@article{Streck2023,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {Synergies between the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement},
  series = {Climate policy},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Climate policy},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1469-3062},
  doi       = {10.1080/14693062.2023.2230940},
  pages     = {800 -- 811},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and Paris Agreement (PA) are highly complementary agreements where each depends on the other's success to be effective. The GBF offers a very specific framework of interim goals and targets that break down the objective of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) into a decade-spanning work plan. Comprised of 10 sections - including a 2050 vision and a 2030 mission, four overarching goals and 23 specific targets - the GBF is expected to guide biodiversity policy around the world in the coming years to decades. A similar set of global interim climate policy targets could translate the global temperature goal into concrete policy milestones that would provide policy makers and civil society with reference points for policy making and efforts to hold governments accountable. Beyond inspiring climate policy experts to convert temperature goals into policy milestones, GBF has the potential to strengthen the implementation of the PA at the nexus of biodiversity and climate (adaptation and mitigation) action. For example, the GBF can help to ensure that nature-based climate solutions are implemented with full consideration of biodiversity concerns, of the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and with fair and transparent benefit sharing arrangements. In sum, the GBF should be mandatory reading for all climate policy makers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Streck2021,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {Strengthening the Paris Agreement by holding non-state actors accountable},
  series = {Transnational environmental law},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Transnational environmental law},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {2047-1025},
  doi       = {10.1017/S2047102521000091},
  pages     = {493 -- 515},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {While the intergovernmental climate regime increasingly recognizes the role of non-state actors in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement (PA), the normative linkages between the intergovernmental climate regime and the non-state dominated 'transnational partnership governance' remain vague and tentative. A formalized engagement of the intergovernmental climate regime with transnational partnerships can increase the effectiveness of partnerships in delivering on climate mitigation and adaptation, thereby complementing rather than replacing government action. The proposed active engagement with partnerships would include (i) collecting and analyzing information to develop and prioritize areas for transnational and partnership engagement; (ii) defining minimum criteria and procedural requirements to be listed on an enhanced Non-state Actor Zone for Climate Action platform; (iii) actively supporting strategic initiatives; (iv) facilitating market or non-market finance as part of Article 6 PA; and (v) evaluating the effectiveness of partnerships in the context of the enhanced transparency framework (Article 13 PA) and the global stocktake (Article 14 PA). The UNFCCC Secretariat could facilitate engagement and problem solving by actively orchestrating transnational partnerships. Constructing effective implementation partnerships, recording their mitigation and adaptation goals, and holding them accountable may help to move climate talks from rhetoric to action.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GriscomBuschCookPattonetal.2020,
  author    = {Griscom, Bronson W. and Busch, Jonah and Cook-Patton, Susan C. and Ellis, Peter W. and Funk, Jason and Leavitt, Sara M. and Lomax, Guy and Turner, Will R. and Chapman, Melissa and Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1794},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51369},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-513692},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Better land stewardship is needed to achieve the Paris Agreement's temperature goal, particularly in the tropics, where greenhouse gas emissions from the destruction of ecosystems are largest, and where the potential for additional land carbon storage is greatest. As countries enhance their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement, confusion persists about the potential contribution of better land stewardship to meeting the Agreement's goal to hold global warming below 2 degrees C. We assess cost-effective tropical country-level potential of natural climate solutions (NCS)-protection, improved management and restoration of ecosystems-to deliver climate mitigation linked with sustainable development goals (SDGs). We identify groups of countries with distinctive NCS portfolios, and we explore factors (governance, financial capacity) influencing the feasibility of unlocking national NCS potential. Cost-effective tropical NCS offers globally significant climate mitigation in the coming decades (6.56 Pg CO(2)e yr(-1) at less than 100 US\$ per Mg CO(2)e). In half of the tropical countries, cost-effective NCS could mitigate over half of national emissions. In more than a quarter of tropical countries, cost-effective NCS potential is greater than national emissions. We identify countries where, with international financing and political will, NCS can cost-effectively deliver the majority of enhanced NDCs while transforming national economies and contributing to SDGs. This article is part of the theme issue 'Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GriscomBuschCookPattonetal.2020,
  author    = {Griscom, Bronson W. and Busch, Jonah and Cook-Patton, Susan C. and Ellis, Peter W. and Funk, Jason and Leavitt, Sara M. and Lomax, Guy and Turner, Will R. and Chapman, Melissa and Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics},
  series = {Biological sciences},
  volume    = {375},
  journal   = {Biological sciences},
