2.1. The Role of Emerging Economies

Climate change is the defining human development challenge of the 21^st century.Footnote ⁶ Anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are the highest in history, and climate change has had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.Footnote ⁷ The UNFCCC calls for general national obligations to reduce GHG emissions and promote mitigation.Footnote ⁸ Common responsibilities arise from the concepts of common heritage and the common concern of humankind,Footnote ⁹ and reflect the duty of states to share equally the burden of environmental protection of common resources.Footnote ¹⁰

However, states are able to enter into a collective response effectively at varied levels. It is problematic to expect uniformity in obligations and standards without a level playing field at the international level.Footnote ¹¹ Inequality exists both in contributions to global environmental degradation – past and current – and in the capacity of states to respond to it. The principle of CBDR-RC promotes differential treatment in the UNFCCC and has since guided climate negotiations.Footnote ¹² As a consequence, developed and developing countries were divided into two groups, with differing commitments.Footnote ¹³

The Convention mirrored the historical period in which it was negotiated and reflected the socio-economic conditions at the time. Climate change traditionally involved a North-South conflict, with Northern nations having larger GHG emissions and Southern nations mostly being victimized by its effects. At the time, only a few non-member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) had emissions comparable with advanced economies.Footnote ¹⁴ The binary division made sense, as countries that polluted more also had greater capacity to address climate change. This scenario, however, has changed substantially since then, and the notion of differential treatment in favour of developing countries started to be challenged.Footnote ¹⁵

The role of emerging economies has been a particular focus of discussions. Climate negotiations have often been conducted through country blocs and alliances which demand special treatment.Footnote ¹⁶ Traditionally included in the G77 group,Footnote ¹⁷ emerging economies are considered to be developing nations without binding commitments for climate mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol and have used CBDR-RC as a basis for maintaining the status quo.Footnote ¹⁸ However, groups, or even sub-group fragmentations, often mask disparities within countries.Footnote ¹⁹ As a result of the socio-economic growth of emerging economies, the cemented binary division between Annex I and non-Annex I countries – or even between developed and developing countries – became too simplistic and inadequate to address current obligations.

The reconsideration of country categorizations is at the core of this debate.Footnote ²⁰ While it is met with some resistance by emerging economies, which would lose the benefits of their status as a developing country, even BASIC countriesFootnote ²¹ ultimately agreed to a more nuanced interpretation of CBDR-RC.Footnote ²² Brazil proposed a concentric approach with five categories of mitigation targets, with developed countries and least developed countries (LDCs) each at polar opposites, and all other developing countries in between.Footnote ²³ The model entails gradually deepening commitments for all parties, while retaining CBDR-RC as a foundation. While the proposal did not move forward, it showed a willingness from an emerging economy to reconsider the country categorization, which was long overdue.

Emissions from developed countries have largely remained the same since 1992, while those from developing countries have grown significantly. In 1990, developing countries produced one third of annual global emissions; today they emit 63% of emissions, with projections of 70% by 2030.Footnote ²⁴ The world’s top ten emitters are China, the United States (US), the European Union (EU), India, Russia, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Iran.Footnote ²⁵ Of these, only three were Annex I countries originally. While the rapid change was unpredictable, equity in climate negotiations had to adapt. Emerging economies became an important part of the equation, with growing support for the termination of the differential treatment that had benefited them.Footnote ²⁶ It became essential for mitigation obligations to be based upon differential obligations in at least three categories – developed countries, emerging economies, and vulnerable developing countries – to ensure an equitable and fair approach.Footnote ²⁷

2.2. The CBDR-RC Principle

International environmental law provided a response to inequality through differentiation by tailoring multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to include differences that favour developing countries.Footnote ²⁸ Until 1992, differentiation followed a model that took form in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol)Footnote ²⁹ and the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention).Footnote ³⁰ These instruments included provisions that differentiate between developed and developing countries with respect to implementationFootnote ³¹ and provisions that grant assistance.Footnote ³² The model requires universal participation, but categories of membership depend on when and how obligations are performed.Footnote ³³ Provisions then were designed to assist developing countries in meeting their commitments.

