Keeping in view the transnational nature of environmental problems, almost 700 multilateral agreements and over 1000 bilateral treaties, protocols, and conventions have been signed to cope with environmental degradation and climate change (Mitchell, 2003). Paris Agreement, which came into force in 2015 as a result of COP-21 was an attempt to bind the international community to cope with soaring global temperatures by curtailing excessive greenhouse emissions. This agreement was regarded as a significant step in providing the developing states with the required financial flows to lower GHG emissions. States in the pursuit of their national interests while neglecting the notion of ‘absolute gain’ have tended to not comply with the agreed agenda outlined in the Paris Agreement. This has made the battle against climate change a rather lost one. The undesirable venomous emissions that are on the verge of high trajectory since 1990 have not been curtailed to the extent as was estimated in the Paris Agreement. the multifrontal compliance that includes substantive, and procedural compliance and keeping up with the spirit of the Paris Agreement has been lacking, which has rendered the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement on the back foot, and the problem remains in place and unsolved.
Under Article 28, the United States in 2015 had withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. Donald J. Trump’s administration’s withdrawal was made on the pretext, that U.S. compliance with the Pairs Agreement would cost it around 2.7 million jobs [1] (Shear., 2017). The United States, despite having the means to expurgate its GHG emanations has been reluctant to do. Many other poor and developing countries, that do not possess the means to comply with mitigation policies due to the onerous costs have also been violating the spirit of the Paris Agreement. The procedural and substantive non-compliance from the United States which had pledged that it would curtail its GHGs up to 26-28% by 2025 and provide 3 billion to the developing states to support their mitigation efforts has significantly added to the ineffectiveness of the Paris Agreement.
The compliance of states towards any agreed multilateral or bilateral treaty, for a larger part, is based on either prudential or moral reasons. What went wrong with the Paris Agreement was the flexibility given to the states under the notion of ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ where the states were given the incentive to determine their emissions level and come up with mitigation policies to lower the earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius[2]. It was outlined in the Paris Agreement that considering the burdensome costs of the determined mitigation objectives, the implementation of the determined mitigation procedures might be too demanding for the poor states. It, therefore, has formulated its mechanism of dispensing mitigation policies by letting every country decide the ways they could potentially add to the battle against climate change. This incentivization of the states has immensely exposed the flawed nature of global environmental governance to ensure compliance of the states. The international treaties are result-orientated which is dependent on molding the behavior of the states through compliance yet the mechanism to monitor and ensure compliance is close to inexistent in the environmental regime. the constant rise in the earth’s temperature has left the substantive provisions to curtail GHG emissions and provide the financially unstable states with the necessary and required funding that was outlined in the Paris Agreement ambiguous. This unchanged behavior of states has resulted in a major blow to the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement (Kilian Raiser, 2020).
From the reports consulted, it has been witnessed that the countries that are more prone to natural calamities as a result of climate change have a sort of convergence of interest which serves as the biggest source of motivational compliance to the Paris Agreement. For instance, Pacific Islands’ states are more prone to the risk of being submerged which has led them to a convergence of interest in collectively adopting the adaptation and mitigation measures to cope with the intensifying sea level. On the other hand, the developed states, that have the capacity and resources tend to show the least motivational compliance because they have the ‘shock observers’ to deal with the immense challenges posed by climate change particularly, as a result of mounting greenhouse gas emissions as highlighted in the Paris agreement. The divergence of interest on the side of the global power elite. Particularly the United States and Russia have been limited to obligatory mitigation objectives. Therefore, they do not comply with their own NDC as the Paris Agreement allows them. This has also taken a toll on the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement.
The European Union, having a joint NDC under paragraph 16 of article 4 of the Paris Agreement has also not effectively complied with the Paris Agreement (Maizland, 2022). Their non-compliance is prominently limited to the procedural sphere. The Paris Agreement under Article 4 imposes a procedural obligation to inform the secretariat before reaching the arrangement on multiparty NDC. These prior notifications as per the Paris Agreement shall include the specifications such as the quota of emissions and period etc. The EU bloc has not notified the UNFCCC secretariat regarding the terms of the agreement. Unlike many other Multilateral or Bilateral Agreements which are based on substantive consequences, the Paris Agreement works on the principle of procedural commitments that have significantly compromised the transparency, clarity, and accountability that is required to enact the mitigation procedures and policies.
Conclusively, the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement has been compromised immensely due to non-compliance from the member states. The pullout of the United States in 2015 also added significantly to its ineffectiveness. The non-compliance dilemma because of the inherently flawed nature of the Paris Agreement allows the states to determine the national policies and emissions level at the national level but due to the lack of ambition at the national level, states have shown the least or no compliance to the Paris Agreement resulting in the problem of GHGs emission is still in place. The lack of clarity, transparency, and clear reporting which is a precondition of the Paris Agreement has also immensely made the Paris Agreement’s precision provisions ineffectual. Although the Paris Agreement has been continuously prone to dilemma in the form of non-compliance, it has provided the states with the most promising avenue of norms making and provision of a collective platform for the sharing of ideas, experiences, research, etc. To cope with non-compliance, the need for institutional infrastructure to monitor compliance is significant and inevitable.
[1] Michael D. Shear. Trump Will Withdraw U.S From Paris Climate Agreement. New York Times. 2017