Paris Agreement

Question 1

Pledge and Review Model - Leadup to Paris

Answer 1

• initially developed at Copenhagen Summit (drama- largely done in secret meetings)

Gained acceptance in leadup to Paris:
1- Parties would commit to deeper emissions reductions in non-binding format
-> concept of lower, binding targets among some countries vs. more ambitious, non-binding targets by a larger number of countries
2- most observers recognized US likely unable to ratify any binding treaty
->Obama Admin allowed binding Exec Agreement, so long as interpretive of a duly ratified treaty + didn’t create new, substantive commitments (could avoid Senate ratification only if new mitigation commitments non-binding)
3 - Kyoto implementation highlighted shortcomings of formal enforcement + sanctions as strategies for gaining compliance of binding targets (had clear commitments + enforcement mechanism, but Canada went essentially unsanctioned) -> why compromise to get binding commitments if they can’t be enforced?

Question 2

US - China Agreement

Answer 2

• summer before Paris
• bilateral agreement pledging climate goals
  (US reduce emissions 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025 + China peak emissions at 2030)
• mere fact of agreement from two largest contributors built momentum
• China’s involvement suggested bottom-up approach could garner significant participation for mitigation efforts by large developing countries

Question 3

Paris Agreement - Basics

Answer 3

• adopted under UNFCCC
• consensus declared Dec 2015, + entered into force Nov 2016
• sets out framework for global response to climate change w/ participation of all countries
• binding in form but mitigation commitments (NDCs) not mandatory in terms of levels

Question 4

Core Elements of the Paris Agreement

Answer 4

• Several shared long-term goals, including stabilizing avg global temp increase at 2 degrees C + achieving no net GHG emissions by 2050
• Goals to be achieved through successive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – revised every 5 yrs, each more ambitious than previous
• “Enhanced Transparency Framework” – designed to harmonize reporting + monitoring so progress in implementing NDCs can be tracked across all countries
• “Global Stock Takes” – review overall progress towards long-term goals in effort to guide next round of NDCs
• Ratcheting process intended to strengthen actions over time

Question 5

Paris Agreement- Temperature Goal

Answer 5

• first endorsed at Copenhagen as 2 degree C over pre-industrial levels (temp thought to give world reasonable chance of avoiding DAI)
• BUT 2 degrees hotly debated at the time, + debate continued in Paris -> Parties agreed in Article 2 to hold temp increase well below 2 degree C while pursuing efforts to limit to 1.5 degrees
• agreed to revisit temp goal in 2018 – IPCC would compile report in meantime re impacts of 1.5 degrees -> report wound up strongly demonstrating importance of limiting increase to less than 1.5 (BUT no consensus on official switch, even though majority of Parties agree 2 too high)

Question 6

Paris Agreement - Mid-Term Goals

Answer 6

• Global peak of GHG emissions “as soon as possible” + long-term goal of zero net emissions sometimes after 2050
• Also invited to submit “mid-century, long-term low GHG development strategies” by 2020

Question 7

Nationally Determined Commitments

Answer 7

• Profound shift towards bottom-up, pledge-and-review approach – each country unilaterally announces own commitment based on own special situation
• Not binding, but harmonized to some extent by agreed substantive guidelines + strengthened by common rules for transparency, monitoring, review, + verification
• advantages of bottom-up: politically more feasible + action-oriented

Question 8

Stock-Taking - General Concept

Answer 8

• Parties recognized initial NDCs not sufficient to meet long-term temp + mitigation goals but steps to address “ambition gap” proved to be among most difficult in Paris
• agreed to “stock-taking” + “ratcheting” the NDC + further agreed to regular reviews of NDCs + to communicate “successive, nationally determined contributions” every five years

Question 9

Paris Agreement - Common But Differentiated Responsibility

Answer 9

• there was some q of whether should treat all developing countries the same, but Paris wound up continuing the basic UNFCCC binary
• Developed countries expected to “continue taking the lead” w/ “economy wide absolute emission reduction targets”
• Developing countries required only to adopt enhanced mitigation commitments of some sort

