Habermas, David Held, Joshua Cohen, John Rawls, Amy Gutmann, Noëlle McAfee, John Dryzek, Rense Bos, James S. Fishkin, Jane Mansbridge, Jose Luis Marti, Dennis Thompson, Benny Hjern, Hal Koch, Seyla Benhabib, Ethan Leib, Charles Sabel, Jeffrey K. Tulis, David Estlund, Mariah Zeisberg, Jeffrey L. McNairn, Iris Marion Young and Robert B. Talisse.

Although political theorists took the lead in the study of deliberative democracy, political scientists have in recent years begun to investigate its processes. One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized.

Global Climate Observing System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Observing_System 

 

Global Climate Observing System

Abbreviation	GCOS
Formation	1992
Type	INGO
Region served	Worldwide
Official language	English
Parent organization	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Website	GCOS Official website

The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) was established in 1992 as an outcome of the Second World Climate Conference, to ensure that the observations and information needed to address climate-related issues are obtained and made available to all potential users. The GCOS is co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In order to assess and monitor the adequacy of in-situ observation networks as well as satellite-based observing systems, GCOS regularly reports on the adequacy of the current climate observing system to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and thereby identifies the needs of the current climate observing system.

GCOS is a system that comprises the climate-relevant components of many contributing observing systems and networks. Its mission is to help ensure that these contributing systems, taken as a whole, provide the comprehensive information on the global climate system that is required by users, including individuals, national and international organizations, institutions and agencies. The programme promotes the sustained provision and availability of reliable physical, chemical and biological observations and data records for the total climate system - across the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial domains, including the hydrological cycle, the carbon cycle and the cryosphere.

Structure

The primary observing systems contributing to the GCOS are the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS), the Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW), and the World Hydrological Cycle Observing System (WHYCOS), and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission-led Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). A number of other domain-based and cross-domain research and operational observing systems also provide important contributions and encompass both in-situ and satellite observations. GCOS is both supported by and supports the international scientific and technical community, and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) co-sponsors the expert panels set up by GCOS for the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial domains. The composite observing system designated by GCOS serves as the climate-observation component of the broader Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), and at the same time a number of specific observing-system initiatives of GEOSS contribute to the GCOS.

Essential Climate Variables (ECVs)

GCOS has identified 50 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) considered to be feasible for global climate observation and to have a high impact on the requirements of the UNFCCC and other stakeholders. There is a strong need for sustained observation of these ECVs, as the observations are needed for the generation and updating of global climate products and derived information. GCOS and its partners are developing ways of improving the generation and supply of data products relating to the ECVs.

Expert Panels

Three expert panels have been established by the GCOS Steering Committee to define the observations needed in each of the main global domains - Atmosphere, oceans, and land - to prepare specific programme elements and to make recommendations for implementation. GCOS is both supported by and supports the international scientific community, and therefore the three expert panels are co-sponsored by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The Atmospheric, Ocean, and Terrestrial Observation Panel for Climate gather scientific and technical experts in the respective areas to generate inputs from these fields to the climate observing community. Those expert panels report to the GCOS Steering Committee, and have been established to define the observations needed in each of the main global domains to prepare scientific programme-elements and to make recommendations for implementation.

Atmospheric Observation Panel for Climate (AOPC)

AOPC was established in recognition of the need for specific scientific and technical input concerning atmospheric observations for climate. Its aim is to ensure the quality, long-term homogeneity and continuity of data needed. AOPC supports and is supported by the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS).

Key activities of AOPC are: 

- Assessing the current state of the atmospheric component of the global observing system for climate and identify its gaps and adequacies;

- Securing the implementation of designated GCOS Networks and promote the establishment and enhancement of new and current systems to provide long-term and consistent data and information for Essential Climate Variables, such as earth radiation budget, surface radiation, greenhouse gases, water vapour, clouds and aerosols;

- Liaising with relevant research, operational and end-user bodies in order to determine and maintain the requirements for data to monitor, understand and predict the dynamical, physical and chemical state of the atmosphere and its interface on seasonal and multi-decadal time scales, on both global and regional levels;

- Promoting the transfer and accessibility to the user community, as well as the rehabilitation of historical observational and proxy climate data sets.

Ocean Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC)

OOPC, co-sponsored by GOOS, as well as GCOS and WCRP, is a scientific and technical advisory group charged with making recommendations for a sustained global ocean observing system for climate in support of the goals of its sponsors. This includes recommendations for phased implementation. The Panel also aids in the development of strategies for evaluation and evolution of the system and of its recommendations, and supports global ocean observing activities by interested parties through liaison and advocacy for the agreed observing plans.

