Bodansky D (2016) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A New Hope? At J Int law 110:288-319. doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.110.2.0288 This article cannot indicate what would be the ideal “cashier” for adaptation in terms of consistency with the subtle differentiation in the Paris Agreement, especially because the Paris Agreement does not make it mandatory to report on adaptation in the NDCs. In addition, detailed reference values of countries` adjustment efforts and needs would be needed. Although emerging markets have the highest percentage (14%) of NDCs including measures, plans or strategies for all five sectors (see Figure 2), LDCs and SIDS are the most important for adjustment. The validity of the results is underscored by a similar caissation with regard to the mention of vulnerable sectors and climate risks in NDCs or the number of countries that include information on adaptation costs in their NDCs (see Pauw et al. 2016). Open Access This article is placed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows the use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any media or format, as long as you correctly indicate the original author(s) and source – a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if any changes have been made. Images or other third-party materials contained in this article are included in the Creative Commons license of the article, unless otherwise specified in a line of credit for the material. If the material is not included in the Creative Commons license of the article and your use is not permitted by law or exceeds the permitted use, you must obtain permission directly from the copyright owner. A copy of this license can be found at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This concerns the part of the Framework Convention itself, which recognizes the “common but differentiated” responsibilities between rich and poor countries, as well as the need to promote the sustainable management of natural carbon sinks, including biomass, forests and oceans, as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. It is reflected in the Paris Agreement, which recognizes “the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including the oceans, and the protection of biodiversity, recognized by some cultures such as Mother Earth, and recognizes the importance of some of the notions of `climate justice` in measures to combat climate change.” Results in climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building also appear to be on the table (see Figures 3 to 6).
While the break is clearly visible for requests for assistance, no cascade can be observed for promises of support. As in the case of adaptation, this article cannot dictate what an “ideal” cashier would be in terms of consistency with the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement. On the one hand, the Paris Agreement does not contain any indication that would justify such requirements. On the other hand, it is not within the scope of this article to present an expectation based on the extent to which requests and contributions for support in NDCs reflect existing support flows or country needs (see for example. B Betzold and Hamer (2017) and Klöck et al. (2018) for debates on climate finance allocation). Below we describe the cacade for assistance requests and, later, for the provision of assistance. To contribute to the objectives of the agreement, countries presented broad national climate change plans (national contributions, NDCs).
. . .