Developing Country Parties Research Articles

Nationally determined contributions to the 2015 Paris Agreement goals: transparency in communications from developing country Parties

ABSTRACT The goals of the Paris Agreement (PA) on collectively managing climate change can only be reached if all parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commit to actions supporting their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Developing-economy nations play a crucial role in reaching the PA targets, particularly in the Agriculture, Forest, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) sector. However, developing country Parties also face several constraints in tracking and communicating progress towards their climate policy targets and implementation of their NDCs. The operationalization of Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) and Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) under the PA will bring stricter reporting timeframes and advanced transparency for all parties. With these requirements rapidly coming into force, addressing reporting gaps is now a pressing priority. The present study analyzes the NDCs, and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) submitted by developing country Parties under the UNFCCC. In an illustrative exercise, our in-depth analysis concentrates on reporting on the AFOLU sector and identifies issues impeding a comprehensive and comparable Global Stock Take (GST): (i) issues of consistency in reporting timeframes (ii) issues in transparency of reporting on mitigation sectors and on relevant progress indicators (iii) incomparability of methodological approaches proposed and used, and (iv) the implications of limited national capacity for transparent reporting. The UNFCCC and developed country Parties now have the opportunity of providing specialized support for developing country Parties. This could include tailored guidance to address gaps in both greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions accounting, and reporting challenges, to ensure consistent, comprehensive, and transparent reporting to reinforce capacities moving forward following the next GST.

Deficiencies of the Nationally Determined Contributions: Risk of Exacerbating Climate Change

This paper examines the effectiveness of NDCs in the Paris Agreement for alleviating climate change and inequality. Incorporating evidence from reviews and journals, this study argues that NDCs effectively solve part of the pre-existing inequality, yet the deficiencies of this mechanism have to be improved to achieve the maximization of its function. More specifically, by evaluating the changes brought by NDCs including independent emission reduction, the improved role of developed country parties, and the re-positioned role of developing country parties, the innovations of NDCs mechanism to successfully solve the pre-existing problems in the Kyoto Protocol are clearly recognized and demonstrated. Yet by analyzing the existing deficiencies of NDCs including weak legal binding causing overall low ambition, potential vicious cycle formed, insufficient compliance motivation, and the problem of free riders causing the tragedy of Race to the Bottom, NDCs are shown to be insufficient to effectively address climate change and respond to inequality. Finally, it is worth considering strengthening the participation of non-state actors and enhancing the link between climate change and trade as possible methods to improve the deficiencies of NDCs, and other possible ways of improvement are put forward.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Efficiency of Mitigation Obligation

The ‘Paris Climate Treaty’ is the first MEA (Multilateral Environmental Agreement) which imposes mitigation obligations not only on developed countries but also on developing country Parties. The Agreement actually extended the mitigation obligations enshrined under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. It has created a universal binding obligation to take domestic actions to achieve the target of reducing emissions of GHG set out by the domestic (“bottom-up”) process. PA has recognized the best available science to carry on mitigation actions. It requires the Parties to undertake a continuous planning process to mitigate climate change impacts set out in NDC every five years. This Agreement requires a more ambitious NDC containing progression of mitigation commitment from the previous NDC. Though a ‘mandatory enforcement mechanism’ or ‘penalty for non-compliance with mitigation obligations is absent in the Agreement, the mandatory procedural obligation makes us optimistic that the target will be achieved. The information relating to mitigation actions is subject to technical expert review. For assessing the overall and collective progress towards achieving the PA’s long-term mitigation goals, the Agreement requires a “global stocktake” in 2023 and after that time in every five years. There is a “transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive” expert-based measure to facilitate compliance with provisions containing mitigation obligations. Many Parties are committed to shifting to renewable energy and imposing a carbon tax in their NDCs to achieve their desired mitigation pledges. Many countries have started to invest in cheaper zero-carbon goods and services. When such cheaper zero-carbon goods and services capture the market, then the mitigation target will be fulfilled easily. PA is a universal consensual document. Though it is confronted with many challenges, its strong foundation and efficient mitigation obligation make us optimistic that the overall mitigation targets will be achieved and that mother earth will be safe from being “hell”. This paper shall discuss the mitigation goal and nature of the mitigation obligation under the PA and finally analyze the efficiency of the mitigation strategy. Dhaka University Law Journal, 2022, 33(1), 99-120

Financial incentives to poor countries promote net emissions reductions in multilateral climate agreements

Financial incentives to poor countries promote net emissions reductions in multilateral climate agreements

Effective tracking of nationally determined contributions: A case study on South Africa

The Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework requires that all Parties track and report progress toward their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). This paper develops a qualitative, multi-criteria framework that can be used to either design effective NDC tracking systems or evaluate the extent to which Parties are prepared for NDC tracking. The paper also applies the framework to a case study on South Africa, with results indicating that the country is progressing well in terms of selecting appropriate indicators, enacting legislation, and enhancing transparency. In areas of collecting data, reporting on socio-economic outcomes, and making changes in national policy, there is room for improvement, and the paper explores options to this end. Since South Africa has a relatively advanced system for tracking mitigation goals, the findings of the paper suggest that other developing country Parties may require additional resources and capacity to track NDCs effectively.

How Do Energy Use and Climate Change Affect Fast-Start Finance? A Cross-Country Empirical Investigation

To promote the sustainable development of developing countries through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of anthropogenic activity on the atmosphere, for some decades, developed countries and international institutions provided an increasing amount of climate financing tools, allocated through multiple channels. After the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties (COP15) held in 2009, developed country parties pledged to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012 and with balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation. This collective commitment has come to be known as “Fast-start Finance” (FSF). To assess the key factors contributing to the amount and distribution of funding supporting projects using FSF, in this paper, we investigate the relationship between FSF, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions. To this aim, two main analyses were carried out: (i) a qualitative examination of donor’s funding strategies and (ii) a quantitative analysis deepening the relationship between climate finance and greenhouse gas emissions by beneficiaries through a quantile regression model. Findings indicate a need to redesign the current aid scheme, and suggest an increasing need for financed projects to support sustainable economic innovation patterns of developing countries while paying close attention to the environmental policy context. The purpose was to provide useful feedback to policymakers to assess the effectiveness of the flow of funding for environmental plans and to avoid excessive aid dispersal and consequently a reduction of the FSF benefits.

A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of ‘climate progressive’ nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways

ABSTRACT The Paris Agreement establishes an international covenant to reduce emissions in line with holding the increase in temperature to ‘well below 2°C … and to pursue … 1.5°C.’ Global modelling studies have repeatedly concluded that such commitments can be delivered through technocratic adjustments to contemporary society, principally price mechanisms driving technical change. However, as emissions have continued to rise, so these models have come to increasingly rely on the extensive deployment of highly speculative negative emissions technologies (NETs). Moreover, in determining the mitigation challenges for industrialized nations, scant regard is paid to the language and spirit of equity enshrined in the Paris Agreement. If, instead, the mitigation agenda of ‘developed country Parties’ is determined without reliance on planetary scale NETs and with genuine regard for equity and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, the necessary rates of mitigation increase markedly. This is evident even when considering the UK and Sweden, two nations at the forefront of developing ‘progressive’ climate change legislation and with clear emissions pathways and/or quantitative carbon budgets. In both cases, the carbon budgets underpinning mitigation policy are halved, the immediate mitigation rate is increased to over 10% per annum, and the time to deliver a fully decarbonized energy system is brought forward to 2035-40. Such a challenging mitigation agenda implies profound changes to many facets of industrialized economies. This conclusion is not drawn from political ideology, but rather is a direct consequence of the international community’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and the small and rapidly dwindling global carbon budget. Key Policy Insights Without a belief in the successful deployment of planetary scale negative emissions technologies, double-digit annual mitigation rates are required of developed countries, from 2020, if they are to align their policies with the Paris Agreement’s temperature commitments and principles of equity. Paris-compliant carbon budgets for developed countries imply full decarbonization of energy by 2035-40, necessitating a scale of change in physical infrastructure reminiscent of the post-Second World War Marshall Plan. This brings issues of values, measures of prosperity and socio-economic inequality to the fore. The stringency of Paris-compliant pathways severely limits the opportunity for inter-sectoral emissions trading. Consequently aviation, as with all sectors, will need to identify policies to reduce emissions to zero, directly or through the use of zero carbon fuels. The UK and Swedish governments’ emissions pathways imply a carbon budget of at least a factor of two greater than their fair contribution to delivering on the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-2°C commitment.

Transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement and their (un)likely impact on strengthening the ambition of nationally determined contributions (NDCs)

ABSTRACTHow will the Paris Agreement drive countries to address climate change? One expectation of the Agreement is that transparency will stimulate countries to increase the ambition of their pledges by revealing information on Parties’ climate efforts. To this end, the Agreement introduced a new ‘enhanced transparency framework’ (ETF) to report and review information on Parties’ greenhouse gas emissions, progress made in implementing and achieving nationally determined contributions (NDCs), their adaptation actions, and the financial, technological and capacity-building support needed, received and provided to developing country Parties. However, this relationship between transparency and progressive ambition over time remains largely untested. In this article, we first outline several pathways through which increased transparency could potentially lead to increased ambition. These pathways notably depend on the availability of comparable, complete and timely information on the performance of Parties. By reviewing the experience with past and existing transparency arrangements, we identify four types of challenges that will likely pose barriers to the generation of such information by the ETF, and suggest some efforts that might address these challenges to support greater ambition in future rounds of NDCs.Key policy insightsThe potential use of the flexibilities offered to developing countries on some dimensions of the ETF may lead to the generation of incomplete and incomparable information.It will be difficult to assess and compare progress made by Parties towards achieving their NDCs due to heterogenous, qualitative and conditional NDCs; the variety of indicators that Parties will choose to track their progress; and to weaknesses in the reporting guidelines on climate action and support.Despite ongoing efforts to address this, the information generated by the ETF may be outdated and non-comprehensive due to capacity gaps.The apolitical design of the ETF means that it will not lead to judgments, for example on the level of ambition of an NDC, or even on whether a country is achieving its NDC. The ETF is also not equipped to deal with cases of political unwillingness to participate in the ETF itself.

A dynamic climate finance allocation mechanism reflecting the Paris Agreement

Reaching the goal of the Paris Agreement requires substantial investment. The developed country parties have agreed to provide USD$100 billion in climate finance annually from 2020 to 2025. Ongoing negotiations on post-2025 commitments are likely to exceed that sum and include a broader scope of parties. However, there is no guidance regarding the allocation of contributions. Here, we develop a dynamic mechanism based on two conventional pillars of a burden sharing mechanism: emission responsibility and ability to pay. The mechanism adds dynamic components that reflect the Paris principle to ‘ratchet-up’ ambition; it rewards countries with ambitious mitigation targets and relieves countries with a high degree of climate vulnerability. Including developed country parties only, we find that ten countries should bear 85% of climate finance contributions (65% if all parties to the Paris Agreement are included). In both scopes, increasing climate ambition is rewarded. If the EU increased its emission reduction target from 40% to 55% by 2030, member states could reduce their climate finance contributions by up to 3.3%. The proposed mechanism allows for an inclusion of sub-, supra- or non-state actors. For example, we find a contribution of USD$3.3 billion annually for conventionally excluded emissions from international aviation and shipping.

Mobilising private adaptation finance: developed country perspectives

The private sector is one of the sources of finance included in developed countries’ pledge in the UN climate negotiations to mobilise $100 billion annually by 2020 to support developing countries’ efforts to address climate change. For adaptation in particular, it remains unclear what mobilised private finance is. Research so far has focused on its potential and experiences in developing countries, but not on the arguments of those who introduced and continue to advocate private adaptation finance: developed countries. This paper investigates the positions of developed countries and development banks and agencies. In particular, it aims to identify whether those actors can reach a common understanding of private adaptation finance that minimises norm conflicts in a fragmented climate finance system. Empirically, the paper examines the Biennial Reports and submissions on Strategies and Approaches for Mobilising Scaled-up Finance of six developed country parties, as well as data from interviews with experts from development banks and agencies. The analysis finds a number of discrepancies between these sets of actors, for example on motivations for and modes of private sector involvement. This discrepancy is the result of ambiguity around the concept of private adaptation finance in a highly fragmented climate finance architecture. This ambiguity is problematic when the aim of mobilising private adaptation finance is to contribute to the $100 billion commitment. However, if the aim is adaptation in practice, both ambiguity and fragmentation might actually make the climate finance system more inclusive and innovative.