OOPC recognizes the need for sustainable ocean observations, and the increased need to connect to societal issues in the coastal zone. OOPC's role has evolved to oversee the ocean component of the GCOS, and the physical variables for GOOS, while defining long-term observing requirements for climate research of WCRP.

Key activities of OOPC are:

- Providing advice on scientific and technical requirements to the Joint WMO-IOC Technical Commission on Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), which is responsible for the coordination and implementation of platform-based observing system components;

- Coordinate ocean observing networks that contribute to ocean ECVs by encouraging GOOS Regional Alliances (GRAs) and national commitments to global observing networks, and promoting common best practices and observing standards;

- Reviewing and prioritizing requirements for sustained ocean observations of the physical Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs), and ocean ECVs, to engage the broad stakeholder community, to assess the readiness of observing technologies and adequacy of present global key variable observations, and to provide a source of technical advice on the development of national coastal and ocean observing requirements and observing system implementation plans.

Terrestrial Observation Panel for Climate (TOPC)

TOPC was set up to develop a balanced and integrated system of-in situ and satellite observations of the terrestrial ecosystem. The Panel focuses on the identification of terrestrial observation requirements, assisting the establishment of observing networks for climate, providing guidance on observation standards and norms, facilitating access to climate data and information and its assimilation, and promoting climate studies and assessments.

Key activities of TOPC are:

- Identification of measurable terrestrial (biosphere, cryosphere, and hydrosphere) properties and key variables (ECVs) that control the physical, biological and chemical processes affecting climate, and are indicators of climate change; 

- Coordination of activities with other global observing system panels and task groups to ensure the consistency of requirements with the overall programmes;

- Assessing and monitoring the adequacy of terrestrial observing networks such as the Global Terrestrial Networks (GTNs), and promoting their integration and development to measure and exchange climate data and information;

- Identification of gaps in present observing systems and designs to ensure long-term monitoring of terrestrial ECVs.

Networks

One of the first tasks of the GCOS programme was to define a subset of the World Weather Watch (WWW) stations appropriate for basic climate monitoring. The subset of roughly 1000 baseline surface stations became the GCOS Surface Network (GSN), while a subset of 150 upper air stations was designated as the GCOS Upper-Air Network (GUAN). These were built on existing WMO classifications and became the initial baseline components of the atmospheric networks. Considerations for selection of GSN included spatial distribution, length and quality of record, long-term commitment, and degree of urbanization. Similar considerations were used for GUAN. Designation of these networks benefited both the GCOS and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS). For NMHSs, designation of a station as part of the global climate network helped sustain support for these sites with long-term records. The networks provided the foundation for the Regional Basic Climatological Network, which provides far greater spatial detail on the variability of climate.

Recognizing that a balance has to be struck between standards and completeness of ground-based measurement, the GCOS programme recognized a hierarchy of observational networks and systems, comprising comprehensive, baseline and reference networks based on assumptions of spatial sampling needs.

An example of a particularly successful step forward in implementing a global observing system for climate is the initiation of a reference network for upper-air observations - the GCOS Reference Upper-Air Network (GRUAN). The network is the prototype of a hybrid observing system, combining operational upper-air measurement sites with research sites and providing high-quality reference data for atmospheric profiles. GRUAN sites are undertaking high-quality atmospheric profile measurements that will help understand trends in upper-air ECVs, assist in investigating processes in the upper-troposphere and lower stratosphere, and provide data for calibrating satellite measurements and validating independent climate analyses and models. At GRUAN sites, the principles of quality, traceability and complete error characterization have been heeded, for at least part of the observing programme. The network is planned to grow over its initial size of 15 stations in coming years; introducing climate quality standards to a larger number of sites.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change 

 

UNFCCC

Type	Multilateral environmental agreement
Context	Environmentalism
Drafted	9 May 1992
Signed	4–14 June 1992 20 June 1992 – 19 June 1993
Location	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil New York, United States
Effective	21 March 1994
Condition	Ratification by 50 states
Signatories	165
Parties	197
Depositary	Secretary-General of the United Nations
Languages	Arabic Chinese English French Russian Spanish
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Wikisource

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. It then entered into force on 21 March 1994, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified it. The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The framework sets non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the framework outlines how specific international treaties (called "protocols" or "Agreements") may be negotiated to specify further action towards the objective of the UNFCCC.

