Maximizing the Potential of the Paris Agreement: Effective Review of Action and Support in a Bottom-Up Regime

6 Pages Posted: 19 May 2016

See all articles by Harro van Asselt

Harro van Asselt

Stockholm Environment Institute; University of Eastern Finland

Thomas Hale

University of Oxford - Blavatnik School of Government

Meinhard Doelle

Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law; World Maritime University (WMU); Dalhousie University - Marine and Environmental Law Institute

Achala Abeysinghe

International Institute for Environment and Development

Manjana Milkoreit

Arizona State University (ASU)

Caroline Prolo

International Institute for Environment and Development

Bryce Rudyk

New York University (NYU) - Guarini Center on Environmental and Land Use Law

Date Written: May 17, 2016

Abstract

To succeed, the hybrid model of international climate policy embodied in the Paris Agreement requires countries to deliver their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to progressively increase collective and individual efforts over time. The effectiveness of this type of regime will require international review processes that provide robust information about countries’ efforts and trajectories and give substantial opportunities for state and non-state actor engagement with this information. The Paris Agreement creates three different review processes, but leaves critical details regarding each to future decisions: It provides for a review of implementation of individual NDCs under an “enhanced transparency framework”, comprising a technical expert review and multilateral consideration (Article 13). It puts in place a global stock take every five years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement (Article 14), preceded by a mitigation-focused facilitative dialogue in 2018. It establishes a mechanism to facilitate implementation and promote compliance through a committee that is expert-based, non- adversarial and non-punitive. (Article 15). It is essential for Parties to develop effective modalities, procedures and guidelines, as mandated by Decision 1/CP.21, for each of these processes. To this end, this discussion brief highlights essential considerations and potential options for each process.

Suggested Citation

van Asselt, Harro and Hale, Thomas and Doelle, Meinhard and Abeysinghe, Achala and Milkoreit, Manjana and Prolo, Caroline and Rudyk, Bryce, Maximizing the Potential of the Paris Agreement: Effective Review of Action and Support in a Bottom-Up Regime (May 17, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2781270 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2781270

Harro Van Asselt

Stockholm Environment Institute ( email )

Oxford
United Kingdom

University of Eastern Finland ( email )

PO Box 111
Joensuu, 80100
Finland

Thomas Hale (Contact Author)

University of Oxford - Blavatnik School of Government ( email )

10 Merton St
Oxford, Oxfordshire OX1 4JJ
United Kingdom

Meinhard Doelle

Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law ( email )

6061 University Avenue
6061 University Ave
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4H9
Canada

World Maritime University (WMU) ( email )

Fiskehamnsgatan 1
P. O. Box 500
Malmö, Skane 20124
Sweden

Dalhousie University - Marine and Environmental Law Institute ( email )

6061 University Avenue
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4H9
Canada

Achala Abeysinghe

International Institute for Environment and Development ( email )

London WC1H 0DD
United States

Manjana Milkoreit

Arizona State University (ASU) ( email )

Farmer Building 440G PO Box 872011
Tempe, AZ 85287
United States

Caroline Prolo

International Institute for Environment and Development ( email )

London WC1H 0DD
United States

Bryce Rudyk

New York University (NYU) - Guarini Center on Environmental and Land Use Law ( email )

139 MacDougal St.
Wilf Hall 312
New York, NY 10012
United States
(212) 992-8105 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
235
Abstract Views
887
rank
130,167
PlumX Metrics