ASSESSING PARIS AGREEMENT'S BOTTOM-UP APPROACH IN CLIMATE REGIME

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 1

By (Name)

ELS 501 - Environmental Life Sciences: Grand Challenge: Global Climate Change

ASU

September 13, 2023

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 2

Introduction

The world faces an urgent threat posed by the immediate consequences of climate

change, which calls for planetary collective action. The level of carbon dioxide and methane

emissions has exceeded the 1°C level before the industrial era, which triggered the 1.1°C

elevation of the world temperature.

This is what causes the avalanche of events like ice melting,

sea level rising, and the increase in incidence of extreme climate change such as droughts,

floods, and ecosystem destruction, which try to undermine the integrity of biodiversity, food, and

water supplies. Nevertheless, it took years of engagement in the joint struggle against climate

change through initiatives like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) until we were able to gain some progress, and only thanks to the functional

improvements in the Kyoto Protocol was the second commitment period (2008–2012) not a

failure.

Apart from the problem of differences in NDC requirements laid upon developed and

developing countries, this is another hurdle for successful climate action, as concerns such as the

equitable distribution of economic power and the need to satisfy industrialization requirements

complicate negotiations. Topping the prejudices of the regulatory systems that are top-down, the

2015 Paris Agreement has opted for a bottom-up approach that is based on national

commitments.

This paper is an evaluation of this method to see whether it is a good way to

promote alignment and solve a different point of view in a multilevel climate regime that has the

Change, I. P. O. C. "Climate change 2007: The physical science basis." Agenda 6, no. 07

(2007): 333.

Iyer, Monica, and Kerilyn Schewel. "Articulating and Claiming the Right to Stay in the Context

of Climate Change." Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Forthcoming (2024).

IBID 333

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 3

ability to reduce emissions drastically, facilitate adaptation, and build resilience to climate

change.

Overview of Previous Top-Down Approaches

The international climate change negotiations have seen their models evolve. The start of

the process was built on a top-down approach, centralized decisions, and relied on principles like

“common but differentiated responsibilities” that were put out in the first Conference of Parties

agreement in 1992.

This way of looking at the issue involved the understanding that although all

countries must cooperate to deal with the global threat, developed countries has more

responsibilities than others due to their historical role in accumulating most greenhouse gas

emissions as well as their higher costs to pay with more financial resources and well-established

institutional systems. The subsequent pact that became known as the Kyoto Protocol was

ultimately a product of this framework and binded legally most developed countries to

cooperatively reduce 5% emissions from a baseline of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

The

targets were discussed and assigned through the protracted levels at the international institution

with the differentiated allocation of the targets listed in the annexes.

Compliance mechanisms in

place were the suggested sanctions, like financial penalties for those who did not wish to

participate. Within this context, the Protocols exclusion of key countries like the United States

and China was a key factor in their environmental impact.

While rich countries had already taken steps towards actual carbon emissions reductions

since the 1990s, poor countries were, at that time, exempted from quantitative emissions

Putra, Andika. "The Role of International Human Rights Law in Fights Against Climate

Change." Jurnal Media Hukum 28, no. 2 (2021): 153-164.

IBID 158

IBID 163

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 4

reduction commitments, following the rules of "common but differentiated responsibilities and

respective capabilities." The setting up of oversight mechanisms and initiatives such as the

"Clean Development Mechanism" was designed to promote sustainable practices and emissions

mitigation activities in developing countries.

In fact, the Kyoto architecture, which insisted on

100% consent from the countries that had been parties to the convention, considerably hindered

the pace of progress. Powered by the Russian refusal to stay in the second phase, Japanese and

New Zealand orphans from the extension of the protocol have emerged.

The European Union,

together with some countries, has at least set new goals for the 2013–2020 intervals, but the

overall ambition remains too little to address the intermediate concept temperature goals long-

term of the UNFCCC.

Increasingly, the developed countries with the largest historical contributions got accused

of unfairly building up productive economies in emerging economies, which also didn't solve

their growing emissions problem. By way of example, it is ascertained that developed nations

contributed nearly 73% of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from the year 1850 to 2019

while only taking 15% of the whole population.

On the other hand, developing countries,

especially China and India, are found to have been appreciably contributing to the increment in

emissions, thereby due to fast industrialization and economic expansion. The imposed limits on

sovereignty and the development agendas, which might particularly affect the development of

Third World countries, were also the targets of criticism.

When talks on a new deal starting in

Johnson, Craig A. "Creating a commons for global climate governance: Possibilities and perils

in the Paris Climate Agreement." In Making commons dynamic, pp. 211-229. Routledge, 2021.

IBID 220

Putra, Andika. "The Role of International Human Rights Law in Fights Against Climate

Change." Jurnal Media Hukum 28, no. 2 (2021): 153-164.

IBID 160

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 5

2020 began, it became clear that such an enterprise would require a different approach to drive

various states towards more ambitious and widespread climate action. The conclusion that a

framework grounded in urgent awareness of climate change and justice should be designed more

inclusively and flexible was a shared opinion by all participants.

It is imperative that the

framework be based on a multi-level approach while taking into account the different challenges

that each country faces, but at the same time, it must force the participation of all countries in the

fight against climate change.

This assertion reinforced the necessity of coming up with

practical solutions through collaboration in order to jumpstart the process of surmounting the

obstacles, hence the speeding up of the journey towards a sustainable and resilient planet we will

all enjoy.

Besides presumptive inadequacies of top-down paradigm, there is a more profound issue

of morality of trade-off between climate justice and economic autonomy. The unilateral

distribution of the adaptation costs of the Soviet regimes supported the regime of injustice,

according to Sovacool, the hardest hit of the calamity were those who did not deserve the

calamity itself.

