Implementing the Paris Agreement

“Countries have been working on this since the early 1990s.”

For this column and subsequent installments of this series on climate change, I borrow in toto from a working paper that I co-authored with colleagues Yamide Dagnet, Katia Simeonova, Nathan Cogswell, Mima Holt, and Nate Warszawski of the World Resources Institute. The title of the paper is self-explanatory: “Toward more effective implementation of the Paris Agreement: Learning from 30 years of experience”.

We start by pointing at how, since the early 1990s, countries have been working together under the United Nations to develop a framework for international action on climate change. This cooperation resulted in rules, principles, institutions, and procedures to guide and support global action. Most notably, we observe, countries have adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and have focused on its implementation, including through two operational agreements: the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

We continue:

“As we enter this critical decade of action, many discussions and several other publications have begun to question whether the UN climate regime and its annual Conference of the Parties (COP) are fit for purpose.

“Over the past three decades, the multilateral climate negotiations have resulted in three major agreements: the UNFCCC (adopted 1992; entry into force 1994), the Kyoto Protocol (adopted 1997; entry into force 2005), and the Paris Agreement (adopted 2015; entry into force 2016). Since the entry into force of each treaty, Parties have focused attention on implementing the guidance pro- vided under each treaty. Implementation of the UNFCCC remains ongoing while implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is concluding.”

We highlight how treaty negotiations (of the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement) have drawn headlines and attention, even as governments have also invested significant effort into developing the supporting implementation architecture, i.e. bodies, working groups, the financial mechanism and its operating entities, and various processes established under the operational guidance of the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement. These were all established to advance climate action and fulfill treaty objectives.

We also observe that: “As new topics arise or gain attention in the UN climate regime, those topics often arise on the negotiating agenda and then find their way to be part of the implementation architecture. As such, the implementation architecture has grown, especially since COP16 in Cancun in 2010. The expansion of architecture is a manifestation of growing momentum for implementation as these bodies allow for in-depth and substantive discussions and action on specific issues, for example, adaptation, or technology transfer, compared to limited hours during negotiation sessions. A proliferation of new bodies may not be the answer to the implementation challenge. Conversely, the growth of the implementation architecture should not alone prevent Parties from identifying and considering new approaches or platforms for addressing gaps in the implementation architecture. Despite the historical focus on mitigation efforts, and platforms like the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action and the high-level climate champions, there is not a constituted body focused solely on the topic. Yet, expanding the implementation architecture may need to be carefully managed as this could likely require more resources. Some constituted bodies receive financial resources to produce analysis or hire external consultants (i.e., the Standing Committee on Finance) while other constituted bodies rely solely on the availability of staff support from the UN climate change secretariat and with pro bono support from nominated experts or government representatives.

We emphasize that: “The effective implementation of climate action toward

the Paris Agreement’s goals is likely to require a broader means of cooperation, such as collaboration with and action by other multilateral fora and organizations. While the UN climate regime remains central to international climate governance by providing a unique multilateral space for negotiations, its role in advancing implementation of climate action can be complemented by other institutions. A key question becomes how do those institutions intersect with the UN climate regime’s implementation architecture.”

These include the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization or the International Maritime Organization with regard to climate mitigation in international aviation and maritime transportation. We point out that: “Ultimately achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement will require collaboration and action, not just from the UN climate regime or from the UN system, but collectively from all emerging efforts.”

Our paper also highlights the Convention’s financial mechanism, with two operating entities: the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and in addition the Adaptation Fund. We observe that: “While operation of the GEF and GCF falls out-side of the UN climate regime, the UN climate regime provides guidance. Compared to other elements of the implementation architecture, such as constituted bodies and work programs, which operate solely within the UN climate regime, governance and operation of the financial mechanism’s operating entities also occur independently. And while the focus of the financial mechanism insup- porting Parties in taking domestic climate actions differs from other elements of the implementation architecture, the failure of developed countries to live up to their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 has eroded trust in the UN climate regime.”