Implementation of climate mitigation has been based on CBDR-RC since the inception of the UNFCCC.Footnote ³⁴ Nonetheless, the framework that established CBDR-RC was based on two premises: parties have (i) common and (ii) differentiated obligations. It promoted a categorical approach through the Annexes, but also recognized the need for their revision as responsibilities and capabilities changed.Footnote ³⁵ The common aspect of CBDR-RC invites all parties to participate in a given effort to ameliorate global problems.Footnote ³⁶

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC,Footnote ³⁷ however, promoted a unique model by applying CBDR-RC to central mitigating obligations contained in the Convention.Footnote ³⁸ Indeed, the Protocol created categories of membership based on whether parties held legally binding commitments.Footnote ³⁹ It failed, however, to establish common obligations, and instead released developing countries from responsibilities. The burden-sharing agreement implied that the main polluters had to take the first step with legally binding reduction targets.Footnote ⁴⁰ A ‘linking clause’ rendered the implementation of commitments from developing countries conditional upon that of developed countries.Footnote ⁴¹

The climate regime became a template for differential treatment which, in turn, became the price to pay for universal treaty participation.Footnote ⁴² Rooted in the conflict between developed and developing countries, the interpretation of CBDR-RC has proved to be contentious:Footnote ⁴³ the lack of overall emissions reduction obligations and the reach of differentiation remained a controversial issue.Footnote ⁴⁴ The revision of CBDR-RC became urgent.Footnote ⁴⁵

2.3. Differentiation in the Post-Paris Scenario

In December 2015, the parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement. While it is still too early to assess its success, the Agreement provides a firmer foundation for international climate change governance and differentiation.Footnote ⁴⁶ The Paris Agreement abandons the binary approach to differentiation and instead promotes a hybrid approach.Footnote ⁴⁷ It establishes common core obligations: all parties need to keep global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius (^oC), and drive efforts even further to 1.5^oC.Footnote ⁴⁸ Nonetheless, self-differentiation fosters a distinction as to how to achieve this goal.Footnote ⁴⁹ While the top-down system of international rules promotes ambition and accountability, the bottom-up component allows for flexibility and wider participation.Footnote ⁵⁰

The categorical approach is replaced by self-differentiation according to a dynamic element that shifts national responsibilities according to a country’s social and economic development: the expression ‘in light of different national circumstances’ has become an element of CBDR-RC.Footnote ⁵¹ Within this context, parties submit NDCs. The procedural commitments for presenting NDCs are common to all parties, and countries are to move towards economy-wide absolute targets over time.Footnote ⁵² However, NDCs reflect individual national responses, including mitigation goals for the post-2020 period.Footnote ⁵³ Contributions are malleable and do not require any treaty amendment to take into account changing national circumstances.Footnote ⁵⁴ Responsibilities are considered on a continuous scale, recognizing differences within groups in addition to differences across groups.Footnote ⁵⁵

The self-differentiation model has advantages. By respecting national policy space, states are left in control. Without a coerced agreement, they can voluntarily develop their own interpretations of progressive ambition.Footnote ⁵⁶ The procedural obligations support international accountability and the publicity of national commitments. A strong transparency system ensures overall observance of commitments based on the international embarrassment of non-compliance.Footnote ⁵⁷ Finally, self-differentiation considers each party’s capabilities and maintains built-in flexibility for countries that need it, rather than for all developing countries as a class.Footnote ⁵⁸

The Paris Agreement and the NDCs have gone beyond the binary approach of Annex/non-Annex countries that characterized the Kyoto Protocol. However, the practical execution of differentiation is flawed and many elements still require further clarification.Footnote ⁵⁹ The Agreement gives no indication as to how CBDR-RC should be interpreted: for example, whether it should be invoked on an individual or a collective basis, or the balance that should be struck between forward-looking and backward-looking considerations of responsibility and capacity.Footnote ⁶⁰ The updating process of NDCs still needs to be fleshed out, along with the enhanced transparency framework.Footnote ⁶¹ In addition, the focus on capabilities may sidetrack the overall objective of emissions reductions. While the NDCs focus on capabilities, it is essential to understand responsibilities.

The self-differentiation system relies on a country’s sense of equity and responsibility. Since the past shows how quickly emissions can rise, it is important to consider future responsibility when establishing long-term commitments.Footnote ⁶² Apart from the self-differentiation promoted through the NDCs, there are no paths to determine the national circumstances of parties. The only clue comes from linking national circumstances with the status of countries as ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ countries. This uncertainty could potentially create a wide-open range of circumstances which may be used to justify differential treatment, thus maintaining the original concerns over the outdated binary division between Annex I and non-Annex I parties.Footnote ⁶³

Finally, self-differentiation presents challenges to global accountability. As a result of disaggregation, NDCs do not guarantee the sufficiency of overall response, even if every national goal is achieved. While contributions represent a shift from business-as-usual and current policies, aggregate emissions show that if parties do not enhance mitigation action until 2030 beyond that which was envisaged in their intended NDCs, there is no possibility of keeping global average temperature increase below 2^oC.Footnote ⁶⁴

3.1. South-South Cooperation

As parties established mitigation goals in their NDCs, several developing countries acknowledged the possibility of stricter emissions reduction goals if international aid were to be provided, either technically or financially. Conditional NDCs allow for more ambitious targets based on the UNFCCC’s core principle of cooperation.Footnote ⁶⁵ Cooperation traditionally takes the shape of aid from developed countries (Annex I, North) to developing countries (Annex II, South). Developing countries often compete for international development assistance from the North and oscillate between periods of competition and cooperation.Footnote ⁶⁶