Question 10

Ambition Gap

Answer 10

• gap between what is pledged + what is scientifically necessary to have a chance of meeting UNFCCC objectives
• Paris recognized this as an issue, but anticipated more ambitious commitments over time (would mirror overall trajectory of Montreal Protocol)
• even though near universal participation in Paris, clearly insufficient to put world on track to meet 2 degree goal, let alone 1.5

Question 11

Variation Among NDCs

Answer 11

• Depends on different capacities, wealth, + emissions profile of various countries
• Annex I required to have national economy-wide goals
• Non-Annex I countries not required to do so, but some did
  ->Most chose from wide variety of targets, policies + measures, including emissions intensity targets for the economy, goals for renewable energy, + sector-specific policies
• Some low emission countries emphasized adaptation over mitigation

Question 12

Paris Agreement - Article 2

Answer 12

• contains overall goals -> three components - holding temp “well below” 2 degrees (+ trying for 1.5), increasing adaptation + climate resilience w/o threatening food production; + making finance flows consistent w/ pathway towards low GHG emissions + climate-resilient development

“This Agreement…aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:

(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2oC above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

Question 13

Paris Agreement - Article 3

Answer 13

• bridging mechanism between Article 2 + rest of the agreement
• going into a bit more of the strategy this Agreement is pursuing in achieving it’s particular goals -> NDCs, progression over time, + need to support developing countries

“As nationally determined contributions to the global response to climate change, all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts as defined in Articles 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13 with a view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement as set out in Article 2. The efforts of all Parties will represent a progression over time, while recognizing the need to support developing country Parties for the effective implementation of this Agreement.”

Question 14

Paris Agreement - Article 4

Answer 14

• goes into the more specific commitments of the Parties

Question 15

Paris Agreement - Article 4.1

Answer 15

• still a bit broader than some of the subsequent commitments - “aim to” “reach global peaking” of GHG emissions ASAP + “rapid reductions” thereafter, for net zero by middle of the century

“In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

Question 16

Paris Agreement - Article 4.2

Answer 16

• contains the commitment to “prepare, communicate, + maintain” NDCs
• uses “shall” -> no modifiers - deferential to the states to the extent it allows them to determine their own things, but they all take on the commitment
• also commitment to “pursue domestic mitigation measures” (obligation to pursue some kind of action towards mitigation)
• need to have some kind of program aligned with the goals, but you get control over what it is

“Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.”

Question 17

Paris Agreement - Article 4.3

Answer 17

• generally captures concept that the NDCs are supposed to be ambitious + need to progress (each more ambitious than the last)
• some q as to whether binding - does use the term “will” (although NDCs provide so much flexibility that substantive import unclear)
• recognizes common but differentiated responsibility

“Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.”

Question 18

Paris Agreement - Pros and Cons vs. Kyoto

Answer 18

• broader participation at Paris
• potentially harder to compare between countries though + figure out what is actually required, given that each party is setting its own commitments
• concept that there ARE binding commitments in Paris (NDCs, global stock-taking - we might not think they’re strong enough + they might not be as strong as Kyoto, but they do exist)

Question 19

To what extent is letting the parties set their own commitments necessary?

Answer 19

• Flexibility – parties know their own needs + what will aid them in moving towards reducing emissions
• could make the argument that there’s no point in setting levels for everyone if particular states don’t have the capacity to meet it
• real concern about the self-setting mechanisms, but it is in the context of int agreement, with different levels of capacity + willingness
• Importance of int community thinking about capacity-building + info flows – one thing to think about assessments, but also need to get countries there

Question 20

Paris Agreement - Article 4.4

Answer 20

• captures the common but differentiated responsibilities aspect of the Paris Agreement

“Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.”

Question 21

Paris Agreement - Article 4.5

Answer 21

• contains promise of support to developing countries
• tension embedded in the text - concept that support isn’t contingent on parties making ambitious commitments, but it is indirectly hinted at
• also interesting that it uses the passive voice

“Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.”