Initially, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) produced the text of the Framework Convention during its meeting in New York from 30 April to 9 May 1992. The UNFCCC was adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature on 4 June 1992. The UNFCCC has 197 parties as of December 2015. The convention enjoys broad legitimacy, largely due to its nearly universal membership.

The parties to the convention have met annually from 1995 in Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was concluded and established legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the period 2008–2012. The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference produced an agreement stating that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level. The Protocol was amended in 2012 to encompass the period 2013–2020 in the Doha Amendment, which as of December 2015 had not entered into force. In 2015 the Paris Agreement was adopted, governing emission reductions from 2020 on through commitments of countries in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), with a view of lowering the target to 1.5 °C. The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.

One of the first tasks set by the UNFCCC was for signatory nations to establish national greenhouse gas inventories of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals, which were used to create the 1990 benchmark levels for accession of Annex I countries to the Kyoto Protocol and for the commitment of those countries to GHG reductions. Updated inventories must be submitted annually by Annex I countries.

"UNFCCC" is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus Carstanjen, and the UN Campus (known as Langer Eugen) in Bonn, Germany. From 2010 to 2016 the head of the secretariat was Christiana Figueres. In July 2016, Patricia Espinosa succeeded Figueres. The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.

Treaty

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was opened for signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro (known by its popular title, the Earth Summit). On 12 June 1992, 154 nations signed the UNFCCC, which upon ratification committed signatories' governments to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases with the goal of "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate system". This commitment would require substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (see the later section, "Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations") 

Article 3(1) of the Convention states that Parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities", and that developed country Parties should "take the lead" in addressing climate change. Under Article 4, all Parties make general commitments to address climate change through, for example, climate change mitigation and adapting to the eventual impacts of climate change. Article 4(7) states:^[9]

The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.

The Framework Convention specifies the aim of Annex I Parties stabilizing their greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases not regulated under the Montreal Protocol) at 1990 levels, by the year 2000.

Kyoto Protocol

Main article: Kyoto Protocol

After the signing of the UNFCCC treaty, Parties to the UNFCCC have met at conferences ("Conferences of the Parties" – COPs) to discuss how to achieve the treaty's aims. At the 1st Conference of the Parties (COP-1), Parties decided that the aim of Annex I Parties stabilizing their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 was "not adequate", and further discussions at later conferences led to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol sets emissions targets for developed countries which are binding under international law.

The Kyoto Protocol has had two commitment periods, the first of which lasted from 2008–2012. The second one runs from 2013-2020 and is based on the Doha Amendment to the Protocol, which has not entered into force. 

The US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while Canada denounced it in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by all the other Annex I Parties.

All Annex I Parties, excluding the US, have participated in the 1st Kyoto commitment period. 37 Annex I countries and the EU have agreed to second-round Kyoto targets. These countries are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States.

All countries that remained parties to the Kyoto Protocol are in full compliance with their first commitment period targets.

Paris Agreement

In 2011, parties adopted the "Durban Platform for Enhanced Action". As part of the Durban Platform, parties have agreed to "develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties". At Durban and Doha, parties noted "with grave concern" that current efforts to hold global warming to below 2 or 1.5 °C relative to the pre-industrial level appear inadequate.

In 2015, all (then) 196 parties to the convention came together for the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris 30 November - 12 December and adopted by consensus the Paris Agreement, aimed at limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, and pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions

At the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties in Warsaw in 2013, the UNFCCC created a mechanism for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to be submitted in the run up to the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties in Paris (COP21) in 2015. Countries were given freedom and flexibility to ensure these climate change mitigation and adaptation plans were nationally appropriate; this flexibility, especially regarding the types of actions to be undertook, allowed for developing countries to tailor their plans to their specific adaptation and mitigation needs, as well as towards other needs. 

A "family photo" organized by Greenpeace, at the entrance to the United Nations, with a banner reading "We Will Move Ahead"

 

In the aftermath of COP21, these INDCs became Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) when a country ratified the Paris Agreement, unless a new NDC was submitted to the UNFCCC at the same time. The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP22) in Marrakesh focused on these Nationally Determined Contributions and their implementation, after the Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.

The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) created a guide for NDC implementation, for the use of decision makers in Less Developed Countries. In this guide, CDKN identified a series of common challenges countries face in NDC implementation, including how to:

• build awareness of the need for, and benefits of, action among stakeholders, including key government ministries
• mainstream and integrate climate change into national planning and development processes
• strengthen the links between subnational and national government plans on climate change
• build capacity to analyse, develop and implement climate policy
• establish a mandate for coordinating actions around NDCs and driving their implementation
• address resource constraints for developing and implementing climate change policy.

