Making the Paris Agreement: Historical Processes and the Drivers of Institutional Design

Abstract

After a decade-long search, countries finally agreed on a new climate treaty in 2015. The Paris Agreement has attracted attention both for overcoming years of gridlock and for its novel features. Here, we build on accounts explaining why states reached agreement, arguing that a deeper understanding requires a focus on institutional design. Ultimately, it was this agreement, with its specific provisions, that proved acceptable to states rather than other possible outcomes. Our account is multi-causal and draws methodological inspiration from the public policy and causes of war literatures. Specifically, we distinguish between background, intermediate, and proximate conditions and identify how they relate to one another, jointly producing the ultimate outcome we observe. Our analysis focuses especially on the role of scientific knowledge, non-state actor mobilization, institutional legacies, bargaining, and coalition-building in the final push for agreement. This case-based approach helps to understand the origins of Paris, but also offers a unique, historically grounded way to examine questions of institutional design.

Fit for purpose? Just Energy Transition Partnerships and accountability in international climate governance

“…To do so, they agreed on a system of nationally‐determined contributions (NDCs) in which states put forward voluntary pledges of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets every 5 years. While states are required to submit updated NDCs, they enjoy significant leeway in setting the associated level of ambition (Allan et al., 2021). Moreover, although the Paris Agreement was widely heralded as a creative way to break the gridlock that had long plagued international climate politics, global GHG emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate.…”

“…Although this accountability gap limits the effectiveness of the UNFCCC as a governance institution, the gap is not surprising. Such a pledge‐based system reflects the institutional and geopolitical context from which the Paris Agreement was born (Allan et al., 2021). Hence, actors—state or otherwise—looking to hold UNFCCC parties to account and thereby help facilitate GHG emissions reductions must look outside the UNFCCC itself for mechanisms to do so.…”

“…This process is facilitated via the Global Stocktake, which takes place every 5 years. Although the stocktake reviews parties' collective progress, its individual monitoring and review requirements were designed to push parties to gradually strengthen their NDCs (Allan et al., 2021). Thus, the UNFCCC has established itself as a venue of standard‐setting and monitoring for states' efforts in GHG emission reductions.…”

Lessons from COP15 on effective scientific engagement in biodiversity policy processes

“…Developing a comprehensive science-informed framework for addressing the biodiversity crisis may be even more challenging than are analogous global climate negotiations, due in part to less-developed scientific support, but also to a more complex boundary between evidence and values in conservation policy, given diverse valuations of nature (IPBES, 2022). There is a well-established division between UN climate bodies charged with synthesizing evidence (IPCC) and those negotiating values-based policy decisions (UNFCCC) (Allan et al, 2019). Global climate outcomes (e.g., limiting heating to no more than 1.5 or 2 • C) are endorsed via values-based choices negotiated by national delegates to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP), along with related goals to foster adaptive capacity and associated financial resources.…”

“…Global climate outcomes (e.g., limiting heating to no more than 1.5 or 2 • C) are endorsed via values-based choices negotiated by national delegates to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP), along with related goals to foster adaptive capacity and associated financial resources. Individual nations then identify "nationally determined contributions" that will contribute equitably to goal achievement, based on values but informed by scientific assessment of alternative policy pathways (Allan et al, 2019).…”