Bridging Interest, Classification and Technology Gaps in the Climate Change Regime

This research postulates that this credibility gap is based on three other types of gaps:

1. an interest gap; referring to the coalitions in the regime
2. a classification gap; referring to the way countries are classified into different groups with different responsibilities
3. a technology gap; referring to the gap between developed and developing countries in relation to technology used

The research therefore focuses on the following questions:

• Is it possible to reduce the risk of horizontal negotiation deadlock by analysing the existing coalitions and their relevance to the negotiation process, and thereby making recommendations for new coalition formation?
• Is it possible to reduce the risk of the horizontal negotiation deadlock by developing 'graduation profiles' or 'dynamic classifications' of countries so that a clear, fair and predictable system of policies and targets can become applicable in order to address the long-term problem of climate change, and -if so- how can this be achieved?
• Is it possible to reduce the risk of a 'vertical standstill' in developing countries by enhancing the application of climate technologies and practices in their socio-economic development processes, and - if so - how can this be done taking into consideration differences between developing countries? What international collaboration strategies can be developed to enhance the participation and the implementation of the Climate Convention by developing countries?