Other decisions

In addition to the Kyoto Protocol (and its amendment) and the Paris Agreement, parties to the Convention have agreed to further commitments during UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties. These include the Bali Action Plan (2007), the Copenhagen Accord (2009), the Cancún agreements (2010), and the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (2012).

Bali Action Plan

As part of the Bali Action Plan, adopted in 2007, all developed country Parties have agreed to "quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances." Developing country Parties agreed to "[nationally] appropriate mitigation actions [NAMAs] context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner." 42 developed countries have submitted mitigation targets to the UNFCCC secretariat, as have 57 developing countries and the African Group (a group of countries within the UN).

Copenhagen Accord and Cancún agreements

As part of the 2009 Copenhagen negotiations, a number of countries produced the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord states that global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F). This may be strengthened in 2015 with a target to limit warming to below 1.5 °C. The Accord does not specify what the baseline is for these temperature targets (e.g., relative to pre-industrial or 1990 temperatures). According to the UNFCCC, these targets are relative to pre-industrial temperatures.

114 countries agreed to the Accord. The UNFCCC secretariat notes that "Some Parties ... stated in their communications to the secretariat specific understandings on the nature of the Accord and related matters, based on which they have agreed to [the Accord]." The Accord was not formally adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Instead, the COP "took note of the Copenhagen Accord."

As part of the Accord, 17 developed country Parties and the EU-27 have submitted mitigation targets, as have 45 developing country Parties. Some developing country Parties have noted the need for international support in their plans.

As part of the Cancún agreements, developed and developing countries have submitted mitigation plans to the UNFCCC. These plans are compiled with those made as part of the Bali Action Plan.

Developing countries

At Berlin, Cancún, and Durban, the development needs of developing country parties were reiterated. For example, the Durban Platform reaffirms that:

[...] social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties, and that a low-emission development strategy is central to sustainable development, and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.

Interpreting article 2

The ultimate objective of the Framework Convention is to "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-caused] interference with the climate system". As is stated in the article 2 of the Convention, this "should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner".

• 

  Climate change mitigation scenarios: projected global greenhouse gas emissions, years 2000 to 2100
  
• 

  Climate change mitigation scenarios: projected changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, years 2000 to 2100
  
• 

  Climate change mitigation scenarios: projected global mean temperature, years 2000 to 2100
  

To stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations, global anthropogenic GHG emissions would need to peak then decline. Lower stabilization levels would require emissions to peak and decline earlier compared to higher stabilization levels. The graph above shows projected changes in annual global GHG emissions (measured in CO₂-equivalents) for various stabilization scenarios. The other two graphs show the associated changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations (in CO₂-equivalents) and global mean temperature for these scenarios. Lower stabilization levels are associated with lower magnitudes of global warming compared to higher stabilization levels.

Projected global warming in 2100 for a range of emission scenarios

There is uncertainty over how GHG concentrations and global temperatures will change in response to anthropogenic emissions (see climate change feedback and climate sensitivity). The graph opposite shows global temperature changes in the year 2100 for a range of emission scenarios, including uncertainty estimates.

Dangerous anthropogenic interference

There are a range of views over what level of climate change is dangerous. Scientific analysis can provide information on the risks of climate change, but deciding which risks are dangerous requires value judgements.

The global warming that has already occurred poses a risk to some human and natural systems (e.g., coral reefs). Higher magnitudes of global warming will generally increase the risk of negative impacts. According to Field et al. (2014), climate change risks are "considerable" with 1 to 2 °C of global warming, relative to pre-industrial levels. 4 °C warming would lead to significantly increased risks, with potential impacts including widespread loss of biodiversity and reduced global and regional food security.

Climate change policies may lead to costs that are relevant to the article 2. For example, more stringent policies to control GHG emissions may reduce the risk of more severe climate change, but may also be more expensive to implement.

Projections

There is considerable uncertainty over future changes in anthropogenic GHG emissions, atmospheric GHG concentrations, and associated climate change. Without mitigation policies, increased energy demand and extensive use of fossil fuels could lead to global warming (in 2100) of 3.7 to 4.8 °C relative to pre-industrial levels (2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).

To have a likely chance of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 2 °C, GHG concentrations would need to be limited to around 450 ppm CO₂-eq. The current trajectory of global emissions does not appear to be consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C.

