Missing in action: capacity and capacity building in the IPCC’s AR 6

Abstract Capacity building is recognized as one of three means of implementation (MOI) within the Paris Agreement, along with finance and technology. There is a good reason for this, namely that all aspects of climate action require multiple forms of capacity. In fact, it could be argued that capacity is foundational even to the other two MOIs as advancing both finance and technology requires a variety of capacities across multiple specific contexts. The Global Stocktake (GST) recognized the importance of capacity building for the achievement of the Paris Agreement and included its assessment within its evaluation of progress. However, unlike the other two MOIs, no chapter within the IPCC AR6 explicitly attempts to synthesize the state of knowledge about capacity or capacity building for climate action, and coverage of capacity remains scattered across the report. In this commentary we briefly reflect on the coverage of capacity and capacity building in the IPCC’s AR6 and develop some initial proposals for how knowledge about this key MOI could be better included in future assessment processes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Climatic Change
Published
2024-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03746-x
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.39
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Missing in action: capacity and capacity building in the IPCC’s AR 6

Ambuj Sagar, Sonja Klinsky
3 citations
Climatic Change
Climate Change Policy and Economics
3.39
article

Missing in action: capacity and capacity building in the IPCC’s AR 6

Ambuj Sagar, Sonja Klinsky
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract Capacity building is recognized as one of three means of implementation (MOI) within the Paris Agreement, along with finance and technology. There is a good reason for this, namely that all aspects of climate action require multiple forms of capacity. In fact, it could be argued that capacity is foundational even to the other two MOIs as advancing both finance and technology requires a variety of capacities across multiple specific contexts. The Global Stocktake (GST) recognized the importance of capacity building for the achievement of the Paris Agreement and included its assessment within its evaluation of progress. However, unlike the other two MOIs, no chapter within the IPCC AR6 explicitly attempts to synthesize the state of knowledge about capacity or capacity building for climate action, and coverage of capacity remains scattered across the report. In this commentary we briefly reflect on the coverage of capacity and capacity building in the IPCC’s AR6 and develop some initial proposals for how knowledge about this key MOI could be better included in future assessment processes.

Climatic ChangeVol. 177(8)
Arizona State University (US), Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IN)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
3.39
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Missing in action: capacity and capacity building in the IPCC’s AR 6 — Ambuj Sagar, Sonja Klinsky · Climatic Change (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS