Governance: global agreements, mitigation and adaptation strategies, case studies

Governance: Global Agreements, Mitigation & Adaptation (AO1‑AO3)

Learning objective

Explain how international, national and local governance structures address climate‑change impacts, evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation measures, and use case‑study evidence to assess trade‑offs, equity and sustainability.

1. Climate‑change impacts – scale and change over time (AO1 & AO2)

Why scale matters: impacts are examined at global, regional and local levels; the magnitude and relevance differ with each scale.

• Physical impacts
  • Global: average temperature rise ≈ 1.2 °C since pre‑industrial (IPCC 2023); sea‑level rise ~ 3.4 mm yr⁻¹.
  • Regional: Mediterranean heat‑waves, Sahel droughts, Bay of Bengal cyclones.
  • Local: Maldives – projected 0.8 m sea‑level rise by 2100; Alpine glacier retreat affecting water supply.
• Socio‑economic impacts
  • Global: $300 bn annual cost of climate‑related disasters (UNDRR 2022).
  • Regional: $45 bn loss of agricultural productivity in South Asia (2020‑2025).
  • Local: 25 million climate‑migrants projected by 2050; low‑income nations suffer > 80 % of loss while contributing < 15 % of emissions.
• Health impacts
  • Global trend: heat‑related mortality rising by ~ 2 % yr⁻¹; projected 250 000 extra deaths per year by 2030.
  • Regional: malaria moving into highland East Africa.
  • Local: increased food‑insecurity‑related malnutrition in the Sahel.

Temporal change: Over the past 50 years, extreme‑temperature events have doubled, global mean sea level has risen ~ 20 cm, and the frequency of Category 4–5 cyclones in the Indian Ocean has increased by ~ 30 %.

2. Governance framework – three inter‑linked levels (AO1)

1. International level – treaties, UN bodies and global finance mechanisms.
2. National & sub‑national level – NDCs, NAPs, regional climate laws.
3. Implementation & non‑governmental level – city programmes, private‑sector pledges, NGOs.

3. International agreements – evolution of the system (AO1)

Suggested visual aid: a simple timeline graphic (1992 UNFCCC → 1997 Kyoto → 2015 Paris → 2021 Glasgow) to help students see cause‑and‑effect and system development.

4. National & sub‑national policy platforms (AO2)

• Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – each country’s pledge under Paris.
• National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) – integrate climate risk into development budgeting.
• Regional bodies – EU Climate Law, African Union Climate‑Resilient Investment Programme.

Illustrative case – India’s 2022 NDC

• Target: reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 45 % by 2030 (vs. 2005).
• Renewables: reach 450 GW of renewable electricity capacity by 2030 (≈ 50 % of total generation).
• Adaptation: allocate $2.5 bn to climate‑resilient agriculture and water‑resource management.
• Link to system: NDC translates the Paris “global goal” into national policy, feeds data into the UNFCCC reporting system, and informs state‑level climate action plans.

5. Implementation & non‑governmental action (AO2)

• City networks – C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group: 97 megacities commit to carbon‑neutrality by 2050; examples include London’s Ultra‑Low Emission Zone and Mexico City’s electric‑bus fleet.
• Corporate pledges – Microsoft’s carbon‑negative pledge: by 2030 the company will remove more CO₂ than it emits, funded through a $1 bn Climate Innovation Fund.
• NGO programmes – Climate‑Action Network (CAN) supports community‑based adaptation in the Philippines and Kenya.

6. Loss & damage & climate justice (AO3)

The UNFCCC now recognises “loss & damage” – irreversible impacts that cannot be avoided or fully adapted to.

• Financial mechanisms – proposed GCF “Loss & Damage Fund” (2023) to finance post‑disaster reconstruction.
• Equity principle – “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR‑RC).
• Legal & ethical debate – calls for liability and compensation (climate reparations).

Case example – Philippines loss‑and‑damage claim (COP27)

• The Philippines submitted a formal claim for $2 bn in loss & damage covering Typhoon Rai (2021) and associated flood impacts.
• Demonstrates the shift from adaptation finance to direct compensation for irreversible loss, a key discussion point for AO3 evaluation.

7. Mitigation strategies (AO2)

1. Energy transition
   • Renewables: 29 % of global electricity (IEA 2023); target 45 % by 2030.
   • Coal phase‑out: EU <5 % electricity from coal by 2030; China to peak coal use before 2030.
   • Energy‑efficiency: 10 % improvement in building efficiency could cut CO₂ by 0.8 Gt yr⁻¹.
2. Carbon pricing
   • EU ETS cap 2.2 Gt CO₂e (2020) – reduced by 2.2 % yr⁻¹.
   • Carbon taxes: Sweden $130 t⁻¹CO₂ (2022); Canada $65 t⁻¹CO₂ (federal).
3. Land‑use management
   • REDD+: 12 GtCO₂e avoided deforestation reported by 2022.
   • Afforestation: EU “Forests for Europe” – 3 million ha extra forest by 2030.
   • Sustainable agriculture: precision farming can cut N₂O emissions up to 30 %.
4. Technology innovation
   • CCUS capacity 45 MtCO₂ yr⁻¹ (2023); target 250 MtCO₂ yr⁻¹ by 2030.
   • Green hydrogen: EU aims for 30 Mt yr⁻¹ by 2030.

