XClose

Global Governance Institute

Home
Menu

Climate Governance after the Paris Agreement

25 January 2017

Hanna-Johara Dokal (MSc Global Governance and Ethics) on a GGI panel discussion with Lavanya Rajamani, Jacob Werksman, Frank Lecocq and Sharon Turner.

Arctic

The Paris Agreement is central to global climate change governance. Its principle aims are to learn from efforts such as the 2009 Copenhagen conference, to avoid the shortfalls of its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, and to strengthen the global response to climate change. In order to achieve these aims, the agreement differs from previous binding protocols and treaties as it is based on a hybrid model, combing top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Since the experimentalist and flexible design of the agreement is unique within the climate change arena, it embodies a new wave of 21st century governance. Many are keen to see it being effective at such a crucial stage in the earth's fight for survival, which was reflected by the full lecture theatre. David Coen of the UCL Global Governance Institute (GGI) opened the panel by introducing its members: Lavanya Rajamani, Jacob Werksman, Frank Lecocq, and Sharon Turner. Immediately addressing the very purpose of the Paris Agreement and what it has so far been most successful in achieving, Coen spoke of the GGI's aspirations to assemble and work with policy makers, lawyers, political scientists, practitioners, and climate change activists, amongst many other actors, to break out of silos and drive positive action forward.

In her talk, Lavanya Rajamani of the Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research (CPR), focused on the evolution and effectiveness of the international climate change regime and the various approaches that have been tested within the regime. Over the past decades, experimentation has been particularly dominant in three areas: 1) the legal bindingness of climate agreements; 2) the architecture of these instruments, i.e. the question of whether a top-down, a bottom-up or a combined approach should be adopted; and 3) differentiation, i.e. the question to which extent developed and developing countries should have the same or different obligations to act on climate change. Rajamani highlighted that the Paris Agreement represents a step change in all these areas, especially when compared to the Kyoto Protocol.

Will the Paris Agreement meet the objectives for which it was designed? Rajamani argued that it is too early to tell how effective the agreement will be. Mechanisms such as the Global Stocktake are still work in progress and successful implementation will depend on the depth of international commitment and engagement. As a result of tremendous political will and action the agreement came into force very quickly (on 4 November 2016), however, its objectives are yet to be met. So far, international efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions have been unsuccessful. In fact, emissions have steadily increased - at 2.2% per year in the first decade of the 21st century. According to Rajamani, one great achievement of the Paris Agreement is universal applicability: Nationally Determined Contributions - the climate pledges of individual states - account for 99% of emissions and 98% of the global population.

It is clear that, as currently envisaged, the agreement will not achieve the ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 2-degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and it still requires a lot of work, especially concerning issues of equity. The agreement may be a driver for political action, but it cannot compel countries to act. However, the hope is that growing political pressure will result in action. The Paris Agreement has created its own dynamics, it has changed attitudes, and it has been able to consider and accommodate a widespread range of interests; an achievement which might be especially relevant post-Trump and post-Brexit.

Jacob Werksman, who acted as the lead EU negotiator in Paris, also highlighted the experimental nature of the agreement and the positive political momentum it has created. He argued that it has acted as a catalyst for action on climate change under other agreements. Within one year of the formation of the Paris Agreement, two other important international agreements were concluded: the Kigali deal concerning eliminating hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) - an amendment to the 1987 Montreal Protocol - and an agreement to curb CO2 emissions from international aviation negotiated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). This suggests that one of the strongest assets of the Paris Agreement, which itself lacks binding enforcement measures, could be its ability to promote and support the conclusion of other, possibly more binding agreements.

The Paris Agreement has departed from the fundamental logic of Kyoto in which industrial countries take the lead. The Paris Agreement is more inclusive - every actor is responsible for climate action - but also more flexible. A similar model has been applied in the ICAO agreement and the Kigali deal, both of which recognise that countries have different needs and dependencies. For example, high ambient temperature countries face significantly greater challenges in phasing out HFCs. Middle Eastern countries, in particular, are heavily dependent on certain chemicals for air conditioning. Therefore, an exception was negotiated in Kigali, so these countries can wait to abide by the agreement until they find better, more sustainable ways to maintain their systems and economic growth.