Loss, Damage and Responsibility after COP21: All Options Open for the Paris Agreement

The issue of ‘loss and damage’ has proven to be a legally and politically challenging one within the international climate change regime. This article presents a brief history of the issue, and reviews related Paris outcomes, focusing on the issues of compensation and liability, governance, financial support, insurance and displacement. It concludes that despite paragraph 51 of Decision 1/CP.21 adopting the Paris Agreement, all options remain open for the development of a system under the climate regime that can address the underlying concerns raised by small island developing States and others in calling for a system of compensation and liability. In the context of the 1.5 °C temperature limit and increasing climate impacts, this article also highlights the need for the Warsaw International Mechanism to play an active role in quantifying the scale of loss and damage that is projected from human‐induced climate change in different regions and in different national contexts, over different time frames and at different emission pathways, and in sharing developments in attribution science, to help in the design of approaches to address loss and damage that are suited to assisting the most vulnerable developing country parties and to underscore the need for urgent emission reductions.

Road to Paris: The Changed and Unchanged in International Responsibility System

Since the conclusion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, a number of adjustments have been made in the patterns of international economy, trade, emissions, etc. Developing countries have increased rapidly in their share in global economy, trade as well as emissions, which led to some Parties to the Convention, mainly developed country Parties, faltering on their recognition of the responsibility system of the global response to climate change, and requiring developing countries to undertake responsibility for emission reduction and even financial assistance, intending to transfer obligations and costs in coping with climate change to developing countries. In fact, although the share of developing countries has increased in global economy, trade and emissions, the basic pattern that developed countries account for the absolute majority in cumulative CO2 emissions and control the international financial, trading, technology, and standard systems has not changed. The international responsibility system to deal with climate change has not changed fundamentally, either. Developed countries should continue to lead the global climate initiative, and provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries; developing countries should also take the path of low-carbon development while actively making full use of support from the international community in poverty alleviation and development process. At the Paris Climate Change Conference, Parties should participate in the negotiations with a constructive attitude, actively make planning and implement emission reduction actions, as well as build a fair and efficient financial mechanism, to promote climate-friendly technologies worldwide, establish an open and cooperative international trading system, and jointly facilitate the international cooperation on tackling climate change as a new momentum for global economic growth, so as to protect global climate security.

Forecasting forest areas and carbon stocks in Cambodia based on socio-economic factors

SUMMARY Establishing forest reference emission levels (RELs) and/or forest reference levels (RLs) is an important task for developing country parties considering taking part in the REDD+ scheme under the UNFCCC, especially for those countries experiencing corresponding economic development with land use changes. In this research, Cambodia’s forest areas and forest carbon stocks from 2011 to 2018 were forecasted, which can be used as a reference for establishing forest RELs in Cambodia. Conditional to the assumptions of population growth, the growth in agricultural gross value added, and the level of economic land concession implementations, the forecasts by panel data analysis to provinciallevel data showed that the forest area in Cambodia will decrease to 9.94 million ha in 2014 and 9.51 million ha in 2018 from 10.36 million ha in 2010 and that forest carbon stocks will decrease to 1.22 PgC in 2014 and 1.17 PgC in 2018 from 1.28 PgC in 2010.

Agriculture Under UNFCCC and Its Policy Implications

Agriculture is a vulnerable sector to climate change because it is a primary industry directly exposed to climate. At the same time, it is a sector emitting greenhouse gases during agricultural activities, thereby affecting climate change. However, agriculture is a nascent subject under the UNFCCC. The agriculture sector needs both adaptation and mitigation. Currently, co-benefit of adaptation and mitigation is emphasized during climate change negotiation. Developing country parties are in a position to focus on adaptation rather than mitigation. As a result, mitigation is not being addressed enough during climate negotiation. Agriculture has been addressed through Nairobi Work Programme and NAPA. Since current efforts for greenhouse gas reduction are not sufficient for stabilizing the atmospheric system of the Earth to prevent climate change, the agriculture sector should also be considered for greenhouse gas reduction. For this, MRV for small farmers in developing countries and incentives for their mitigation efforts should be developed in agriculture sector. In addition, it is necessary to strengthen international cooperation for developing capacities for vulnerable countries and people to climate change.