Nonetheless, as resources were scarce, SSC has become a feasible alternative.Footnote ⁶⁷ Developing countries have started to share knowledge, skills, expertise and resources to meet their development goals through concentrated efforts. Recent developments in SSC take the form of increased volume of trade, foreign direct investment, movements towards regional integration, sharing of expertise and solutions, and other exchanges.Footnote ⁶⁸ SSC has an especially relevant role in climate mitigation technology transfer, through the diffusion of innovation systems and deployment of new technologies by emerging economies.Footnote ⁶⁹ Examples include technology cooperation agreements among and between developing countries, often in the context of capacity-building programmes or financial assistance.Footnote ⁷⁰

3.2. Regional Cooperation

SSC is most effective when states are in contiguous regions as they share similar problems and can more easily pool resources to solve them.Footnote ⁷¹ The prominence of regionally coordinated agreements in environmental protection, which expand cooperation through intergovernmental organizations in the South, suggests the increasing role of regions.Footnote ⁷² As environmental issues affect nations across borders and regionally, SSC facilitates the implementation of MEAs.Footnote ⁷³ Pre-existing regional groupings and networks may provide the best platform for enhanced national activities.Footnote ⁷⁴ The existence of an effective institutional framework, with decision-making mechanisms already in place, avoids the need for bilateral action and added bureaucracy.

A regional climate change partnership can bring together public, private and voluntary organizations at multiple levels to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change in an integrated way. The global level is essential for the discussion of solutions for global problems, but it has proved insufficient to halt climate change. Similarly, central governments understand priority areas for action and remain closer to the problem, thus making it easier to find immediate solutions, but they are unable to cope effectively on their own.Footnote ⁷⁵ Efforts at the regional level complement both local and global efforts.Footnote ⁷⁶

SSC can be useful as states shape their own environmental agendas and work towards harmonization and global governance regimes.Footnote ⁷⁷ Regional initiatives are essential in strategic planning and can coordinate the governance of shared resources, such as water and forests.Footnote ⁷⁸ Cooperation is especially relevant to sustain shared ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest.Footnote ⁷⁹ In addition, the regional level is well equipped to tackle transboundary harm such as climate change.Footnote ⁸⁰ Since the type of impact and the capacity to adapt varies across regions, solutions for common problems can be found within them.Footnote ⁸¹ Regional strategies can prove more effective than those on a global scale as countries within a region share historical, cultural, ethnic and geographical similarities.Footnote ⁸²

A coordinated regional approach to climate change can balance short-term economic pressures with long-term sustainable development.Footnote ⁸³ The regional level is well suited to manage trade-offs across a broad range of sectors, such as agriculture and energy, by paying particular attention to conflicting policies such as land-use and energy supply planning, water management, and fertilizer use.Footnote ⁸⁴ Regional agencies can shape strategies and improve regional performance while also looking at the economic risks of climate change impacts.Footnote ⁸⁵ This is especially relevant when dealing with the heterogeneity within regions. Regions manifest different patterns in level, growth, and composition of GHG emissions, underscoring disparities in socio-economic contexts, energy endowments, consumption patterns, development pathways, and other underlying drivers that influence GHG emissions, mitigation options and pathways.Footnote ⁸⁶ While promoting regional policies, it is essential to understand the distinctions between countries.

Through regional cooperation, countries can assist each other in complying with their international obligations under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Countries with more capacity, such as emerging economies, can lend capacity to their neighbours. As the geographic conditions are similar, it can be mutually beneficial to share technologies and policies developed in one country and replicate them in neighbouring states. For example, states can share expertise in local biodiversity, or in developing energy alternatives suited to the climatic conditions of the region.Footnote ⁸⁷

The effectiveness of transnational climate governance initiatives, however, is dependent on the disposition of members to actively engage in combating climate change, and go beyond the requirements of the UNFCCC. Indeed, more research is needed on the success or failure of regional cooperation mechanisms, including the impact of regional disparities, capacities and opportunities. This research could be useful in determining the suitability of regional mechanisms at different stages of development, economic and political ties, institutional and technical national capacities, and heterogeneity among participating countries.Footnote ⁸⁸

One of the main challenges of regional cooperation is finding equitable ways to share burdens and benefits. Countries may be unwilling to cooperate based on distrust or an asymmetric distribution of costs and benefits.Footnote ⁸⁹ For this reason, it is essential to apply differentiation and CBDR-RC at the regional level, ensuring that equity considerations are implemented. Instead of allowing less strict goals for developing countries, cooperation induces more efficient global emissions reduction,Footnote ⁹⁰ thus respecting national circumstances while also promoting overall benefit. SSC can promote actions that support capacity building, as well as knowledge and technology transfer complemented by investment rather than direct monetary transfers.Footnote ⁹¹ As new players in the global economy, emerging economies are at the core of the regional application of CBDR-RC.Footnote ⁹² With new developments in international cooperation, emerging economies assume an influential role as donors and assistance providers through SSC initiatives, especially at the regional level.Footnote ⁹³