Comparison of mitigation options (cost per tonne CO₂e, co‑benefits, feasibility)

8. Adaptation strategies (AO2)

1. Infrastructure resilience
   • Netherlands: 30 % of new housing built > 3 m above NAP (National Adaptation Plan).
   • Vietnam: $1.2 bn for mangrove restoration & seawalls (2020‑2025).
2. Ecosystem‑based adaptation (EbA)
   • Bangladesh mangrove buffers reduce storm‑surge damage by up to 70 %.
   • Swiss alpine meadow restoration improves water retention, lowers landslide risk.
3. Policy & institutional measures
   • India’s early‑warning system (IMD) – cyclone mortality down 60 % since 2010.
   • New Zealand Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act – restricts development on high‑risk floodplains.
4. Financial mechanisms
   • Green Climate Fund – $10.3 bn approved for adaptation (2022‑2025).
   • Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) – rapid payouts after hurricanes.

9. Evaluation checklist (AO3)

When assessing any mitigation or adaptation response, consider the following criteria.

10. Case‑study evaluations using the checklist

10.1. European Union – Integrated mitigation & adaptation

Mitigation – EU ETS & European Green Deal

• Cost‑effectiveness: €80 t⁻¹CO₂ (2023) – higher than many national taxes, driving low‑cost cuts.
• Scalability: Mandatory for power & heavy industry across 27 Member States.
• Equity: “Just Transition Mechanism” (€17.5 bn) supports coal‑dependent regions.
• Co‑benefits: ≈ 400 000 premature deaths avoided per year from improved air quality.
• Feasibility: Strong EU institutions; some Member‑State resistance to higher carbon prices.
• Sustainability: 55 % emission reduction vs. 1990 target for 2030; net‑zero by 2050.

Adaptation – Baltic Sea coastal protection

• Cost‑effectiveness: €1.2 bn for 20 km of flood‑defence protects ~ 1 million people.
• Equity: Prioritises low‑lying, economically vulnerable coastal towns.
• Co‑benefits: Restored wetlands boost tourism and biodiversity.

10.2. Bangladesh – Community‑based adaptation

• Cost‑effectiveness: $0.30 person⁻¹ yr⁻¹ for cyclone shelters – among the cheapest DRR measures.
• Scalability: Cyclone Preparedness Programme (CPP) now in 64 % of coastal districts.
• Equity: Gender‑sensitive shelter design (separate spaces, child‑care).
• Co‑benefits: Mangrove restoration improves fish stocks and livelihoods.
• Feasibility: Strong NGO networks; limited national financing.
• Sustainability: Climate‑resilient rice varieties maintain yields under salinity stress.

10.3. Kenya – REDD+ & sustainable land management

• Cost‑effectiveness: $5 t⁻¹CO₂e avoided (World Bank 2022) – competitive with carbon markets.
• Scalability: Pilot expanded to 3 million ha (2024).
• Equity: Direct payments to local communities; women receive 30 % of PES income.
• Co‑benefits: Better water regulation for downstream agriculture, biodiversity gains.
• Feasibility: Requires robust MRV and clear land‑tenure.
• Sustainability: Linked to carbon‑credit sales – vulnerable to market price volatility.

11. Quantitative insight – carbon‑budget reduction rate

The remaining carbon budget for a 66 % chance of staying below 1.5 °C is ≈ 2.5 × 10¹² t CO₂ from 2020 onward. Assuming a linear decline:

\( r = \frac{\ln(C_{0}/C_{t})}{t} \)

where C₀ = 2020 emissions (≈ 36 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹) and Cₜ = target emissions after t years. For a 50‑year pathway (t = 50, Cₜ ≈ 5 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹), the required average annual reduction rate is ≈ 5.5 % yr⁻¹ – far above the current global trend of ~ 1 % yr⁻¹.

12. Summary

• Governance links global agreements (UNFCCC, Kyoto, Paris, Glasgow) to national policies (NDCs, NAPs) and local actions (city plans, corporate pledges).
• Mitigation (energy transition, carbon pricing, land‑use, technology) and adaptation (infrastructure, EbA, policy, finance) are complementary pillars.
• Loss & damage and climate‑justice considerations embed equity and responsibility in the response.
• Using the AO3 checklist reveals strengths and weaknesses of each strategy and case study.
• Quantitative targets, such as the required carbon‑budget reduction rate, highlight the urgency for accelerated, well‑governed action.