This fact identifies the flaws of technocratic solutions on their individual level

that do not respond to the issues of equity and human rights. Putra advances the same view and

holds the position that the international human rights law offers a constructive normative

framework of equal climate governance, which demands that the countries are expected to

develop mitigation and adaptation policies founded on the principles of dignity, participation,

and responsibility.

Using these aspects, both legal and moral, the climate policy stops being an

Johnson, Craig A. "Creating a commons for global climate governance: Possibilities and perils

in the Paris Climate Agreement." In Making commons dynamic, pp. 211-229. Routledge, 2021.

IBID 221.

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 6

economic deal making arena but it is an arena of common ethical duty. Similarly, Rockstrom et

al. reveal that the sole path to remain on a safe and fair course of humanity is to even out

planetary limits and develop the past injustices of the developmental paths. This kind of dialogue

between the environmental science, political economy and human rights must then become a

paradigm shift that attempts to explore a language of reconciliation between the ecological

boundaries and the universal justice with the aim of permitting more holistic and holistic

approaches to global climate regulators.

The shortcomings of the initial top-down strategies were not just institutional but

epistemic by displaying an unequal distribution of climate knowledge and power to make

decisions among countries. Provided that the centralized negotiation frameworks tended to favor

the technical and administrative capabilities of industrialized countries, strategies that did not

align with the contextual realities of developing economies were implemented.

This knowledge

asymmetry enhanced a trend of exclusionary and inflexible worldwide environmental

governance that hampered innovativeness on a locally based solution. The institutional

inflexibility of the Kyoto period thus clarified the need to have structures that appreciate the

existence of several centers of power and expertise in the international system. According to

Oberthur and Groen more gradual privitisation of the climate governing mechanisms into the

Paris Agreement was more a pragmatic recognition of such a need, with more participative

instruments being more inclusive without necessarily foregoing accountability.

The shift

towards the more binding, more hierarchical commitments to a more voluntary, nationally-

directed commitment was a long-felt adjustment of the logic of global cooperation. Although this

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 7

change was imperfect, it allowed states to own more of their undertakings, which reorganized the

climate politics more as a form of mutual accountability and learning through iteration as

opposed to coercion, which is crucial to maintaining the commitment of the long-run and

adaptive governance in the face of unpredictability.

The Paris Agreement's Bottom-Up Framework

The Paris Agreement kicks off a transformational shift from a top-down climate

governance system that has existed to an inclusive one that deeply involves multi-stakeholder

and ambitious initiatives. Different from the common approaches that rely on the bottom-up

idea, the agreement has national-determined contributions (NDCs) as the building blocks for

climate action.

The parties to the agreement craft their emission reduction targets depending on

national situations, distinct capacities, and stakeholders, bolstering ownership and responsibility

on the national level. This shift in approach, in contrast to previous processes (where goals were

imposed top-down from the global level), has enabled countries to build their contributions on

foundations that are self-defined, which ultimately leads to a more equitable and inclusive

discussion in one way or another.

Moreover, this regime establishes the same obligations for all

countries, regardless of their development stage. All countries should be required to submit

annual plans that include their proposed targets, implementation strategies, and investment plans.

This regime should be built on a common understanding of transparency, differentiation, equity,

Tingley, Dustin, and Michael Tomz. "International commitments and domestic opinion: the

effect of the Paris Agreement on public support for policies to address climate

change." Environmental politics 29, no. 7 (2020): 1135-1156.

IBID 1139.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 8

and maximum effort.

Amazingly, reports in later NDCs are likely to show more powerful

behavior, especially with the intention that their collective endeavors improve over the years.

The implementation of the bottom-up system of the Paris Agreement, which is mainly

driven by the concept of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), is strengthened by a new

transparency framework with a standardized mapping mechanism and technical expert reviews,

which allow for independent evaluation. To clarify, per the UN Climate Change Convention

panel, 194 countries worldwide have sent their NDCs information about their climate action

plans by now.

This scaffolding is reinforced by facilitative compliance regulations, e.g., the

UNFCCC's Biennial Transparency Report, which shows the nations' progress on making the

commitments imposed.

The essential element of the mechanism is building a solid baseline by

estimating carbon dioxide emissions at the beginning and establishing regional and global review

platforms. Nevertheless, a big portion of the pledged $100 billion yearly in climate finance was

only raised by developed nations in 2019, according to what the World Bank stated, presenting

what appears to be gaps in financial aid for developing countries.

Despite this, however, the

developed countries will continue to owe it to themselves to show some sort of moral obligation

by continually mobilizing financial resources to assist the developing countries in mitigation and

adaptation. The hybrid nature of this multifaceted structure is deeply grounded in bottom-up and

top-down methodologies, creating universal conditions for all to join but, at the same time,

Oberthür, Sebastian, and Lisanne Groen. "Hardening and softening of multilateral climate

governance towards the Paris Agreement." Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 22, no.

6 (2020): 801-813.

IBID 802.

IBID 802

Tingley, Dustin, and Michael Tomz. "International commitments and domestic opinion: the

effect of the Paris Agreement on public support for policies to address climate

change." Environmental politics 29, no. 7 (2020): 1135-1156.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 9

allowing countries to custom-fit the engagement package within their national policy goals and

internal constraints.

The framework aims to foster more concrete climate action, spurring

higher ambitions among countries at each stage of environmental commitments over the period

of time, as achievements are reflected in subsequent rounds of NDC (National Determined

Contributions) government.