While SSC operates within the G77, the group is heterogeneous and emerging economies stand out for their well-developed technical capacities. The differentiated position is the result of three factors, observed in comparison with neighbouring countries: (i) a greater responsibility for climate change caused by increased GHG emissions; (ii) better capacity to mitigate and adapt through the development of technical expertise; and (iii) improved national circumstances with better socio-economic conditions. These factors combined trigger stronger responsibility on the part of emerging economies in climate mitigation. It is argued that CBDR-RC should be applied regionally in this context, promoting differentiation between emerging economies and neighbours that have less capacity and responsibility for climate change. This is supported by the growing traction of the concept of CBDR-RC and the literature on the re-categorization of countries.Footnote ⁹⁴ The regional leadership of emerging economies should be implemented in two ways: (i) with economy-wide absolute emissions reduction targets, in light of their national circumstances; and (ii) through the assistance of neighbouring countries to achieve more ambitious mitigation goals through cooperation.Footnote ⁹⁵ While regional cooperation promotes differentiation, better results can be achieved through a regional leader; for example, France and Germany may be said to push regionalism forward in the EU.Footnote ⁹⁶ Indeed, a major critique of some schemes of regional integration is that they lack leadership. Emerging economies can fill this gap in developing countries.

3.3. Lessons from SSC: The Example of ASEAN

As a mega-diverse region, Southeast Asia faces several challenges in biodiversity conservation, forest management, and climate vulnerability. The region tackles common problems through cooperation and regional integration, with lessons that can be adapted to other regions with similar problems. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plays a significant role as a platform for the formulation of policies, sharing best practices, and cooperation among neighbours.Footnote ⁹⁷

The structure of ASEAN is an example to other regions as it embraces differentiation. Members agree on common measures and their implementation, but each country contributes according to its capabilities.Footnote ⁹⁸ The regional cooperation promotes a holistic approach to climate change at the multisectoral level, which enhances coordination mechanisms to synergize efforts across bodies and thematic issues. It therefore addresses, for example, environmental issues – particularly biodiversity conservation, forest fires and transboundary haze pollution – and agriculture, forestry, and economic growth, especially in terms of the allocation and trading of allowances, and new market opportunities for environmental goods and services.Footnote ⁹⁹

ASEAN’s experience suggests ways in which states can cooperate regionally to build stronger economies and robust rule-of-law cultures while also inducing environmentally sound practices.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ Environmental SSC is a priority, present in collaborations for regional heritage parks, the protection of wildlife such as sea turtles, and the facilitation of MEAs involving environmental authorities within each nation.Footnote ¹⁰¹

ASEAN has been actively present in climate negotiations, pushing forward its agenda and proactively leading efforts to address climate change issues in the region and beyond.Footnote ¹⁰² ASEAN representatives have attended almost every annual climate change summit, issuing declarations and statements articulating ASEAN’s concerns. Regionally, ASEAN has developed long-term strategies and climate change policies.Footnote ¹⁰³ The ASEAN Climate Change Initiative (ACCI), a consultative platform to strengthen regional coordination, undertakes concrete actions to respond to adverse impacts. In 2015, ASEAN countries adopted the Declaration on Institutionalizing the Resilience of ASEAN and Its Communities and Peoples to Disasters and Climate Change.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ The Declaration calls for members to accelerate investment in disaster risk reduction and adaptation, and builds on previous commitments, such as the ASEAN Community’s Post-2015 Vision,Footnote ¹⁰⁵ and the ASEAN Action Plan on Joint Response to Climate Change.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ ASEAN therefore actively addresses climate change through both a policy framework and a multisectoral framework.Footnote ¹⁰⁷

Indonesia is an example of a developing country in ASEAN which proactively advances climate mitigation nationally. Facing similar challenges in reducing deforestation as the Amazon countries, the Indonesian government sought the assistance of international donors to pursue mitigation initiatives, developed national and provincial climate change mitigation plans, and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) in a variety of sectors. Through domestic mitigation policies, Indonesia has accepted greater international responsibilities.Footnote ¹⁰⁸

3.4. Lessons from SSC: SICA and CCAD

Another example of regional cooperation for climate change can be found in Central America. Central America’s joint contribution to climate change totals approximately 0.5% of global GHG emissions, with the majority of emissions originating from land-use change and the use of petroleum for energy and transportation.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ However, the region is disproportionally affected by climate change as a result of its natural characteristics and geographic location. Central America has had to face recurring emergency situations with climate-related disasters.Footnote ¹¹⁰ In addition, high levels of poverty and deforestation worsen the conditions. Deforestation is the cause of 43.4% of GHG emissions and presents a high risk of losing 30% of carbon sinks by 2050.Footnote ¹¹¹