Werksman acknowledged that this built-in flexibility makes the Paris Agreement, the Kigali deal on HFCs, and the ICAO aviation agreement not currently as effective and as ambitious as they could be. However, the fact that the Paris Agreement has acted as a catalyst for other agreements even in its infancy shows that a "political tipping point" has been reached: there is now a stage where we can gather 150 leaders and have them accept that climate change is real.

The next speaker on the panel, Franck Lecocq of the Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement (CIRED), focused his remarks on challenges related to the interpretation and implementation of the Paris Agreement. Lecocq stated that significant gaps remain between what countries have pledged in terms of reducing emissions and the reductions needed to achieve the key goal of the agreement: First stabilising and then reducing emissions rapidly in order to achieve zero net emissions by the second half of this century.

One key challenge that Lecocq fleshed out in his talk relates to the extent to which climate mitigation can be conducive or unconducive to addressing other economic, political and social issues such as empowerment, competition, and poverty alleviation. In France, he argued, the carbon tax failed because policy-makers and the government failed to address a whole host of other concerns. Emphasising the co-benefits of mitigation such as its positive effect on health, can help to harness opportunities, resulting in greater chances of climate policies being adopted.

Lecocq also stressed the need to pay attention to the potential losers of the net zero carbon goal, for instance, workers in the fossil fuel industry. In this context, he highlighted the rising popularity of the National Front Party in France, a party which has no climate change manifesto.

The panel concluded with Sharon Turner of the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Turner stressed the need for climate action proponents to strategically channel funding to front line organisations, especially those working on litigation. Her own organisation's primary focus is on funding work on climate change in Europe and building momentum towards delivering the Paris Agreement in Europe. The discussion, Turner argued, needs to shift from 'should we act?' to 'how should we act?', putting the focus on the quality of governance and what needs to happen to make the agreement real.

Turner emphasised the crystallisation of a global consensus on the core enabling conditions of a low-carbon transition provided by the Paris Agreement. As the Paris negotiations have demonstrated, government arrangements should have a clear destination - the net zero emissions 'landing point' - as well as mechanisms to review and intensify action. Equally important, Turner argued, is ensuring finance flows to low-carbon initiatives and mobilising action not just by states but by a constellation of different actors, including cities, regions and local communities.

However, what we do not currently have is a strong sense of the governance conditions that will enable a just low-carbon transition taking into account questions of both procedural and substantive justice. The Paris Agreement provides a useful 'toolkit' to enable societies to invest in deep decarbonation but whether this transition will surface in a timely way and whether it will include both winners and losers remains to be seen. In order to build sufficient public support on the domestic level, it is crucial that there is enough societal buy-in and ownership of the transition.

A number of states and sub-states, including Kenya, Mexico, the UK and California have developed domestic policies involving the tools provided by the Paris Agreement. Obviously, the question still remains: if those tools are well designed and embedded, what difference will they make?

Turner also addressed the unexpected election of Trump and what that means for the Paris Agreement and climate change governance as a whole. In the worst case scenario, if Trump chooses to move out of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), people will look to Europe for critical leadership, governance and governance innovation. Indeed, the EU has a unique set of frameworks to ensure that public money is flowing into low-carbon initiatives, so Europe could build momentum to ensure that the effects of the 'Paris toolkit' are seen on the ground.  However, Europe currently lacks a clear legal mitigation target and there are no stable mechanisms for 'ratcheting-up' goals and reviewing progress.

Ending on a positive note, Turner emphasised that Europe is blessed with legal frameworks that could be utilised to change market trends in the future. The rule of law is a key part of governance and a fundamental tool of accountability, according to Turner. Lawyers, she believes, will be key to guaranteeing the success of the Paris Agreement, for example, by exploiting constructive ambiguities in tax law. As Europe is currently underdeveloped regarding its number of climate change lawyers, one of the ECF's short term objectives is to build the capacity of this sector.

The entire panel provided a range of crucial insights. The Paris Agreement offers much to ponder, addressing issue areas that are essential to mitigating climate change and to ensuring the survival of the human species on spaceship Earth. The jury is out on its potential to deliver. Confirmation will be a painful waiting game.