The philosophy of the Paris Agreement, which relies on flexibility, differentiation, and

self-determination, is based on optimistic assumptions that mutual trust and continuous

cooperation will increase the ambitions of countries in climate mitigation, whereas the imminent

danger of climate change will be properly addressed. Critics disagree with the lack of a

mandatory and binding nature of the initially presented NDCs, considering that they are not

strong enough to put the long-term temperature targets of the agreement into real action.

spite of the deal's goal of promoting solidarity and team coordination, it is still possible to view

the agreement as ineffective for climate change mitigation because of the absence of binding

mechanisms and the lack of rational targets.

The fact that rhetoric frequently overruns action in

this realm also clearly shows the need for improved accountability measures, more stringent

enforcement mechanisms, and greater collaboration at the international level to create more

congruency between declarations and accomplishments.

As the geological time passes and the

intensity of the climate crisis bears more and more impact, the nations have begun to realize the

Tingley, Dustin, and Michael Tomz. "International commitments and domestic opinion: the

effect of the Paris Agreement on public support for policies to address climate

change." Environmental politics 29, no. 7 (2020): 1135-1156.

IBID 1149.

IBID 1150.

IBID 1151.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 10

necessity of moving beyond the rhetoric and start taking concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and protect the Earth for future generations.

The Paris Agreement with its bottom-up orientation has also provided new avenues to

collaboration in the region and transnational learning of policies, which has created a more

network model of climate governance. Keohane and Oppenheimer observe that this decentralized

design also provides states with an opportunity to experiment using various policy innovations

that could subsequently cross-boundaries via institutional imitation, and foster a policy transfer.

This process is adaptive making it open to context-sensitive solutions that are able to adjust

better to the local political economies and environmental priorities. This fluidity, although it does

not create even distributions of ambition in a few cases makes the international system as a

whole more resilient because it facilitates sharing of knowledge instead of prescribing it at all

times. As it is noted by Oberthur and Groen these cross-national processes of learning can be

seen as a kind of soft hardening: as more practice is gained, voluntary commitments are

converted to more predictable norms of behavior.

This organizational culture of cooperation is

the result of this gradual institutionalization of shared expectations and it is hard to enforce but, it

is critical to legitimacy. The Paris system is not such that it merely decentralizes authority, but

also decentralizes innovation, so that climate governance is an ever-evolving and ongoing arena

of experimentation, and no longer a fixed set of structures of compliance and control.

Besides the systemic innovation it brings to Paris and its Agreement, it is clear that a

paradigm of climate action is shifted within the political economy by the Paris Agreement, which

places development and mitigation as mutually dependent goals. Pauw et al. describe that the

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 11

concept of conditional NDCs, or the ones that require an external provision of financial or

technological support, offers a solution to aligning economic development along with growth

paths with global environmental objectives and priorities.

This mechanism is complex but it

accepts that developing countries cannot achieve decarbonization without systemic investment in

capacity building and low-carbon infrastructure. The analytical suggestion to this is very deep:

climate governance is no longer just an environmental project but a developmental contract of

mutual responsibility of the global North and the South. Ockwell et al. present evidence in their

analysis of clean energy diffusion in the Global South by arguing that creating an equal

opportunity to access technology increases the validity and sustainability of climate promises.

The Paris framework as such, quietly incorporates a redistributive logic, one which incorporates

the concepts of justice, finance and technology transfer into the core of global climate policy.

The fact that the non-state actors have been incorporated into the Paris structure further

increases its dynamism at the bottom, beyond the national governments. Such a multi-actor

setup, according to Sovacool injects a range of epistemologies of governance, which allows

cities, corporations, and civil society organisations to co-produce solutions to climate change

alongside state institutions.

The diversification of the network of accountability through this

plurality of actors creates pressure on the transparency, because significant progress is not only

perceived by state reports, but also independent data and citizens. As Keohane and Oppenheimer

emphasize, these mechanisms of distributed responsibility reinforce the effect of ratcheting-up

where actions by societal actors encourage states to increasingly become ambitious with the aim

to be motivated by reputation. The explanatory value of this system is that it has re-

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 12

conceptualized climate politics as the participatory commons, not as a diplomatic negotiation,

extending the agency and ownership. Such democratization of climate governance is consistent

with the current trends in the direction of polycentric environmental management, in which

power is decentralized among several levels in order to enhance efficacy and flexibility.

Balancing Mitigation and Adaptation

Mitigation

The Paris Pact, which hopes to contain the increase in global temperature to somewhat

below 2°C in the pre-industrial era and strive for a 1.5°C rise, provides a framework to

progressively meet this mitigation target.

After a period of five years, the parties to the

agreement are to forward new NDCs, which should describe a plan for emission reduction and

the projection for the period to come. According to Article 4, the communication and update

mechanisms of the national climate action plans are cyclical, with the ultimate goal being to

gradually increase the mitigation ambition in the medium term.

Nevertheless, the bottom-up

method of the agreement is questioned by the critics, who state that it, in fact, leads to lower

ambition, as it allows each country to determine its contributions according to their own interests

instead of applying the top-down, science-based approach that directly links emission cuts with

temperature limits. Worry has grown up as the first circular of NDCs, to be realized by 2025, has

been submitted, and these seem to be just leveling emissions, and around 3°C of warming is

Barnett, Jon. "Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate

change." Progress in Human Geography 46, no. 4 (2022): 1106-1116.

IBID 1110.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 13

therefore likely to be realized by 2100.

The result of this acutely goes beyond the treaty's 2°C

allowed threshold and far beyond its 1.5°C targeted goal, which really shows that the importance

of considering the shortcomings and shortages in the current strategies when it comes to climate

change cannot be underestimated.

Some developing economies, e.g., India, have designed their climate initiatives not in

terms of emissions limits per unit of GDP but in terms of the overall emission caps. Take, for

instance, India's targets of reducing its emissions intensity by 33–35% by 2030 from 2005

levels.