While countries have independently established national climate change policies, a regional approach was necessary to promote strategic planning and reduce vulnerability.Footnote ¹¹² Two regional entities are paramount in promoting regional integration. The Central American Integration System (SICA)Footnote ¹¹³ is a supranational organization composed of eight countries.Footnote ¹¹⁴ SICA promotes regional integration in several areas, including security, economic development, and environmental protection.Footnote ¹¹⁵ The Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD), formed by the Council of Environment Ministers of Central America, is a mechanism for harmonizing environmental policies, including climate change, based on a regional development model.Footnote ¹¹⁶

In 2010, CCAD and SICA developed a regional strategy for climate change (RSCC)Footnote ¹¹⁷ to address the threats and opportunities involving regional climate variability.Footnote ¹¹⁸ The strategy is complementary to national and local plans for adaptation and vulnerability reduction, and is used across institutions and sectors in each member country.Footnote ¹¹⁹ Through an Action Plan, the regional strategy indicates individual actions of mitigation and adaptation, and determines areas that could benefit from a collaborative approach. A combination of international treaties and regional policy instruments support the RSCC. Specific actions include, for example, the promotion of financial mechanisms to compensate environmental services from forest ecosystems in order to reduce emissions from deforestation.Footnote ¹²⁰

The region also recently developed a 2015–20 Framework Regional Environmental Strategy.Footnote ¹²¹ Mainstreaming the approach to mitigation and adaptation to climate change and risk management, including responsiveness in climatic phenomena, is a focus area.Footnote ¹²² The methodology includes an emphasis on desired results and actions, the participation of relevant stakeholders and strategic partners, and indicators to assess development.Footnote ¹²³ One of the main strategic actions is to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. To ensure proper implementation, the framework requires a governance scheme based on an intersectoral and multilevel dialogue at the regional, national, and local levels, to ensure full cooperation by the participating states and their corresponding agencies.Footnote ¹²⁴ Finally, a follow-up mechanism was developed to monitor and improve decision making.

Through a multitude of efforts and initiatives, Central America is becoming a leader in regional cooperation. While it is still too early to assess the practical consequences of regional integration, the region has taken initiatives to address its vulnerabilities rather than wait for countries with more responsibility for climate change to act on its behalf. In the examples provided, countries came together through their common vulnerabilities and SSC has efficiently promoted a regional approach to climate change.

4.1. Climate Change in the Amazon Rainforest

The Amazon rainforest is one of the world’s most powerful tools for tackling climate change through mitigation. Divided between eight countries, it has the capacity to absorb up to two billion tonnes of CO₂ per year – about 20% of the atmospheric carbon emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. It acts as a global repository of GHG and can thus help to regulate global climate patterns. As deforestation in the Amazon countries increases, this capacity diminishes. Amazonia can serve as a carbon sink only for as long as it absorbs more CO₂ than it releases. As such, the forest’s contribution to stabilizing global weather is at risk.

In addition, the rainforest is affected by climate change as it increases deforestation as a result of the greater likelihood of forest fires and droughts. Although 58% of the Amazon rainforest is currently too humid to induce fire activity, land-use change and climate change might increase its vulnerability, with the potential to reduce this rate to 37% by 2050.Footnote ¹²⁵ As global temperatures rise, the Amazon could enter into a potentially calamitous feedback loop. Warmer oceanic waters will dry out the basin, which in turn will release more carbon into the atmosphere. Warmer temperatures and a dryer forest will also increase forest fires, emitting more carbon.

It is estimated that 22,000 tonnes of CO₂ are emitted per square kilometre cut and burned. The entire Amazon, if completely cleared, would emit a total of 366 billion tonnes of CO₂, equalling ten years of global emissions. The release of even a portion would accelerate global warming significantly, with devastating consequences. Human-induced climate change, if left unchecked, may soon cause the Amazon to emit more carbon into the atmosphere than it absorbs. This was the case in 2005, when prolonged drought in the Amazon released close to one billion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

The 2013 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Footnote ¹²⁶ assessed that climate change poses a high risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure, and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in the Amazon forest, with major regional effects. Increased severe drought, land-use change and forest fire would cause much of the Amazon forest to become a less adapted ecosystem, increasing the threat to biodiversity while decreasing net carbon uptake from the atmosphere. In addition, changes in extreme flows in the Amazon River are predicted.Footnote ¹²⁷ The Report affirms all these projections with medium certainty.