Question 22

Paris Agreement - Article 4.9

Answer 22

• SHALL communicate NDCs every 5 yrs
• SHALL be informed by outcomes of global stock-taking
  -> Parties do arguably have a commitment to up their NDCs when the global stock-taking says they’re not doing enough, but tricky b/c the NDCs are so flexible to begin with

“Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years in accordance with decision 1/CP21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14.”

Question 23

Paris Agreement - Article 4.12

Answer 23

• just saying the NDCs need to be recorded in public registry

“Nationally determined contributions communicated by Parties shall be recorded in a public registry maintained by the secretariat.”

Question 24

Paris Agreement - Article 4.13

Answer 24

• requires parties to account for NDCs + emphasizes things like transparency, accuracy, avoiding double counting
• concept that this coupled with 4.12 provides for ways for civil society + other states to participate (having everyone invested potentially helps incentivize cooperation)

“Parties shall account for their nationally determined contributions…shall promote environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency, and ensure the avoidance of double counting”

Question 25

Paris Agreement - Article 4.19

Answer 25

• Prof highlighted this as a softer commitment

“All Parties should strive to formulate and communicate long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies, mindful of Article 2 taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances”

Question 26

Paris Agreement - Article 14

Answer 26

• global stock-taking
• role of the COP in moving things forward in an ambitious manner
• requires the Parties to periodically assess progress, but also to adjust their NDCs based on that progress

“1. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement shall periodically take stock of the implementation of this Agreement to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of this Agreement and its long-term goals (referred to as the “global stocktake”). It shall do so in a comprehensive and facilitative manner, considering mitigation, adaptation and the means of implementation and support, and in the light of equity and the best available science.

2. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement shall undertake its first global stocktake in 2023 and every five years thereafter unless otherwise decided by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.
3. The outcome of the global stocktake shall inform Parties in updating and enhancing, in a nationally determined manner, their actions and support in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Agreement, as well as in enhancing international cooperation for climate action.”

Question 27

Paris Agreement - Article 6

Answer 27

Contains the three flexibility measures:
- 6.1-6.2 = somewhat equivalent of joint implementation/bubble (countries voluntarily cooperating)
- 6.4 - somewhat equivalent of CDM
- 6.8 - trying to emphasize cooperation beyond market mechanisms

Prof said these generally need to be built out a bit more

Question 28

Paris Agreement - Article 6.4

Answer 28

• generally, kind of an emissions trading or offset system - similar to CDM, except not restricted to interactions between particular countries
• 6.5 prevents double-counting
• individual NDCs serve as the caps

“A mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development is hereby established under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement for use by Parties on a voluntary basis. It shall be supervised by a body designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, and shall aim:

(a) To promote the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions while fostering sustainable development;
(b) To incentivize and facilitate participation in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by public and private entities authorized by a Party;
(c) To contribute to the reduction of emission levels in the host Party, which will benefit from mitigation activities resulting in emission reductions that can also be used by another Party to fulfil its nationally determined contribution; and
(d) To deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions.”

Question 29

Paris Agreement - Article 6.2

Answer 29

• essentially, some concept here of cooperation among countries in determining NDCs, but similar vagueness issues
• vagueness in part intentional form of deference (COP28 basically said no rules b/c want flexibility, though this seems a bit odd given 6.4 seems to have comparatively more intense accounting reqs)

“Parties shall, where engaging on a voluntary basis in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards nationally determined contributions, promote sustainable development and ensure environmental integrity and transparency, including in governance, and shall apply robust accounting to ensure, inter alia, the avoidance of double counting, consistent with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.”

Question 30

Paris Agreement - Article 6.8

Answer 30

• emphasizes non-market approaches
• Trying to get at concept that there are other ways to have cooperation on sustainable development beyond market mechanisms – explicit statement that you can look at other ways to contribute to these goals
• BUT pretty vague

“Parties recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to Parties to assist in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions, in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, in a coordinated and effective manner, including through, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, as appropriate. These approaches shall aim to:
(a) Promote mitigation and adaptation ambition;
(b) Enhance public and private sector participation in the implementation of nationally determined contributions; and
(c) Enable opportunities for coordination across instruments and relevant institutional arrangements.”