For example, China and other large emitters like China have extended coal power

expansion in their unconditional NDCs. The goals of China's NDCs consist of reaching peak of

CO2 emissions by 2030, followed by complete carbon neutrality by 2060. Yet, without binding

and harmonized standards for the different individual commitments, it has been argued that this

bottom-up model may foster competitively driven race-to-the-bottom climate ambition levels.

In spite of these uncertainties, the bottom-up approach provides avenues through which countries

can tighten their national development plans’s mitigation measures in conjunction with their

industrial growth plans.

Through the iterative NDC process and compliance tools like periodic

stocktaking and review, the purpose is to encourage a gradual increase in mitigation

contributions over time. The involvement of China and India, the major producers of greenhouse

gases, is progress compared to the unfair Kyoto model, showing their willingness to participate

Eskander, Shaikh, Sam Fankhauser, and Joana Setzer. "Global lessons from climate change

legislation and litigation." Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 2, no. 1 (2021):

44-82.

Eskander, Shaikh, Sam Fankhauser, and Joana Setzer. "Global lessons from climate change

legislation and litigation." Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 2, no. 1 (2021):

44-82.

IBID 45.

IBID 46.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 14

in global climate initiatives.

Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure that these contributions

work in alignment with the overall objective of limiting global temperature rise to well below

2°C above pre-industrial levels, as per the Paris Agreement.

Adaptation

The global aim of strengthening adaptive capacity, resilience, and vulnerability reduction

to climate change is enshrined in Article 7. This entails incorporating adaptation communications

and mitigation policies into national NDCs. All the same, the measurement, reporting, and

compliance processes are not as strong as those of mitigation measures. Instead, we present

adaptation commitments as qualitative adaptation priorities, efforts, needs, and planning

processes.

Adaptation has a structural disadvantage. The NDC vehicle sees adaptation as an

afterthought to the core of the agreement, which is a mitigation commitment. Besides, adaptation

components lack a concrete quantitative target or a cyclical review process to boost ambition

over time. The UN Environment Programme's Adaptation Gap Report 2022 estimates the costs

of adaptation will rise to about $160–$340 billion annually by 2030 and $315–$565 billion by

2050 for developing countries only.

Nevertheless, the developed countries are lagging behind

their financial commitments, as they provided only $29 billion of adaptation finance in 2020,

leaving an adaptation finance gap.

Weakest countries with climate impact characteristics make

adaptation and climate resilience crucial for their existence, but the absence of adequate focus

Barnett, Jon. "Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate

change." Progress in Human Geography 46, no. 4 (2022): 1106-1116.

Eskander, Shaikh, Sam Fankhauser, and Joana Setzer. "Global lessons from climate change

legislation and litigation." Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 2, no. 1 (2021):

44-82.

IBID 70.

IBID 71.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 15

and resources may worsen adaptation deficits and lead to higher humanitarian and developmental

barriers. The IPCC report states that climate change is already contributing to humanitarian

crises, and at least 3.3–3.6 billion people live in places highly vulnerable to climate change.

Inadequate adaptation mechanisms can thus result in the aggravation of poverty, food insecurity,

water scarcity, and displacement and, as such, hinder sustainable development efforts.

The treaty attempts to fully recognize adaptation alongside mitigation by offering a

global adaptation goal, which means it is a commitment equally as serious as all mitigation aims.

Through the process of bottom-up, countries will be able to determine the exact areas of

adaptation and needs where their highest risk of climate change is and also specially impacted

sectors.

While the focus remains on mitigation, the main contribution cycles (ACTION)

continue to attract more attention with palpable effects. With the lack of cross-linked goals on

finance, quantitative targets, or robust financial requirements for the accounting of adaptation,

the key element can be considered critically unbalanced and underrepresented in the Paris

agreement, almost like a missing puzzle piece. The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2022

anticipates that the total cost of adaptation in developing countries by 2030 will be in the range

of $155 to $330 billion, and by 2050, it will be in the range of $285 to $565 billion. However,

global financial funding for adaptation has been far from adequate.

In 2020, the global financial

Barnett, Jon. "Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate

change." Progress in Human Geography 46, no. 4 (2022): 1106-1116.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. "Advancing the international political economy of climate change

adaptation: political ecology, political economy and social justice." In Handbook of the

international political economy of energy and natural resources, pp. 33-49. Edward Elgar

Publishing, 2018.

IBID 40.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 16

funding for adaptation was only $29 billion, leading to a significant finance gap.

This may

affect developing countries and small island states that have the least.

Other Components of the Regime

Climate Finance

The key component of the agreement is an action that would make financial transfers

from developed countries to mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries. This

provision reiterates the intention of developed nations to raise at least $100 billion each year

until 2020, with this amount being extended up to 2025, along with the decision to come up with

new qualitative obligations for these future quantitative financial targets, which start at a

minimum of $100 billion annually.

Nevertheless, for many years, developing countries have

signed these agreements, but the policies of highly developed countries demonstrate these

countries' inconsistency with the financial commitments they have pledged. Estimates indicate

that the mobilization of only $79.6 billion took place in 2019.

Adherence to involuntary rules is

becoming nonexistent and hinders the fund's ability to make enough contributions. The

developing countries have appealed to this funding deficit to fault its ability to meet the

conditional NDC goals, which require aid transfers. They fight for equalization on the spending

side by emphasizing that funds should be equally distributed between mitigation and

investment.

The bottom-up model gives the developed countries an option to fund their

commitments on a voluntary basis, which might not be easy to access for every entity,

IBID 41

Pauw, W. Pieter, Paula Castro, Jonathan Pickering, and Shikha Bhasin. "Conditional nationally

determined contributions in the Paris Agreement: foothold for equity or Achilles heel?." Climate

policy 20, no. 4 (2020): 468-484.

