Climate change and developing countries: from background actors to protagonists of climate negotiations

  • Giorgia SfornaEmail author
Original Paper


The role of developing countries in climate negotiations has been changing over time, evolving from spectators to main actors. Accordingly, this paper provides a descriptive analysis of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the formal documents containing mitigation and adaptation efforts voluntarily set by each country, submitted by developing countries. In particular, the purpose of the paper is to analyse the contents of NDCs moving from the regional analyses provided by most of literature to the examination of NDCs among countries that are similar and that might share common negotiating positions. The analysis of the documents focuses on both mitigation and adaptation actions, together with an evaluation of the financial efforts required. From the descriptive analysis, specific needs and priorities emerge, as well as the need for external support in the form of technology transfer, capacity-building and financial support. In this respect, the analysis identifies a gap between supply and demand for climate funding. Trying to fill this gap would represent one of the main challenges in future.


Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) Climate negotiations Developing countries 

JEL Classification

O13 Q54 Q56 



  1. Antimiani, A., Costantini, V., Markandya, A., Paglialunga, E., & Sforna, G. (2017). The Green Climate Fund as an effective compensatory mechanism in global climate negotiations. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, E., Hultman, N., Timmons, R. J., Corbera, E., Cole, J., Bozmoski, A., et al. (2009). Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: Lessons learned and policy futures. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 820–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brent, A. C., Heuberger, R., & Manzini, D. (2005). Evaluating projects that are potentially eligible for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) funding in the South African context: A case study to establish weighting values for sustainable development criteria. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 631–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunnée, J., & Streck, C. (2013). The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: Towards common but more differentiated responsibilities. Climate Policy, 13(5), 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantore, N., Peskett, L., te Velde, D. W. (2009). Climate negotiations and development: How can low-income countries gain from a Climate Negotiation Framework Agreement?, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), working paper 312.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, S., Ellinger, P., & Widerberg, O. (2018). Exploring national and regional orchestration of non-state action for a <1.5 °C world. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costantini, V., & Sforna, G. (2014). Do bilateral trade relationships influence the distribution of CDM projects? Climate Policy, 14(5), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costantini, V., Sforna, G., & Zoli, M. (2016). Interpreting bargaining strategies of developing countries in climate negotiations. A quantitative approach. Ecological Economics, 121, 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dechezleprêtre, A., Glachant, M., & Ménière, Y. (2008). The Clean Development Mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: An empirical study. Energy Policy, 36(4), 1273–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GCF. (2018). Seventh report of the Green Climate Fund to the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. GCF/B.20/15. 8 June 2018.Google Scholar
  11. Hale, T. (2016). ‘‘All hands on deck’’: The Paris agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermwille, L. (2018). Making initiatives resonate: How can non-state initiatives advance national contributions under the UNFCCC? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(3), 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurrell, A., & Sengupta, S. (2012). Emerging powers, north–south relations and global climate politics. International Affairs, 88(3), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC. (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. Tranton, I. Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D. J. Griggs, & B. A. Callander (Eds.), Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Bracknell: Meteorological Office.Google Scholar
  15. Jung, M. (2006). Host country attractiveness for CDM non-sink projects. Energy Policy, 34(15), 2173–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morseletto, P., Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Governing by targets: reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(5), 655–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy, K., Kirkman, G. A., Seres, S., & Haites, E. (2015). Technology transfer in the CDM: An updated analysis. Climate Policy, 15(1), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nieto, J., Carpintero, Ó., & Miguel, L. J. (2018). Less than 2 °C? An economic-environmental evaluation of the Paris agreement. Ecological Economics, 146, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olsen, K. H. (2007). The Clean Development Mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: A review of the literature. Climatic Change, 84, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ott, H. E., Sterk, W., & Watanabe, R. (2008). The Bali roadmap: New horizons for global climate policy. Climate Policy, 8(1), 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sutter, C., & Parreño, J. C. (2007). Does the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects. Climatic Change, 84, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. UNFCCC. (1992). United nations framework convention on climate change.Google Scholar
  23. UNFCCC. (2001). Report of the conference of the parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001, Decision 27/CP.7.Google Scholar
  24. UNFCCC. (2009). Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009, Decision 2/CP.15.Google Scholar
  25. UNFCCC. (2010). Report of the conference of the parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, Decision 1/CP.16.Google Scholar
  26. UNFCCC. (2011). Report of the conference of the parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011, Decision 3/CP.17.Google Scholar
  27. UNFCCC. (2013). Report of the conference of the parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013, Decision 2/CP.19.Google Scholar
  28. UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L. 9/Rev. 1.Google Scholar
  29. United States Agency for International Development-USAID. (2016). Analysis of intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs).Google Scholar
  30. University of Notre Dame. (2013). Global adaptation index. Detailed methodology report.Google Scholar
  31. Wang, H., & Firestone, J. (2010). The analysis of country-to-country CDM permit trading using the gravity model in international trade. Energy for Sustainable Development, 14, 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winkelman, A. G., & Moore, M. R. (2011). Explaining the differential distribution of Clean Development Mechanism projects across host countries. Energy Policy, 39, 1132–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsRoma Tre UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations