1.6 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pledge and review | 3/3 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_and_review | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T07:18:57.646150+00:00 | kb-cron |
== Criticism == In the early 1990s, the pledge-and-review system was heavily criticised by environmental groups; for example, Climate Action Network labelled it "hedge and retreat". It has also been criticised by academics, especially after the system was revived at Copenhagen with some calling it "scientifically inadequate" or "second best". However, other academics described pledge-and-review as an "essential pillar for climate change mitigation". A survey of participants at the 2011 Durban summit found that the biggest concern over pledge-and-review was the gap between what has been pledged and the level of action needed to meet the 2 degree target (limiting global warming to only 2 °C above pre industrial temperatures.). Participants were least concerned about the voluntary nature of the pledges, suggesting that a system that lacked legally binding commitments could still have international legitimacy. Comparing NGOs with actual negotiators, the study found that in the case of Annex 1 NGOs, they were much more critical of pledge-and-review than negotiators from Annex 1 nations. Whereas with non Annex nations (mostly those in the global south), the opposite pattern emerged. Non annex NGOs were less critical about pledge-and-review compared to non Annex negotiators. Economic analyses of pledge-and-review bargaining suggests that the procedure can explain the successful development from Kyoto to Paris.
== Notes ==
== Citations ==