This scenario is not as remote as one may think. The rainforest has already been deforested to around 17%–18%. The World Bank estimated that the ‘tipping point’ for the Amazon could be approximately 20% deforestation.Footnote ¹²⁸ The threat of a downward spiral calls for immediate and meaningful action to halt deforestation and climate change. Forests must play a key role in efforts to close the emissions gap, in terms of both addressing emissions from forests and repositioning them as global carbon sinks. The formal inclusion of forests in the Paris Agreement underscores the need for action.Footnote ¹²⁹ Protecting the Amazon basin is critical for our planet’s climate stability.

4.2. Regional Disparities in Amazonia

Eight countries share the Amazon rainforest, each with a different percentage of the forested territory. Brazil has the largest portion, with 68.6%.Footnote ¹³⁰ Countries share the same problem: deforestation. In general, all are considered developing countries. In practice, however, they are very different: each has its own industrialization level, socio-economic conditions, rates of forest loss, GHG emissions, policies towards climate change and deforestation.

Countries are, above all, economically diverse, ranging from the 8^th to the 172^nd economies in the world in terms of net gross domestic product (GDP).Footnote ¹³¹ As the eighth largest economy in the world, Brazil is by far the richest in the region. It is followed by Colombia (32), Venezuela (39), and Peru (48). Ecuador and Bolivia come next (66 and 94, respectively), still within the world’s 100 largest economies. Suriname and Guyana stand as the smallest, within the range of the world’s 150 to 200 largest economies (161 and 172, respectively). In terms of GDP per capita, only Peru, Suriname and Brazil rank higher than the main average for Latin America.Footnote ¹³² Colombia gets close.Footnote ¹³³ Venezuela and Ecuador come next,Footnote ¹³⁴ with Guyana and Bolivia ranking lowest.Footnote ¹³⁵ Brazil is an emerging economy, and the comparison with its neighbours shows a clear difference in economic development. Although the country currently faces political and economic challenges, it is a far more prominent player at the regional and global levels than its neighbours.

As a result of the rise of Brazil, it emits more GHGs and has larger rates of deforestation. Indeed, Brazil is the region’s top emitter, being the only country in the Amazon region to rank among the world’s top ten.Footnote ¹³⁶ Two countries rank among the world’s top 50 emitters: Colombia and Venezuela.Footnote ¹³⁷ In comparison, the other countries in the region have largely insignificant CO₂ emissions, all ranking below the top 50.Footnote ¹³⁸ It is undeniable that Brazil is, by far, the largest regional contributor to climate change. As a player of global proportions, Brazil should also take the lead regionally to mitigate climate change.

At the end of 2015, parties to the UNFCCC, including Amazon countries, submitted their intended NDCs. In terms of emissions reductions, Bolivia,Footnote ¹³⁹ Guyana,Footnote ¹⁴⁰ and SurinameFootnote ¹⁴¹ offered no specific target. At a first glance, BrazilFootnote ¹⁴² had the highest overall goal, pledging to reduce by 37% by 2025 and 43% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. Both ColombiaFootnote ¹⁴³ and PeruFootnote ¹⁴⁴ pledged to reduce overall GHG emissions by 20% by 2030, based on 2010 levels. Ecuador pledged to reduce overall GHG emissions by 20.4% to 25% by 2025, based on 2011 levels.Footnote ¹⁴⁵ Venezuela pledged to reduce overall GHG emissions by 20% by 2030, based on business as usual.Footnote ¹⁴⁶ Apart from Venezuela, all Amazon countries with reduction goals have committed to reductions from a base year as opposed to reductions based on projected emissions or per unit of GDP. This represents a major shift from earlier pledges since there is now an absolute emissions-reduction target regardless of future economic expansion.Footnote ¹⁴⁷ Countries also acknowledged the possibility of more stringent targets based upon technical and/or financial cooperation.Footnote ¹⁴⁸

Some Amazon countries have included forest cover in their NDCs, identifying the reduction of deforestation rates and reforestation efforts as strategies to promote mitigation. For example, Ecuador pledged to restore 500,000 hectares of forests up to 2017, followed by 100,000 hectares per year until 2025. The initiative will take place mostly in protected areas, which remain fundamental for promoting conservation. Ecuador also loosely pledged to reach zero deforestation, although no target year was included.Footnote ¹⁴⁹ Colombia affirmed its commitment to reduce deforestation and preserve ecosystems in the Amazon rainforest, although without setting specific targets.Footnote ¹⁵⁰ Peru plans to maximize the overall benefit of mitigation as a result of forest management, although no specific target was offered. Guyana did not offer specific targets, but the country has reinforced its commitment to forest preservation and, based on CBDR-RC, offered to ‘defer the pursuit of [its] historic natural resource exploitation-based economy, and offer [its] huge carbon stocks to the world, if, in return, [its] sustainable human development needs and the cost of deferring business as usual are met by financial support from the international community’.Footnote ¹⁵¹