Precautionary principle

In decision making, the precautionary principle is considered when possibly dangerous, irreversible, or catastrophic events are identified, but scientific evaluation of the potential damage is not sufficiently certain (Toth et al., 2001, pp. 655–656). The precautionary principle implies an emphasis on the need to prevent such adverse effects.

Uncertainty is associated with each link of the causal chain of climate change. For example, future GHG emissions are uncertain, as are climate change damages. However, following the precautionary principle, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, and this is acknowledged in Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC (Toth et al., 2001, p. 656).

Parties

Parties to the UNFCCC

  Annex I and II parties

  Annex I parties

  Non-annex parties

  Observer states

As of 2015, the UNFCCC has 197 parties including all United Nations member states, United Nations General Assembly observer State of Palestine, UN non-member states Niue and the Cook Islands and the supranational union European Union. The Holy See is not a member state, but is an observer.

Classification of Parties and their commitments

Parties to the UNFCCC are classified as:

• Annex I: There are 43 Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex I of the Convention, including the European Union. These Parties are classified as industrialized (developed) countries and "economies in transition" (EITs). The 14 EITs are the former centrally-planned (Soviet) economies of Russia and Eastern Europe.
• Annex II: Of the Parties listed in Annex I of the Convention, 24 are also listed in Annex II of the Convention, including the European Union. These Parties are made up of members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Annex II Parties are required to provide financial and technical support to the EITs and developing countries to assist them in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (climate change mitigation) and manage the impacts of climate change (climate change adaptation).
• Annex B: Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol are Annex I Parties with first- or second-round Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets. The first-round targets apply over the years 2008–2012. As part of the 2012 Doha climate change talks, an amendment to Annex B was agreed upon containing with a list of Annex I Parties who have second-round Kyoto targets, which apply from 2013–2020. The amendments have not entered into force.
• Least-developed countries (LDCs): 47 Parties are LDCs, and are given special status under the treaty in view of their limited capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change.
• Non-Annex I: Parties to the UNFCCC not listed in Annex I of the Convention are mostly low-income developing countries. Developing countries may volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

List of parties

Annex I countries

There are 43 Annex I Parties including the European Union. These countries are classified as industrialized countries and economies in transition. Of these, 24 are Annex II Parties, including the European Union, and 14 are Economies in Transition.

Parties: Annexes, EU, OECD, EITs.

Conferences of the Parties

The United Nations Climate Change Conference are yearly conferences held in the framework of the UNFCCC. They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC Parties (Conferences of the Parties) (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. From 2005 the Conferences have also served as the Meetings of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). Also parties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers. The first conference (COP1) was held in 1995 in Berlin. The 3rd conference (COP3) was held in Kyoto and resulted in the Kyoto protocol, which was amended during the 2012 Doha Conference (COP18, CMP 8). The COP21 (CMP11) conference was held in Paris and resulted in adoption of the Paris Agreement. Negotiations for the Paris Agreement took place during COP22 in Marrakech, Morocco. The twenty-third COP ("COP23") was led by Fiji and took place in Bonn, Germany. COP24 was held in Katowice, Poland.

Subsidiary bodies

A subsidiary body is a committee that assists the Conference of the Parties. Subsidiary bodies include:

• Permanents:
  • The Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) is established by Article 9 of the Convention to provide the Conference of the Parties and, as appropriate, its other subsidiary bodies with timely information and advice on scientific and technological matters relating to the Convention. It serves as a link between information and assessments provided by expert sources (such as the IPCC) and the COP, which focuses on setting policy.
  • The Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI) is established by Article 10 of the Convention to assist the Conference of the Parties in the assessment and review of the effective implementation of the Convention. It makes recommendations on policy and implementation issues to the COP and, if requested, to other bodies.
• Temporary:
  • Ad hoc Group on Article 13 (AG13), active from 1995 to 1998;
  • Ad hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM), active from 1995 to 1997;
  • Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), established in 2005 by the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to consider further commitments of industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol for the period beyond 2012; it concluded its work in 2012 when the CMP adopted the Doha Amendment;
  • Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), established in Bali in 2007 to conduct negotiations on a strengthened international deal on climate change;
  • Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), established at COP 17 in Durban in 2011 "to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties." The ADP concluded its work in Paris on 5 December 2015.

