Which mode of funding developing countries' climate policies under the post-Kyoto framework?
AbstractFunding developing countries' climate policies after Cancun (COP16) has a dual goal: firstly, to support mitigation of developing countries in order to sustain the two-degree pathway of stabilising the global mean temperature; secondly, to empower the vulnerable countries in low-income regions to adapt to and recover from the most adverse impacts of climate change. So far, the political and scientific discussion has mainly concentrated on the appropriate level of funding. Referring to the newly emerging climate finance architecture under the post-Kyoto framework, this paper argues that a stronger focus must be put on the question: which mode of funding to choose? This is for the reason that the currently discussed funding instruments, such as earmarking of industrialised countries' transfer payments to developing countries for reducing loss and damages, mitigation, or adaptation costs, may cause fundamental changes in the countries' strategic behaviour concerning mitigation and adaptation efforts. Moreover, some of the instruments fall short of a minimum requirement for the donors to voluntarily provide means, and thus cannot guarantee sustained funding. We develop our results in a non-cooperative two-country framework in which donor and recipient decide on mitigation in the first, and on adaptation in the second stage of the game. --
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS) in its series UFZ Discussion Papers with number 10/2012.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig
Phone: ++49 - 0341 - 235-2771
Fax: ++49 - 0341 - 235-2825
Web page: http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=1445
More information through EDIRC
adaptation; climate policy; funding; mitigation; non-cooperative behaviour;
Other versions of this item:
- Clemens Heuson & Wolfgang Peters & Reimund Schwarze & Anna-Katharina Topp, 2012. "Which mode of funding developing countries’ climate policies under the post-Kyoto framework?," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 004, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
- C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
- D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
- F35 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Foreign Aid
- Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-08-23 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENE-2012-08-23 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2012-08-23 (Environmental Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ficre Zehaie, 2009. "The Timing and Strategic Role of Self-Protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 337-350, November.
- Karen Pittel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2013. "Improving Global Public Goods Supply through Conditional Transfers - The International Adaptation Transfer Riddle," CESifo Working Paper Series 4106, CESifo Group Munich.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.