IBID 469.

IBID 470.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 17

particularly during periods of crisis like these. On the other hand, the approach makes recipients

of countries eligible to determine the allocation of funds in alignment with the gap in the existing

finance models, which gives them a chance to have ownership and prioritization.

Technology Transfer

Achieving the availability of vital technologies like renewable energy, efficient

infrastructure, resilient agriculture, and carbon capture is the key not only to mitigation but to

adaptation as well, with a focus on developing countries. The agreement offers a technology

framework to provide full and rigorous guidelines on the implementation of financial

incentives.

Even so, the transfer of technology that has been attempted in the past has been

faced with issues that can be attributed to intellectual property rights, restricted funding, and

inferior organizational capacity. The Paris Agreement does not present any solution to these

challenges; it merely restates the previous commitments without introducing any new binding

rules or fines for not respecting them.

Developing countries have considered the agreement to

be too general and without a near-term enforcement mechanism. With no clarity on the

guidelines and consequences for not acting, efforts to maintain the balance of technology

distribution among developing countries are hindered, thus challenging their endeavor to

effectively mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Therefore, the urgent need for strengthened

initiatives to deal with the challenges of this process and provide the assistance that is actually

effective in order to guarantee tangible benefits to the most vulnerable communities is clear.

Ockwell, David, Robert Byrne, Joanes Atela, Victoria Chengo, Elsie Onsongo, Jacob Fodio

Todd, Victoria Kasprowicz, and Adrian Ely. "Transforming access to clean energy technologies

in the Global South: Learning from lighting Africa in Kenya." Energies 14, no. 14 (2021): 4362.

IBID 4362.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 18

Capacity Building

Despite having the capacity and potential to handle some of these climate change-related

activities in developing nations, they require immediate support in enhancing human skills and

institutional capacity in critical areas like carbon monitoring, climate modeling, policy analysis,

and solar deployment. This demand is manifested in the fact that currently, as of 2021, about

60% of the developing world lacks the technical capacity for climate change mitigation and

adaptation, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

revealing this in a recent report.

One of the key reasons for the need to develop capacity is

highlighted in the Paris Agreement, which stresses the fact that enhancing the capacity to act on

climate change unlocks many solutions across all the climate action processes.

The contract

determines the need for all countries to include capacity building in their nationally determined

contributions (NDCs), and developed countries are obliged to improve capacity building

assistance in this regard. Although the above-mentioned measures were taken to avoid these

problems, the critics believe that the decentralized approach used by the agreement may lead to

inequalities in assistance levels.

The UN World Bank has conducted a survey on the

effectiveness of capacity building in developing nations, which covers 30 percent of the needs.

This was done in the year 2020. Therefore, the demand for enunciating the roles or

responsibilities of capacity building becomes clearer in order to ensure the fairness of the process

and help underdeveloped countries achieve their targets in combating climate change.

Ockwell, David, Robert Byrne, Joanes Atela, Victoria Chengo, Elsie Onsongo, Jacob Fodio

Todd, Victoria Kasprowicz, and Adrian Ely. "Transforming access to clean energy technologies

in the Global South: Learning from lighting Africa in Kenya." Energies 14, no. 14 (2021): 4362.

IBID 4362.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 19

Strengths and Limitations

Potential Advantages

The Paris agreement’s bottom-up approach, which is based on voluntary national targets

that take into account the realities of each context, is considered more inclusive and equitable

than the previous requirements that were condemned by many developing economies as

perpetuating an injustice. This movement has, thus, contributed to improved political viability

and worldwide participation, which have been cited as problems of the previous regimes. Under

this model, countries preserve their national sovereignty and, as a result, are free to align their

climate targets with their own development agenda and policy choices that consider

differentiated responsibilities depending on each country's circumstances.

By rejecting the

strict deficit/surplus trading system, the treaty may develop other cooperative potentials. As per

data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), country-led actions structured around their

specific needs, such as investing in resilient infrastructure, renewable deployment, and ecological

conservation, have reached a record high of $303.5 billion as of 2021, which demonstrated the

real potential of countries to take nationally appropriate actions.

Such empowerment makes

efforts more ambitious and contributes to the establishment of a cooperative atmosphere for the

accomplishment of a common climate agenda.

In the adaptive renewing mechanism of the NDC cycle layout of the Paris Agreement, the

countries are able to progressively increase their commitments over time, in line with both their

Chan, Sander, Harro Van Asselt, Thomas Hale, Kenneth W. Abbott, Marianne Beisheim,

Matthew Hoffmann, Brendan Guy et al. "Reinvigorating international climate policy: A

comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action." Global Policy 6, no. 4 (2015): 466-473.

IBID 469.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 20

economic growth and technological improvements. By comparison, this approach completely

differs from the static model of "top-down," which is going to be outmoded by fast-developing

national realities.

Through the adoption of periodic flexibility and additionality, the

decentralized approach promotes adaptability to the current circumstances while maintaining

alignment with workers who can adequately meet the tasks at hand.

Such adaptability becomes

one of the pillars that support the economy as it goes through rapid technological progress and

economic changes. As per the IEA's statistics for 2020, global renewable energy capacity grew

by 10.3%, which shows how countries must undertake their climate commitments for emerging

clean energy technologies.

Also, the bottom-up perspective ensures that adjustments are made

in response to climate change developments, making sure that countries remain ambitious and

relevant in their climate action plans. Incorporating flexibility additionally gives space to new

ideas and research, which can be directly applied to more successful mitigation actions and

adaptations.

So, the bottom-up model that implies the use of dynamic, iterative processes can

play a significant role in securing the viability of efforts related to climate action, despite the

changing economic and technological milieu.