  number    = {1794},
  publisher = {The Royal Society Publishing},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0962-8436},
  doi       = {10.1098/rstb.2019.0126},
  pages     = {1 -- 11},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Better land stewardship is needed to achieve the Paris Agreement's temperature goal, particularly in the tropics, where greenhouse gas emissions from the destruction of ecosystems are largest, and where the potential for additional land carbon storage is greatest. As countries enhance their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement, confusion persists about the potential contribution of better land stewardship to meeting the Agreement's goal to hold global warming below 2 degrees C. We assess cost-effective tropical country-level potential of natural climate solutions (NCS)-protection, improved management and restoration of ecosystems-to deliver climate mitigation linked with sustainable development goals (SDGs). We identify groups of countries with distinctive NCS portfolios, and we explore factors (governance, financial capacity) influencing the feasibility of unlocking national NCS potential. Cost-effective tropical NCS offers globally significant climate mitigation in the coming decades (6.56 Pg CO(2)e yr(-1) at less than 100 US\$ per Mg CO(2)e). In half of the tropical countries, cost-effective NCS could mitigate over half of national emissions. In more than a quarter of tropical countries, cost-effective NCS potential is greater than national emissions. We identify countries where, with international financing and political will, NCS can cost-effectively deliver the majority of enhanced NDCs while transforming national economies and contributing to SDGs. This article is part of the theme issue 'Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{DirnitrovHoviSprinzetal.2019,
  author    = {Dirnitrov, Radoslav and Hovi, Jon and Sprinz, Detlef F. and Saelen, H{\aa}kon and Underdal, Arild},
  title     = {Institutional and environmental effectiveness},
  series = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1757-7780},
  doi       = {10.1002/wcc.583},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The 2015 Paris Agreement (PA) has been widely hailed as a diplomatic triumph and a breakthrough in global climate cooperation. However, it is commonly accepted that the PA's collective goal—keeping global warming "well below" 2°C above preindustrial levels—remains ambitious. Making matters even more challenging, in 2017, global CO2 emissions resumed growth after 3 years of near standstill. In 2018, this growth accelerated. It is therefore extremely important that the PA's institutional architecture meet expectations concerning its ability to induce member countries to promise and deliver emissions reductions. This study offers a review of the rapidly growing literature on the PA, to assess its strengths and weaknesses, its significance, and its prospects. We focus on evaluations of its institutional structure and its ability to induce member countries to implement policies. We frame the issues as a trilemma: the challenge of simultaneously satisfying all three main conditions for effectiveness—broad participation, deep commitments, and satisfactory compliance rates. Based on our review, we conclude that the key challenge for the PA will likely be to facilitate sufficiently fast ratcheting-up of nationally determined contributions, while keeping compliance rates high.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Streck2021,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {How voluntary carbon markets can drive climate ambition},
  series = {Journal of energy \& natural resources law : the journal of the Section on Energy and Natural Resources Law of the International Bar Association},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {Journal of energy \& natural resources law : the journal of the Section on Energy and Natural Resources Law of the International Bar Association},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0264-6811},
  doi       = {10.1080/02646811.2021.1881275},
  pages     = {367 -- 374},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Over the last three years, corporate interest in voluntary carbon markets has almost tripled, and this trend has seemed to resist the COVID-19 economic fallout. If managed well, this market has the potential to become a very significant driver of mitigation action, in particular in developing countries, which supply the majority of voluntary carbon offsets. Robust standards and rules can overcome concerns that voluntary carbon markets could lead to company greenwashing and undermine the goals of the Paris Agreement. On the contrary, voluntary corporate investments can encourage more ambitious government climate action, and encourage governments to make more ambitious pledges under the Paris Agreement. Multisectoral mitigation partnerships can ensure the complementarity of public and private action and support policy alignment and investments in priority sectors and regions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Streck2020,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {Filling in for Governments?},
  series = {Journal for European Environmental \& Planning Law},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Journal for European Environmental \& Planning Law},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Martinus Nijhoff Pub},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1613-7272},
  doi       = {10.1163/18760104-01701003},