Warsaw Cop19 Outcomes and Implications of Climate Finance

The 19th Conference of Parties and 9th Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP19/CMP9) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place from 11th to 23th November, 2013 in Warsaw, Poland. Key agenda items related to climate finance discussed at the COP19 includes the Work Programme on Long-term Finance (hereinafter the LTF), guidance to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the 5th review of the financial mechanism.Contrary to developing countries that repeatedly underscored the predictability of climate finance and responsibility of developed countries, developed countries rather focused on the role of public finance in mobilizing climate funds from private sources and promotion of enabling environment in developing countries. Since the conflicting interests between developed and developing countries on the subject of climate finance mobilization and deployment made it difficult for the COP19 to reach meaningful agreements, political coordination between the two groups is a prerequisite to mobilize scaled-up climate finance. Biennial reports to be submitted by developed country Parties and the SCF, respectively, in 2014 will play a pivotal role in enhancing the transparency of climate finance flows. At the high-level ministerial dialogue on climate finance during the COP19, some European countries pledged to make contributions to the GCF once the initial resource mobilization process of the GCF is finalized. However, in order to build a more stable financial basis for the GCF, the range of the discussions and negotiations among the Parties should include not only the operation of the GCF but also the long-term finance issue as a whole.

Implementation and Compliance under the Minamata Convention on Mercury

What contributed to the consensus to establish an implementation and compliance mechanism during the negotiations of the 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury? This outcome was inextricably linked to consensus on establishing a financial mechanism that was satisfactory to both developed and developing country parties. However, given the complex interlinkages between these issues, the history of discussions of compliance in closely related multilateral environmental agreements, and the wide range of interests and preferences among parties to the negotiations, the path to consensus was not clear until late in the negotiating process. While the compatibility between the proposed mechanism and States' interests was crucial to the outcome, the role of individuals in crafting the treaty text and facilitating negotiations was also essential. Thus, a complete analysis of the path to that agreement must consider the role of individual leaders in strategically guiding delegates to identify the points at which their interests converged.

18. Australia

In 2013, the incumbent Labour government in Australia was replaced in the September federal elections. Control of the Lower House changed from the Labour party to the Coalition. The composition of the Upper House was unclear after some anomalies in the Western Australian vote, which were remedied in early 2014 and which produced no clear majority for either major party. New Prime Minister Tony Abbott has indicated that his government will take a deregulatory approach to environmental law and policy. The Coalition government’s general policy is to ‘cut red and green tape’ and includes: decisions to repeal the price on carbon and other domestic initiatives addressing climate change; dissolving the Climate Commission; winding back plans to establish marine parks; and moves to reduce the area of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (<http://www.liberal.org.au/boosting-productivity-and-reducing-regulation>). Australia is a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and has signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. As noted in this report last year, Australia has also signed on to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, with a target of greenhouse gas emission reductions of 0.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (23 YIEL 513 (2012)). At the Warsaw Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2013, the Abbott government attracted criticism when it broke a sixteen-year tradition of having a government minister or ministerial spokesperson attend for Australia, sending a diplomat instead. Decisions about how to finance various mitigation and adaptation commitments (whether from public or private sources) were deferred by developed country parties such as Australia at the COP.

