Backsliding is likely on Paris climate deal

Analysis

The COP21 summit in Paris concluded on December 12, delivering a global climate agreement, with approval by representatives of 196 countries.

Despite wide acclamation of the Paris agreement as "historic" by representatives of the negotiating parties, the climate accord's main achievement is the breadth of membership, rather than the stringency of its provisions.

Unlike the parties of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which accounted for about 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the countries approving the Paris agreement produce approximately 96% of emissions.

Warming targets

The main goal of the Paris accord was to limit the rise in global average temperatures to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels through 'nationally determined contributions' to this target.

A key diplomatic manoeuvre at the negotiations was the formation of the 'high ambition coalition' between activist developed economies and countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in the developing world.

This realignment was driven particularly by representatives of the small island states, such as Foreign Minister Tony de Brum of the Marshall Islands (see PACIFIC: Islands present Paris diplomatic challenge - October 29, 2015).

This coalition successfully secured inclusion of text calling for the parties of the agreement to "pursue efforts" to reach a lower target of a 1.5 degree rise.

However, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) has described the 1.5 degree warming target as "wishful thinking", as it would require a carbon-neutral planet by 2050.

According to Schellnhuber, the less-stringent 2 degree scenario would require net zero carbon emissions in 2070.

Analysis by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat determined that the pledges of 140+ countries -- including the largest emitters -- would likely result in a 2.7 degree rise, missing both targets laid out in the final agreement.

Reporting and enforcement

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which included measures to punish missed national commitments, the Paris agreement calls for a "transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive" implementation mechanism.

Developed countries are required to submit biennial reports on levels of financial support for developing economies. The text of the accord includes a non-binding call for these pledges to scale up with each new submission.

While it is politically feasible for a signatory country to defy this pledge and not follow through on its financial commitments, supporters of the accord, such as US Secretary of State John Kerry, assert that the transparency mechanism of the agreement acts as a less coercive means of promoting compliance.

The Paris climate pact can be considered a 'soft law' contribution to global climate governance, which seeks to change state behaviour through norm-building and consensus, rather than legal stringency and punishment.

Although this approach jeopardises coordination of international implementation efforts in the short-to-medium term, it commits the signatories to a minimal 'floor' of acknowledging the need to curb global emissions.

It is likely that there will be delays or shortfalls in the allocation of funding for developing countries, given the political difficulties of prioritising foreign aid over domestic spending in democratic electoral systems.

Developing countries

The Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009 failed in part due to the failure to secure support from developing countries for emissions reductions.

High emitters

One of the successes of the Paris accord is the participation of high-emission developing countries, particularly India and China.

The final text of the Paris agreement included the call for the 'differentiation' of common responsibilities on the basis of national capabilities and level of development.

Article 4 of the Paris accord grants flexibility for developing economies to reach peak emissions, which undermines the likelihood of either warming target being met.

China, the largest emitter by volume, has pledged that it would cap its emissions by 2030 (see CHINA/US: Deal sets stage for new climate regime - April 6, 2015). However, it has not specified in absolute numbers what this peak would be, which may contribute to further carbon-intensive development in the interim.

India set out a 2.5 trillion dollars financing target as part of its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to the emissions reduction target. However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is committed to a coal-reliant national energy policy, which is likely to make India the largest emitter by 2040 (see INDIA: Climate goals are conflicting and unrealistic - December 7, 2015).

Vulnerable states and islands

Smaller states vulnerable to climate change, particularly Pacific islands and food-insecure states in Africa and Asia, saw some inclusion of text in the Paris agreement acknowledging their special status.

However, the gradual and voluntary path to emission reductions mapped in the Paris accord will not preclude the adverse effects of desertification, food shortages and rising sea levels on their populations (see INTERNATIONAL: Sea-level rise to hit emerging nations - November 19, 2013).

The issue of compensation for climate-related 'loss and damage' was kept out of the agreement and was bundled into the broader portfolio of climate adaptation and mitigation. However, compensation may act as a potential wedge within the Paris 'high ambition coalition' of activist developed economies and vulnerable states at future climate summits, particularly once severe climate-related damage occurs (see PROSPECTS 2016: Global climate policy - November 27, 2015).

National backsliding potential

Given the reliance on voluntary national commitments and weak enforcement provisions, implementation of the Paris accord is highly vulnerable to domestic political meddling.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center noted stark partisan divides on attitudes toward climate change in many major Western economies, particularly in the United States, where the Republican Party is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama's climate agenda.

Once implementation efforts enter into the political cycle, it is likely that there will be some backsliding from the developed economies, whether on emissions cuts, technology transfers to developing countries or financial assistance.

This backsliding will provide justification for large developing economies to miss their emissions reductions targets under the post-Paris climate regime, given the emphasis on differentiated capabilities and responsibilities within the text.