Question 31

Enhanced Transparency Framework

Answer 31

• Article 13 of Paris Agreement
• requires all parties to report on mitigation + adaptation actions + Annex I Parties to report on financial + tech support they provided

Question 32

Components of Enhanced Transparency Framework

Answer 32

1) Biennial Transparency Reports
2) Technical Expert Reviews
3) Facilitative Multilateral Consideration of Progress

Question 33

Paris Agreement - Article 13

Answer 33

• Prof emphasized two aspects- transparency of action and transparency of support

“In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation, an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established”

Question 34

ETF - Biennial Transparency Reports

Answer 34

• Must be submitted by all Parties beginning in 2024

Expected to include:
- National inventory report of anthropogenic emissions by sources + removals by sinks of GHGs, prepared using good practice methodologies accepted by IPCC + agree by COP
- Info necessary to track progress made in implementing + achieving NDCs
- Info related to climate change impacts + adaptation under Article 7
- Info from developed country Parties on financial, tech transfer, + capacity-building support needed + received
- Info from developing country Parties re any capacity constraints or flexibility they need w/ regard to meeting transparency requirements

Question 35

ETF - Biennial Transparency Reports - Purpose

Answer 35

Designed to inform 5-yr global stocktakes by providing clear understanding of:
1) progress toward achieving NDCs + of adaptation actions, including identifying “good practices, priorities, needs and gaps”
2) financial + tech support provided + received by indiv Parties

Question 36

ETF - Technical Expert Reviews

Answer 36

• Parties’ reports on implementation + achievement of NDC as well as on financial support provided are subject to “technical expert review”
• details set out in Katowice Climate Package (2019)

Question 37

Components of Technical Expert Review

Answer 37

Review generally consists of review of 5 factors:
- consistency of info submitted
- consideration of Party’s implementation + achievement of its NDC
- consideration of Party’s support provided
- identification of areas for improvement
- for developing countries that may need it assistance in identifying capacity-building needs

Question 38

Things TER NOT Supposed to Review

Answer 38

• notes elements reflecting lack of judgment (says facilitative, non-intrusive + respectful of nat sov,)

Shall not:
- make political judgments
- review the adequacy or appropriateness of a party’s NDC
- review the adequacy of a party’s domestic actions
- review the adequacy of a party’s support provided

Question 39

Technical Expert Reviews - Pros

Answer 39

• reporting reqs – allow you to eval what states are doing to get to the NDCs
• arguably appropriate to nature of the agreement - emphasizing procedural obligations + transparency
• transparency + monitoring IS critical to env regimes
• countries might be reluctant to raise their hands + ask for assistance, vs. having everyone do this means less of a stigma
• reporting, transparency -> shared information, form of indirect capacity-building

Question 40

ETF - Comparison to Ozone

Answer 40

• soft form of non-compliance regime
• reputation
• not the same teeth as the ozone regime though - no sanction mechanism
• different triggers for review (required for all under Paris, vs. needs to be triggered in ozone)

Question 41

ETF - Role of Technical Experts

Answer 41

• cabining of authority - could be problematic to the extent they lack clout, but also potential positive that they’re independent (not politicizing review)
• interaction between technical experts + countries themselves – there may be some states that don’t have as much access to experts in the given fields
• training gives opportunity for experts to develop from wide range of countries (broad way in which system can build capacity + expertise)

Question 42

Technical Expert Review - Cons

Answer 42

• some q as to what that leaves room for them to review – mostly wind up with analysis of whether parties are accurately reporting, aim is to wind up w/ a full assessment of the emissions, numbers aren’t coming from nowhere
• risk of system that has purely procedural obligations (compliance for compliance’s sake) + doesn’t adequately take account of the substantive goals (mitigation, equity, sustainable development)