  pages     = {5 -- 28},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change abandons the Kyoto Protocol's paradigm of binding emissions targets and relies instead on countries' voluntary contributions. However, the Paris Agreement encourages not only governments but also sub-national governments, corporations and civil society to contribute to reaching ambitious climate goals. In a transition from the regulated architecture of the Kyoto Protocol to the open system of the Paris Agreement, the Agreement seeks to integrate non-state actors into the treaty-based climate regime. In 2014 the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Peru and France created the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (and launched the Global Climate Action portal). In December 2019, this portal recorded more than twenty thousand climate-commitments of private and public non-state entities, making the non-state venues of international climate meetings decisively more exciting than the formal negotiation space. This level engagement and governments' response to it raises a flurry of questions in relation to the evolving nature of the climate regime and climate change governance, including the role of private actors as standard setters and the lack of accountability mechanisms for non-state actions. This paper takes these developments as occasion to discuss the changing role of private actors in the climate regime.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BertramRiahiHilaireetal.2021,
  author    = {Bertram, Christoph and Riahi, Keywan and Hilaire, J{\´e}r{\^o}me and Bosetti, Valentina and Drouet, Laurent and Fricko, Oliver and Malik, Aman and Nogueira, Larissa Pupo and van der Zwaan, Bob and van Ruijven, Bas and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and Weitzel, Matthias and Longa, Francesco Dalla and de Boer, Harmen-Sytze and Emmerling, Johannes and Fosse, Florian and Fragkiadakis, Kostas and Harmsen, Mathijs and Keramidas, Kimon and Kishimoto, Paul Natsuo and Kriegler, Elmar and Krey, Volker and Paroussos, Leonidas and Saygin, Deger and Vrontisi, Zoi and Luderer, Gunnar},
  title     = {Energy system developments and investments in the decisive decade for the Paris Agreement goals},
  series = {Environmental research letters},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Environmental research letters},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {IOP Publishing},
  address   = {Bristol},
  issn      = {1748-9326},
  doi       = {10.1088/1748-9326/ac09ae},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The Paris Agreement does not only stipulate to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C, it also calls for 'making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions'. Consequently, there is an urgent need to understand the implications of climate targets for energy systems and quantify the associated investment requirements in the coming decade. A meaningful analysis must however consider the near-term mitigation requirements to avoid the overshoot of a temperature goal. It must also include the recently observed fast technological progress in key mitigation options. Here, we use a new and unique scenario ensemble that limit peak warming by construction and that stems from seven up-to-date integrated assessment models. This allows us to study the near-term implications of different limits to peak temperature increase under a consistent and up-to-date set of assumptions. We find that ambitious immediate action allows for limiting median warming outcomes to well below 2 °C in all models. By contrast, current nationally determined contributions for 2030 would add around 0.2 °C of peak warming, leading to an unavoidable transgression of 1.5 °C in all models, and 2 °C in some. In contrast to the incremental changes as foreseen by current plans, ambitious peak warming targets require decisive emission cuts until 2030, with the most substantial contribution to decarbonization coming from the power sector. Therefore, investments into low-carbon power generation need to increase beyond current levels to meet the Paris goals, especially for solar and wind technologies and related system enhancements for electricity transmission, distribution and storage. Estimates on absolute investment levels, up-scaling of other low-carbon power generation technologies and investment shares in less ambitious scenarios vary considerably across models. In scenarios limiting peak warming to below 2 °C, while coal is phased out quickly, oil and gas are still being used significantly until 2030, albeit at lower than current levels. This requires continued investments into existing oil and gas infrastructure, but investments into new fields in such scenarios might not be needed. The results show that credible and effective policy action is essential for ensuring efficient allocation of investments aligned with medium-term climate targets.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{StreckvonUngerGreiner2020,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte and von Unger, Moritz and Greiner, Sandra},
  title     = {COP 25},
  series = {Journal for European environmental \& planning law},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Journal for European environmental \& planning law},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Brill},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1613-7272},
  doi       = {10.1163/18760104-01702003},
  pages     = {136 -- 160},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) became the longest COP on record - but yielded few results. It appears that four years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, enthusiasm has waned and political bargaining and bean-counting have taken over. Countries, for even the slightest chance to keep temperatures 'well below' 2 degrees Celsius, must do much more than they have previously committed to and accelerate the shift towards a zero-carbon economy. However, the conference largely failed to heed the rallying cry of the Chilean presidency. The flagship decisions (grouped under the banner "Chile-Madrid Time for Action") neither produced new commitments - enhancing ambition or finance for developing countries - nor new rules that would nudge countries closer to the climate action targets needed. The leftover pieces from last year's negotiations of the "Paris Rulebook" were also not resolved, in particular the unfinished decisions on Article 6 on market- and non-market mechanisms. The procrastination shows that the new architecture of the Paris Agreement, while addressing several of the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol, suffers from its own weaknesses. The meager results of Madrid give reason to pause and reflect on the conditions that may hold countries back from fully embracing the Paris Agreement, but also to consider the future and nature of carbon markets and what is making the issue so difficult to resolve.},
  language  = {en}
}