The Paris Agreement's transparency and accountability focus, despite being disjointed, is

a governance improvement, but uniform reporting requirements keep the countries aligned.

National data and target verification by technical expert reviews is a significant factor that allows

Keohane, Robert O., and Michael Oppenheimer. "Paris: Beyond the climate dead end through

pledge and review?." Politics and governance 4, no. 3 (2016): 142-151.

IBID 143.

Rockström, Johan, Joyeeta Gupta, Timothy M. Lenton, Dahe Qin, Steven J. Lade, Jesse F.

Abrams, Lisa Jacobson et al. "Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the

planet." Earth's Future 9, no. 4 (2021): e2020EF001866.

Tobin, Paul. "Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in developed states." Global

Environmental Politics 17, no. 4 (2017): 28-47.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 21

the state to improve the credibility of the information provided and makes it more reliable.

Additionally, public display provides another layer to hold countries’ accountable, as these

countries would be subject to reputational incentives to pursue the goals that they had pledged,

even in the absence of formal consequences.

As defined by the UNFCCC in the published

report for 2020, as of now, 90% of different countries have been submitting updated climate

action plans, thus revealing the influence of transparency procedures on boosting ambition.

Furthermore, the treaty's provision of stakeholders beyond the conventional governments

provides room for climate action in cities, businesses, and civil society. When they take a seat at

the table, they can introduce their ideas or aid in implementing their initiative, making them

more likely to see success. As per the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) data, non-state actors

contributed exceedingly over 55% to global emissions reduction in 2020, which further

emphasizes the substantial support extended by subnational and non-state bodies for climate

action.

Through the channeling of their ingenuity and entrepreneurial vibes, these actors will

supplement the efforts of the government and will likely be the main drivers for the achievement

of the goals set forth in the Paris Agreement.

One of the Paris deal's strengths is its capability to trigger collaboration across various

sectors and integrate climate action which is a part of a broader agenda of sustainable

development. It does this mainly by urging countries to make sure that their NDCs are in line

with their socio-economic priorities, hence the agreement is seen as a promoter of harmony

between environmental protection, economic growth, and social welfare. Through this integrated

IBID 29

IBID 35

Keohane, Robert O., and Michael Oppenheimer. "Paris: Beyond the climate dead end through

pledge and review?." Politics and governance 4, no. 3 (2016): 142-151.

IBID 144

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 22

approach, one will be able to achieve climate goals without the risk of developmental needs

getting compromised, especially in emerging economies where growth and poverty alleviation

are the most urgent tasks. Also, the bottom-up structure has been a source of regional

partnerships and bilateral cooperation between countries that are sharing knowledge, technology,

and financing to move toward sustainability goals that they have in common. These

collaborations bring about an innovation as well as a transfer of knowledge, and at the same

time, they enable the partner countries to tackle the barriers of capacity while at the same time

they have options of different pathways of decarbonization.

The existence of such a system

which calls on governmental and non-governmental sectors for their interest and contribution,

hence, creating an environment of collective ownership, is one of the factors that global climate

governance is able to be resilient for a long period of time. In the end, the Paris framework

provides an example of how climate ambition can be sustained together with development if it is

organized around reciprocity, sharing of knowledge, and locally oriented adaptation strategies.

However, some limitations still exist that prevent the complete realization of these

potential benefits. The voluntary nature of the Paris framework, which is a way to keep the doors

open for everyone, usually results in different levels of ambition and a scattered implementation

of the agreement. There are some countries that do not have the technical or financial resources

to make their commitments bring real results, and then there are some countries that give less

progress reports because they have limited data systems. The difference between what is

promised and what is really done in terms of emissions reduction is still a problem that comes up

again and again due to the absence of stronger external verification mechanisms or performance-

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 23

based incentives. On top of that, the political will to keep the commitments over the long run

may be influenced by changes in domestic priorities and leadership, thus the consistency of

national efforts may be affected. The framework's reliance on goodwill and moral obligation

instead of enforceable compliance may also weaken collective progress when there is a lack of

global coordination.

So, the bottom-up approach is more legitimate and allows for more

participation, but it still needs to be supported continuously by financial stability, technological

fairness, and open monitoring systems in order for the openness to have measurable and lasting

effects.

Potential Limitations

The two most predetermined obstacles within the Paris Agreement, lack of purpose and

lack of enforcement structures, have become the most challenging issues. The global NDCs

together would result in over 3°C warming, which is beyond what is expected to go through the

long-term temperature goals, according to the IPCC, an intergovernmental body.

This is a clear

sign of the countries´ joint pitifulness on the issue right at the initial stage. The dependence on

the voluntary principle of national self-determination amplifies the problem of enforcing

countries to follow the science-inspired zero-carbon development necessary for the reduction of

global warming. On the other hand, it is also vital to understand the disincentives that free-riding

and competition may create, as countries can have motives to increasingly weaken their

IBID

Rockström, Johan, Joyeeta Gupta, Timothy M. Lenton, Dahe Qin, Steven J. Lade, Jesse F.

Abrams, Lisa Jacobson et al. "Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the

planet." Earth's Future 9, no. 4 (2021): e2020EF001866.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 24

mitigation actions to protect their economic interests.

The fact that the collective effort

mechanism is not as well developed in the bottom-up model as in the top-down one and that

there is no real mechanism to penalize freers who do not fulfill their duties based on their ability

compounds that problem.

The emphasis by the World Bank on the deficiency of the agreement

in terms of ambition level and enforcement serves to widen the gap between the emissions set

and the actual emissions, which results in ineffective global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions.

Capacity issues still remain the biggest obstacle in the way of developing countries,

which have so far adopted aggressive commitments to the Paris Agreement. The countries,

which have expressed their commitment to high-level targets, are forced to deal with issues like

insufficient funds, inadequate technology, and a lack of capacity that disallow them from

realizing what they intend without getting external help.

