Help WRI turn ideas into action all over the world.

You are here

Equity Lessons from Multilateral Regimes for the New Climate Agreement

Equity is a central piece of the new, international climate agreement that will be decided under the UNFCCC in 2015. This paper looks at various trade, human rights, and environmental regimes--such as the Montreal Protocol--to see how they address equity, drawing out the lessons that the UNFCCC can learn from these regimes. This analysis reveals that equity has been critical to achieving consensus and can neither be eliminated from the negotiations nor solved in isolation.

Key Findings

Executive Summary

Equity issues will be at center stage in the negotiations for an international climate agreement in 2015. Starting from the moment that the Durban Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2011 launched the negotiating process leading to a 2015 agreement, equity has become a central question in those discussions. The new climate agreement is meant to apply to all Parties, thus raising obvious questions about which countries will take what actions and how equity should factor into making those determinations. The core principles in the UNFCCC of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) lie at the heart of this debate.

To shed light on these equity discussions within the UNFCCC, Equity Lessons from Multilateral Regimes for the New Climate Agreement examines other international regimes as a source of lessons for the climate negotiations. We undertake an overview of several regimes, including environmental, trade, and human rights regimes, and provide examples of how these regimes have handled equity issues. In part, we considered the issues of differentiation among countries, particularly between developed and developing countries. A central, overarching lesson from our review of these regimes is that equity must be considered not only by the way in which agreements differentiate among the commitments of parties, but also with respect to the institutions, support, and procedures that facilitate participation or create conditions that promote the objectives of the regime. The paper is focused on questions such as whether and how fair commitments are defined; whether countries are supported, based on principles of fairness, in achieving key objectives; whether countries receive fair benefits; and whether institutions and procedures are fair in the way they treat different nations. Based on the lessons from across the regimes, we offer some recommendations and conclusions about what the lessons suggest for the 2015 climate agreement.

Stay Connected

Sign up for our newsletters

Get our latest commentary, upcoming events, publications, maps and data. Sign up for the weekly WRI Digest.