Secretariat

Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, UN Campus, Bonn, seat of the secretariat

 

artwork: outdoor thermometer, symbolizing measurement of global temperature

The work under the UNFCCC is facilitated by a secretariat in Bonn, Germany. The secretariat is established under Article 8 of the Convention. It is headed by the Executive Secretary. The current Executive Secretary, Patricia Espinosa, was appointed on 18 May 2016 by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and took office on 18 July 2016. She succeeded Christiana Figueres who held the office since 2010. Former Executive Secretaries have been Yvo de Boer (2006-2010), Joke Waller-Hunter (2002-2005) and Michael Zammit Cutajar (1995-2002).

Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE)

Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) is a term adopted by the UNFCCC in 2015 to have a better name for this topic than "Article 6". It refers to Article 6 of the Convention's original text (1992), focusing on six priority areas: education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation on these issues. The implementation of all six areas has been identified as the pivotal factor for everyone to understand and participate in solving the complex challenges presented by climate change. ACE calls on governments to develop and implement educational and public awareness programmes, train scientific, technical and managerial personnel, foster access to information, and promote public participation in addressing climate change and its effects. It also urges countries to cooperate in this process, by exchanging good practices and lessons learned, and strengthening national institutions. This wide scope of activities is guided by specific objectives that, together, are seen as crucial for effectively implementing climate adaptation and mitigation actions, and for achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC.

Available information about the commitments

In 2014, The UN with Peru and France created the Global Climate Action Portal NAZCA for writing and checking all the climate commitments

Commentaries and analysis

Criticisms of the UNFCCC process

The overall umbrella and processes of the UNFCCC and the adopted Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by some as not having achieved their stated goals of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide (the primary culprit blamed for rising global temperatures of the 21st century). At a speech given at his alma mater, Todd Stern — the US Climate Change envoy — has expressed the challenges with the UNFCCC process as follows: "Climate change is not a conventional environmental issue ... It implicates virtually every aspect of a state's economy, so it makes countries nervous about growth and development. This is an economic issue every bit as it is an environmental one." He went on to explain that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a multilateral body concerned with climate change and can be an inefficient system for enacting international policy. Because the framework system includes over 190 countries and because negotiations are governed by consensus, small groups of countries can often block progress.

The failure to achieve meaningful progress and reach effective CO2-reducing policy treaties among the parties over the past eighteen years has driven some countries like the United States to hold back from ratifying the UNFCCC's most important agreement — the Kyoto Protocol — in large part because the treaty did not cover developing countries which now include the largest CO2 emitters. However, this failed to take into account both the historical responsibility for climate change since industrialisation, which is a contentious issue in the talks, and also responsibility for emissions from consumption and importation of goods. It has also led Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 out of a wish not to make its citizens pay penalties that would result in wealth transfers out of Canada. Both the US and Canada are looking at internal Voluntary Emissions Reduction schemes to curb carbon dioxide emissions outside the Kyoto Protocol.

The perceived lack of progress has also led some countries to seek and focus on alternative high-value activities like the creation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants which seeks to regulate short-lived pollutants such as methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which together are believed to account for up to 1/3 of current global warming but whose regulation is not as fraught with wide economic impacts and opposition.

In 2010, Japan stated that it will not sign up to a second Kyoto term, because it would impose restrictions on it not faced by its main economic competitors, China, India and Indonesia. A similar indication was given by the Prime Minister of New Zealand in November 2012. At the 2012 conference, last-minute objections at the conference by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were ignored by the governing officials, and they have indicated that they will likely withdraw or not ratify the treaty. These defections place additional pressures on the UNFCCC process that is seen by some as cumbersome and expensive: in the UK alone, the climate change department has taken over 3,000 flights in two years at a cost of over £1,300,000 (British pounds sterling).

Before the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, National Geographic Magazine added to the criticism, writing: "Since 1992, when the world's nations agreed at Rio de Janeiro to avoid 'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,' they've met 20 times without moving the needle on carbon emissions. In that interval we've added almost as much carbon to the atmosphere as we did in the previous century."

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is the setting of a policy target based on some frame of reference. An example of benchmarking is the UNFCCC's original target of Annex I Parties limiting their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Goldemberg et al. (1996) commented on the economic implications of this target. Although the target applies equally to all Annex I Parties, the economic costs of meeting the target would likely vary between Parties. For example, countries with initially high levels of energy efficiency might find it more costly to meet the target than countries with lower levels of energy efficiency. From this perspective, the UNFCCC target could be viewed as inequitable, i.e., unfair.

Benchmarking has also been discussed in relation to the first-round emissions targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol.

International trade

Academics and environmentalists criticise the article 3(5) of the convention, which states that any climate measures that would restrict international trade should be avoided.