In line with the World Bank, it is

estimated that about 75% of the developing countries, at the end of the 2021 year, will recognize

capacity gaps as a key hindrance to NDC implementation.

This structural barrier that has long

been standing is the clearest signal that the aid and finance provisions in the deal must be

bolstered. In addition, the new and changing scenario of future revision cycles gives rise to extra

difficulties as the base level of performance is raised, justifying the contribution made by

countries that have already pledged to exceed the original starting point.

In 2020, according to

Rockström, Johan, Joyeeta Gupta, Timothy M. Lenton, Dahe Qin, Steven J. Lade, Jesse F.

Abrams, Lisa Jacobson et al. "Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the

planet." Earth's Future 9, no. 4 (2021): e2020EF001866.

IBID 23

Tobin, Paul. "Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in developed states." Global

Environmental Politics 17, no. 4 (2017): 28-47.

IBID 36

Tobin, Paul. "Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in developed states." Global

Environmental Politics 17, no. 4 (2017): 28-47.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 25

the International Energy Agency (IEA), only 18% of global energy-related carbon dioxide

emissions were covered by carbon pricing mechanisms, which is evidence enough of the need to

act decisively in this regard.

Unless there are rigorous systems that are developed to never stop

the endeavor of said ambition dynamic, there is a chance that ambition may decline over time. It

is crucial to tackle these capacity constraints and establish an enduring process to ensure the

achievement of the ambitions of the Paris Agreement and the diminishment of the climate

change implications on a worldwide scale.

Future Directions and Policy Implications

Paris Agreement has put in place the foundations of the new form of the climate

governance, but something that is no longer strictly hierarchic. However, climate policy should

become more integrative and results-focused in the future to achieve its potential. The first and

the most important direction is the strengthening of accountability.

Although voluntary

participation and flexibility has allowed most people to embrace it, lack of binding enforcements

remains a hindrance in enhancing credibility of commitments. A new generation climate regime

must thus seek to form a hybrid framework of accountability that combines national

independence as well as coordinated accountability. This may include regional peer-review

systems, international climate scorecards as well as periodic compliance summits which reward

openness and punishment of intentional underperformance.

It should not be aimed at coercion

but at the establishment of reputational and moral incentives so powerful as to be able to create

IBID 38

IBID

Barnett, Jon. "Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate

change." Progress in Human Geography 46, no. 4 (2022): 1106-1116

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 26

the drive to take actual action. In this way, the world community would be able to close the

distance between the political promises and the quality improvements that can be measured.

The other critical policy implication also touches on how climate finance should be

changed to a more compelling and open system. The existing model has not done well to provide

sufficient and sustainable financing to the developing countries with repeated promises. The

future structures must embrace ways of automatic adjusting financial flows, as per the indices of

vulnerability and as per performance measures and not as per political bargaining.

I would

create a climate solidarity fund on a global basis that is operated by multilateral institutions to

make funds available both in mitigation and adaptation activities on predictable basis. More to

the point, the transparency in the use of these resources should be institutionalized in order to

avoid inefficiency and misuse. The context of climate finance needs to be re-positivized to be not

aid, but a mutual investment in planetary stability, failure to recognize the resiliency of other

countries. Whether or not such transfers can reach their legitimate maturity of a viable global

practice will depend on the fairness and reliability of such transfers.

One other pillar of the future climate agenda is the incorporation of technology and

innovation. The use of new technologies like artificial intelligence, satellite surveillance, and

blockchain can transform the process of monitoring waste emissions, verifying them, and

reporting their presence to the authorities. These instruments might enhance the authority of

national information and also foster real-time openness of the global system. The advancement

of technologies is to be accompanied, but equal access is a must. A big number of the developing

countries are yet to achieve the digital base that would enable them to fully engage in such

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 27

sophisticated mechanisms. The capacity-building of bridging this gap will need open-technology

alliances and relationships between the global South and the global North. Innovation must be

democratic instead of monopolized and make technology a common good not a competitive

advantage. The fair spread of technological capability will have the effect of ensuring that every

country, irrespective of its level of income earners, will be able to contribute meaningfully to the

war against climate change.

Empowerment of non-state actors is also an indicator of the trends in the future of climate

governance. Several subnational governments, private companies, research organizations,

networks of civil society have become invaluable drivers of innovation and lobbying. Their

efforts to adapt to climate change, whether at city level or lots of corporate carbon-neutral

promises, are taking a deeper impact on climate landscape than national policies. Their

involvement in the future frameworks of climate should be institutionalized by formal

acknowledgement, monetary rewards and joint decision making forums. This way, there is

increased polycentric, resilient and inclusive governance structure. The relationship between

state and non-state actors can make climate action resemble small-scale endeavors to embryonic

movements changes ambition on a greater scale across the multiple spheres of governance. It is

likely that the future of climate diplomacy can be determined by the level to which this

multiverse of actors is connected and enabled to be co-creators of global solutions.

Climate regimes of the future also need to consider the effects of their decisions over a

long period of time and from one generation to another. The Paris Agreement's five-year review

and revision cycles serve as a basis for continuous improvement, but subsequent frameworks

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 28

should go beyond 2050 and take into account the unfolding challenges.

This implies the need

for combining scientific foresight, demographic projections, and socio-economic changes in far-

reaching planning. Climate governance should no longer be in a reactive mode, but rather it

needs to be one that foresees risks before they get out of control. On the one hand, policies ought

to feature the principles of adaptive management thus giving institutions the possibility to

modify their strategies as they acquire new data and technologies. On the other hand, making

climate policy temporal structure resilient suggests, among other things, that the climate policy

will still be there when political changes or economic crises occur.