4.3. The Role of Brazil

Brazil stands out as a unique example of a fast-growing developing country that relies on clean and renewable technologies to fuel economic growth.Footnote ¹⁵² Yet, the inability of consecutive governments to halt deforestation has been a source of criticism, and is the main reason for Brazil’s high emissions. Brazil’s success in reducing its share of GHG emissions depends largely on its ability to control deforestation.Footnote ¹⁵³ Prior to the Paris Agreement, Brazil showed a willingness to take on more responsibility for climate mitigation through domestic action. In 2008, Brazil enacted the National Climate Change PlanFootnote ¹⁵⁴ and the Sustainable Amazon Plan.Footnote ¹⁵⁵ These Plans pledged to reduce deforestation by 40% in the 2006–09 period, and 30% in each subsequent four-year period. At COP-15, Brazil offered a voluntary reduction of 80% deforestation by 2020, which would place the country as a leader in emissions reduction.Footnote ¹⁵⁶ In 2010, Brazil announced voluntary national targets for reducing GHG emissions between 36.1% and 38.9% by 2020, which were defined in the Brazilian National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC).Footnote ¹⁵⁷

As the first legally binding commitment to decarbonize the Brazilian economy, and one of the first pledges by a developing country, the bill showed that the country took commitments seriously.Footnote ¹⁵⁸ One of the main mitigation strategies was the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon.Footnote ¹⁵⁹ Indeed, Brazil reduced emissions by around 25% between 2005 and 2009, while maintaining a stable annual growth rate of 3.5%.Footnote ¹⁶⁰ Emissions from deforestation were reduced by 75% between 2004 and 2012.

The success in curbing deforestation rates encouraged the country to accept more stringent international commitments. Indeed, emerging economies started to accept a shift towards a global legally binding agreement, with the increased participation of developing countries, after an active and successful implementation of environmental policies, which reassured them that they could significantly reduce GHG emissions in line with globally accepted targets.Footnote ¹⁶¹ However, Brazil’s enthusiasm now seems to have run dry. Deforestation rates are again on the rise, and GHG emissions from the agriculture and energy sectors have increased.Footnote ¹⁶² Moreover, Brazil’s NDCs disguised previous commitments. A closer analysis of the pledges shows that many of its proposals did not bring anything new to the table. For example, Brazil committed to achieve a 45% share of renewables in its energy portfolio by 2030. According to its 2014 National Energy Balance,Footnote ¹⁶³ it already had 46% of renewables as primary sources of energy production in 2013. In addition, around 66% of Brazil’s renewable energy portfolio is hydropower, which is a controversial source as it induces deforestation, especially in the Amazon rainforest. Overall, Brazil has disappointed and has shown none of the leadership it seemed to embrace in the past.

One of the most promising aspects of Brazil’s NDCs relates to forest monitoring. The country pledged to enhance cooperation in the field with other developing countries, thus inducing knowledge sharing and SSC.Footnote ¹⁶⁴ However, Brazil pledged to restore 12 million hectares of forests, which is lower than the 20 million hectare pledge by 2036 set out in the Native Vegetation Protection Act.Footnote ¹⁶⁵ In addition, the commitment to eliminate deforestation by 2030 is actually a setback, as it had previously committed to zero illegal deforestation by 2015,Footnote ¹⁶⁶ a target it failed to meet.Footnote ¹⁶⁷

4.4. The Basis for Regional Cooperation in Amazonia: The ACTO

Because of the potential global consequences of deforestation for climate change and the chain effect it causes in the ecosystem, it is essential to develop a regional plan for cooperation. Although its existence is not well known, Amazonia has a regional body that works towards advancing regional cooperation in environmental protection and, more specifically, climate change: the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO). The ACTO was created in 1998Footnote ¹⁶⁸ as a development under the 1978 Amazon Cooperation Treaty (ACT).Footnote ¹⁶⁹ As an international organization, it ensures political and diplomatic coordination both among the Amazon countries regionally as well as with non-Amazonian countries globally. It strengthens dialogue between its members, with the common goal of protecting territories and promoting sustainable development.Footnote ¹⁷⁰ As a forum for cooperation, it ensures periodical meetings of high-level representatives to address common problems in the region. It encourages research and knowledge exchange to address regional issues. Strategically, it is a forum for regional analysis of the Amazon Basin and rainforest as a whole. As such, it improves decision making in social, economic and sustainable development.

As a regional environmental framework, it could be inferred that climate change is central to the ACTO agenda. However, the organization only recently made it a priority. In 2010, a new strategic agenda was developed to bestow the ACTO with a renewed role in cooperation towards new international challenges.Footnote ¹⁷¹ Climate change was one of the emerging themes to warrant proper coordination.Footnote ¹⁷² The strategy has an eight-year implementation period and includes actions in the short, medium and long term, such as evaluating the economy of the forests and the services it provides in order to develop climate mitigation projects.