The economics of boldness: equity, action, and hope

Equity is usually interpreted in terms of the concept of justice, such that an equitable share of the atmospheric space is understood in terms of past emissions. This emphasizes the collective nature of sharing the burden of mitigation and the duty to act for those who have emitted the most. An alternative is considered: the aggregate costs and benefits to all Parties that could result from both increasing the level of collective ambition and implementing a climate regime that supports bold actions across all Parties. The regional impacts and carbon flow costs across differentiated scenarios are assessed and it is argued that the majority of developing-country Parties would be better off if a high ambition outcome to which all contributed, but some more than others. Moreover, those with middle or low emissions would have proportionally more to gain (or lose) relative to the level of ambition compared to those that have had higher emissions. The climate regime should be built on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC), in which all act early even if some do much more; one that accounts for justice but does not forget hope.Policy relevanceDiffering interpretations of equity and the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are discussed, with a focus on how these can enhance or hinder collective action. Whilst the climate change negotiations are usually taken as games in which one party gains and another loses, and interactions are dogged by continuous conflict, it is explored instead how negotiation responses can be framed in terms of cooperation. This would emphasize the gains that could be achieved by common but differentiated collective action, which could result in a collective avoidance of impacts. The possibilities that this shift of perspective could bring are explored by comparing costs under global cooperation (or lack of it). It is found that cooperation reduces the total costs for these regions. Thus, thinking in terms of cooperation focuses the options for negotiation on the means and interpretations of the UNFCCC principles that spur action and avoid climate impacts through collective action.

Financing for innovative technologies and best practices to reduce persistent organic pollutants

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) threaten human health and the global environment. Recognizing their dangers many countries began to limit or ban POPs production, use, and release in the 1990s. Eventually the Stockholm Convention on POPs, was adopted in 2001 and entered into force in 2004. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides financial support to developing country Parties for the implementation of the Stockholm Convention. The GEF’s POPs investment portfolio focuses on: 1) strengthening the capacity of developing country Parties to implement the Stockholm Convention; 2) establishing and supporting partnerships to develop and implement National Implementation Plans (NIPs), and 3) demonstrating and deploying best technologies and practices to reduce POPs emission, including development of safe alternatives. Since 2001 the GEF has committed US$568.8 million to POPs projects and leveraged some US$1474.5 million in co-financing from partners in the public and private sectors, bringing the total value of the GEF POPs portfolio to over US$2 billion. With GEF support, 108 developing country Parties have developed their NIPs. The GEF also financed 109 projects for the implementation of the Convention. Upon completion, these GEF POPs investments will contribute to the disposal of more than 70,000 tons of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) oil, contaminated equipments, and waste, more than 40,000 tons of obsolete POPs pesticides and associated waste, and reducing dioxin/furan and mercury emission by introducing environmentally sound technologies and best practices. This paper summarizes: 1) direct and indirect GEF investments to support the goals of the Stockholm Convention; 2) investment case studies on PCB, DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane (DDT), chlordane and mirex, medical waste, obsolete POPs and engaging civil society; and 3) lessons learned in terms of GEF financing strategies, best technologies and environmental practices to address POPs.

Mitigating Failed Attempts at Mitigation: Using Unilateral Consumption-Based Measures to Remedy the UNFCCC/Kyoto System’s Failure to Stabilise Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

International climate change mitigation efforts have reached an impasse and global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. If the international community is to avoid the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change, it must explore new, novel policy options aimed at climate change mitigation. This paper attempts to uncover a somewhat different but nonetheless effective means to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions through a genealogical method. An exploration of the origins of the present climate change mitigation impasse revealed several important structural defects in the UNFCCC/Kyoto regime that distinguish it from analogous international environmental law regimes and have rendered it largely ineffective for achieving mitigation in light of momentous recent changes to the structure of the global economy. The UNFCCC / Kyoto system, unlike the anterior Vienna Convention / Montreal Protocol system for the protection of the ozone layer, for example, requires volume-based reductions from only developed country parties and, most crucially, relies exclusively on production-based measures. Greenhouse gas consumption-based measures, which also address the greenhouse gases emitted elsewhere but effectively imported into a country as part of the product in which they are invisibly embedded, present an opportunity to overcome the limitations of the production-based developed country only UNFCCC/Kyoto regime and thereby to make a meaningful contribution to global climate change mitigation. Moreover, by leveraging off developed countries relatively larger shares of world consumption, consumption-based measures offer UNFCCC Annex I countries keen to act on global climate change a greater global climate change impact through unilateral regulation than their increasingly futile production-based internal measures. GHG consumption-based proposals may encounter some administrative, economic, political and legal obstacles, but broadly-speaking, it would seem that a State wishing to introduce such measures would be able to address most of the administrative and economic concerns by carefully designing a manageable, suitable and economically appropriate policy. While no panacea to the complex climate change mitigation problem, such policies may yet provide new and desperately-needed impetus in the global effort to stabilise and ultimately reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.