INTRODUCTION:
Climate change has been a concerning issue, casting a shadow over the future of Earth. Several scientific studies and research have shown the devastating consequences affecting the ecosystem, human beings, and their future generations. Several nations have often come together to address this pressing issue by signing multilateral agreements in international environmental law to curb greenhouse gas emissions. However, these treaties and negotiations still fall short when addressing this critical issue due to their insufficient implementation and political realities.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS- A SERIES OF COMMITMENT LEFT UNFULFILLED:
It all began with the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. It was one of the largest gatherings of world leaders to address the environmental challenges. It lays guidelines regarding sustainable development, i.e., to protect the environment and the ongoing economic growth. While it was a crucial step to raise awareness and the call for collective action, it failed due to its uneven implementation.
This was followed up by The Kyoto Protocol and The Paris Agreement in 1997 and 2015, respectively. The Kyoto Protocol[1] had a few things that could have been improved, including setting up an insufficient target to prevent carbon emissions. Developing countries, usually the significant emitters, were also free of these targets. The protocol lost its significance once the United States withdrew from the agreement. The Paris Agreement[2] met a similar fate due to a lack of robust mechanisms to address the emissions issue. Countries were allowed to set up their NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions), but there was no guarantee that the countries would be able to deliver up to those targets.
ANALYSING THE LOOPHOLES IN THE SYSTEM
So, what is the reason these policies are not able to effectively address the issues of climate change?
These can be broken down into four key points-
The first one is fragmented architecture. The nature of current environmental law is fragmented. These laws include standalone agreements that fail to establish connections and synergies. Understand this as a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces have been lost. The final product can only be achieved with the lost pieces being returned. Since these agreements are not connected to other aspects of a country, such as economic growth, trade, public policy, etc., they need to form a well-structured system to be followed.
For example, in The Kyoto Protocol, the developing countries were not bound by the targets set up related to carbon emissions. But these developing countries often include many manufacturing processes that cause much pollution and emit gases into the atmosphere. Hence, policies have to be made so that the interests of developing nations should match those of the environmental laws. They should not be too strict as a utopian reality but should be stringent enough not to let them over-exploit the liberty given.
The second issue that comes around the climate change agreement is state sovereignty[3]. Each nation has its interests, and they continue prioritizing them when signing up for international environmental agreements. So, each nation approaches the table with its interests and priorities. This often leads to agreements with weaker emission targets than they can or opt-out clauses for powerful countries. Just as the United States opted out of The Kyoto Protocol[4]. There is a need to balance sovereignty with a sense of global responsibility, as collective action is the only way forward. It requires nations to build trust, foster good relations, and come to amicable compromises when needed.
The third reason is the need for uniformity in the implementation stages. In the Paris Agreement, nations could choose their targets for NDCs rather than necessarily meet them. While this allows the government some control, it leads to uneven progress. Hence, there needs to be specific standards to measure the progress. These standards need to be objective. The lack of standardized mechanisms weakens the commitment over time for the climate change goals.
Another area for improvement in the system is the need for more transparency and accountability.
Imagine a classroom full of kids assigned to clean the room. There is no supervisor or teacher. Eventually, some kids will clean the room, while others won’t. In this way, the burden of work lies on the committed kids rather than being a collective effort.
Similarly, there has to be some authority or mechanisms for effective monitoring and verification. This will allow for fairness, and countries won’t be able to fudge their data regarding the emissions and will have to fulfil these obligations.
Transparency does not include pointing fingers and finding faults but building a system where everyone thrives. It includes sharing effective practices, modifying processes to reach the optimum goal, supporting nations facing trouble, and creating a collaborative atmosphere.
BRIDGING THE GAPS
Establishing strong linkage and collaborations between different interests is essential to prevent the overlapping of different approaches in an agreement.
Also, promoting the global imperative of addressing climate change and the collective effort of the nations should be encouraged. Instead of short-term economic benefits of a particular nation, an approach to balance a country’s interest in alignment with the global should be adopted.
A stricter and more organized way of planning policies should also be implemented. They will serve as a reliable mechanism to guide the way forward. Vigorous monitoring and verification should be introduced to hold nations accountable for preventing greenwashing.
Developed nations should offer support by facilitating the transfer of clean technologies and best practices to developing countries.
Nations can also advocate for a global carbon pricing system, which can involve the establishment of carbon markets or implementing tax policies on countries that fail to meet the specified standards.
CONCLUSION
Addressing this issue of climate change requires active participation, a will to resolve challenges, and an unwavering determination to look for innovative solutions. The inadequacies in emission reduction commitments, limited legal frameworks, political instability, and many other factors amount to these agreements needing to fulfil their required goals. While past multilateral agreements have fallen short, we can learn from their shortcomings and work and improvise on them to illuminate the path forward. The current trajectory needs to meet the challenges posed by climate change. Better strategies need to be adopted to revitalize the effectiveness of these agreements. The time for complacency Has passed, and we stand at the point of no return; the international community has to ensure a coordinated global response to prevent climate change. This existential threat needs to be managed on a priority basis to safeguard our planet for the present as well as future generations.
Author(s) Name: Khushi (Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA)
Reference(s):
[1] Lovett, Jon C, ‘1997 Kyoto Protocol’ (2005) 49 Journal of African Law 94–96 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/27607935>
[2] Derwent H, Błachowicz A, Hügel J, Blanco LF, Low MYX, Moreira Franco N, ‘Analysis of the Paris Agreement’ in Paris Agreement: How It Happened and What Next: With a Special Focus on the Role of Non-State Actors (Climate Strategies 2006) <http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15582.4>
[3] Werrell CE, Femia F, ‘Climate Change, the Erosion of State Sovereignty, and World Order’ (2016) 22 The Brown Journal of World Affairs 221–235 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26534704>
[4] Harris PG, ‘Collective Action on Climate Change: The Logic of Regime Failure’ (2007) 47 Natural Resources Journal 195–224 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/24889135>