As one of the first steps in enhancing the new agenda, the ACTO promoted an initiative in satellite monitoring for deforestation.Footnote ¹⁷³ The initiative develops and implements participatory systems of forest monitoring and strengthens the platform for regional coordination. It reproduces the methodology of satellite monitoring that has been successfully used by Brazil over the past years. Through several technical cooperation agreements, Brazil’s Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) shares knowledge and provides technical capacity to replicate the methodology in the remaining Amazon countries.Footnote ¹⁷⁴ In addition to placing monitoring rooms in each country, which provide countries with the technical skills required to gather information to combat deforestation, the initiative draws up regional deforestation maps. It is one of the ACTO’s key strategies to combat climate change at the regional level.Footnote ¹⁷⁵

The project deserves praise as it embraces several UNFCCC ideals. It enhances regional dialogue and information sharing, and promotes technology transfer using the system developed by the Brazilian government and replicating it in neighbouring countries. It also implements differentiation and CBDR-RC as Brazil acts as a ‘developed country’ in terms of becoming a regional leader. The regional scheme has functioned as a successful avenue for cooperation and a unique variant of SSC.

4.5. Next Steps

Unfortunately, the ACTO has not managed to build upon its satellite monitoring successes. It has remained an organization for sharing information and developing a few specific projects, but has seldom established strategic long-term policies that promote change regionally. The ACTO is used only occasionally as a vehicle to promote a shared vision for the Amazon rainforest in global climate negotiations.Footnote ¹⁷⁶ Based on the relevance of the region for climate change, the ACTO should act as a unified voice for Amazonia. In addition, it is essential to think strategically of a mitigation and adaptation plan that could promote the strengths of each country to benefit Amazonia as a whole. Brazil, as the region’s most developed country, should become a leader in this regard, building on the experience of technology transfer and implementing it in other areas of climate negotiations, such as mitigation strategies.

As the challenges assessed by the IPCC show, most of the projected impacts of climate change in the Amazon rainforest can be mitigated by curbing deforestation regionally. The region could benefit immensely from a strategic plan to fight deforestation which, in turn, would reflect in their respective pledges to curb emissions. Addressing forestry issues at the regional level is particularly important. It combines the ability to undertake land planning on a regional scale with an empirical knowledge of how to best address the complexities of specific local contexts and characteristics. Forestry policies encapsulate the competing dimensions of sustainable development as well as the potential trade-offs that mitigation options represent.Footnote ¹⁷⁷ In the case of afforestation, designating land that could otherwise be used for agriculture could jeopardize food security and increase food costs. Monoculture plantations can reduce biodiversity and induce vulnerability to disease, while the conversion of floodplains and wetlands may hamper ecological functions. Preventing deforestation can result in a loss of economic welfare for certain stakeholders (landowners, migrant workers) and reduced timber supplies may lead to fewer timber exports and an increase in the use of GHG-intensive construction materials.Footnote ¹⁷⁸ By considering competing interests from a regional perspective, countries could pool resources to find solutions for common problems.

The information provided by satellite monitoring is the first step in this regard. As the data is constantly updated, it is easy to pinpoint where deforestation occurs, almost on a real-time basis. This information, in turn, needs to be cross-checked with environmental permits and logging authorizations, and sent to enforcement agencies so that proper measures can be taken. Illegal logging could be curbed substantially through a coordinated approach and information sharing. The ACTO could have an enforcement role and help to coordinate resources, as countries in the Amazon region often lack the capacity to address threats immediately.

Amazon countries all have well developed laws to deal with illegal forest cutting. The problem is one of weak enforcement. Countries lack money, and sometimes the political will, to tackle the problem at hand. Forests are usually in remote areas without proper oversight, and government agencies have limited resources to ensure people on the ground. These neighbouring areas, however, all share the same problems, and could benefit from common policies and joining forces to fight illegal logging.

There is also an opportunity to gain from forest conservation through financial mechanisms such as REDD+.Footnote ¹⁷⁹ Indeed, biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest delivers immense ecosystem services to the entire world, especially in the form of carbon sinks and water. Regional cooperation could foster the development of market-based approaches in the region, which enable the region to benefit from ecosystem services and make regional conservation financially attractive. This type of strategic planning should be undertaken at the regional level, but investment is necessary to make it happen. Amazon countries could all pool the marginal benefits and divide the costs through mutually beneficial cooperation.Footnote ¹⁸⁰ While the countries with greater capacity, such as Brazil, could pay more, other neighbouring countries that would also benefit from the policies could contribute according to their capabilities, thus promoting differentiation at the regional level.