Having a long-term vision

would change the nature of climate governance from a sequence of negotiations to a continuous,

global, forward-looking enterprise.

The way the world manages climate issues in the future will rely on the trust that is built

among the different nations and also between the governments and their citizens. Unfolding the

facts to the public, learning from each other, and allowing everyone to take part are the qualities

of the society that is built upon the successful cooperation of the different parties.

The Paris

Chan, Sander, Harro Van Asselt, Thomas Hale, Kenneth W. Abbott, Marianne Beisheim,

Matthew Hoffmann, Brendan Guy et al. "Reinvigorating international climate policy: A

comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action." Global Policy 6, no. 4 (2015):

466-473.

IBID

Eskander, Shaikh, Sam Fankhauser, and Joana Setzer. "Global lessons from climate change

legislation and litigation." Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 2, no. 1

(2021): 44-82.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 29

Agreement was the first step in this process, but continuing it requires a much bigger cultural and

political change. Governments have to stop seeing the fight against climate change as a

competition in which the security of the shared future is at stake. Global cooperation at its next

level will be possible only if national interest is aligned with collective survival. The change

from voluntary commitment to moral obligation will be so obvious and irreversible when

countries take this understanding to heart.

It is only then that people can leave negotiation

behind and move to transformation, which is the realization of a global order that protects both

the earth and the generations that are yet to come.

Conclusion

In order to combat climate change and go through emissions mitigation, adaptation, and

resilience development, financial resources and capacities need to be mobilized through

international collaboration. The Paris Agreement of 2015 introduces a new bottom-up model that

delegates countries' emissions reduction and climate actions into Nationally Determined

Contributions (NDCs), based on a national capacity and circumstances assessment. The NDCs

are underpinned by mitigation, adaptation, and support components, taking into account

economic development, energy sources, climate vulnerabilities, and policy priorities. It increases

the level of multilateral participation, promoting sovereign self-determination and, thereby,

giving room for ambition to ratchet over time. Nevertheless, this situation is complicated by a

lack of ambition and the possibility of ‘free-riding’ because of the insufficient monitoring

oversight. Initial NDCs are just the beginning, but they already forecast warming more than the

agreed temperature limit, which, in turn, deepens adaptation resource imbalances. The agreement

IBID

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 30

signifies the shift in philosophy towards high-level cooperation, which necessitates the buildup

of trust in order to continue peace-making efforts. However, the success of this redesigned

framework rests on its visibility and the political willingness of all parties, an issue that greatly

affects its usefulness. Leastwise, the victory that depends on countries' readiness to achieve

deeper reforms, not just do the bare minimum, is definitely the one that will be recognized as

truly revolutionary.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 31

Bibliography

Barnett, Jon. "Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate

change." Progress in Human Geography 46, no. 4 (2022): 1106-1116.

Chan, Sander, Harro Van Asselt, Thomas Hale, Kenneth W. Abbott, Marianne Beisheim,

Matthew Hoffmann, Brendan Guy et al. "Reinvigorating international climate policy: A

comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action." Global Policy 6, no. 4 (2015):

466-473.

Change, I. P. O. C. "Climate change 2007: The physical science basis." Agenda 6, no. 07 (2007):

333.

Eskander, Shaikh, Sam Fankhauser, and Joana Setzer. "Global lessons from climate change

legislation and litigation." Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 2, no. 1

(2021): 44-82.

Iyer, Monica, and Kerilyn Schewel. "Articulating and Claiming the Right to Stay in the Context

of Climate Change." Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Forthcoming (2024).

Johnson, Craig A. "Creating a commons for global climate governance: Possibilities and perils in

the Paris Climate Agreement." In Making commons dynamic, pp. 211-229. Routledge,

2021.

Keohane, Robert O., and Michael Oppenheimer. "Paris: Beyond the climate dead end through

pledge and review?." Politics and governance 4, no. 3 (2016): 142-151.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 32

Oberthür, Sebastian, and Lisanne Groen. "Hardening and softening of multilateral climate

governance towards the Paris Agreement." Journal of Environmental Policy &

Planning 22, no. 6 (2020): 801-813.

Ockwell, David, Robert Byrne, Joanes Atela, Victoria Chengo, Elsie Onsongo, Jacob Fodio

Todd, Victoria Kasprowicz, and Adrian Ely. "Transforming access to clean energy

technologies in the Global South: Learning from lighting Africa in Kenya." Energies 14,

no. 14 (2021): 4362.

Pauw, W. Pieter, Paula Castro, Jonathan Pickering, and Shikha Bhasin. "Conditional nationally

determined contributions in the Paris Agreement: foothold for equity or Achilles

heel?." Climate policy 20, no. 4 (2020): 468-484.

Putra, Andika. "The Role of International Human Rights Law in Fights Against Climate

Change." Jurnal Media Hukum 28, no. 2 (2021): 153-164.

Rockström, Johan, Joyeeta Gupta, Timothy M. Lenton, Dahe Qin, Steven J. Lade, Jesse F.

Abrams, Lisa Jacobson et al. "Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the

planet." Earth's Future 9, no. 4 (2021): e2020EF001866.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. "Advancing the international political economy of climate change

adaptation: political ecology, political economy and social justice." In Handbook of the

international political economy of energy and natural resources, pp. 33-49. Edward

Elgar Publishing, 2018.

Assessing Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach in climate regime 33

Tingley, Dustin, and Michael Tomz. "International commitments and domestic opinion: the

effect of the Paris Agreement on public support for policies to address climate

change." Environmental politics 29, no. 7 (2020): 1135-1156.

Tobin, Paul. "Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in developed states." Global

Environmental Politics 17, no. 4 (2017): 28-47.

Students also viewed