Naming and defamation policy and the transparency framework enhancing the Paris Agreement
Name and Defamation Policy and Transparency Framework Enhancing the Paris ConventionParis
There is no doubt that the actual implementation of the agreements is considered the greatest challenge facing international cooperation on mitigatingclimate change. We find – for example – that an important and crucial agreement such as the Paris Agreement does not include an official implementation mechanism that forces the states parties to implement it. Instead, the agreement relies on the principle of transparency, through which countries that fail to comply are announced. its obligations; Thus embarrassing it in front of international public opinion, and pushing it to change its strategy, which is referred to – idiomatically – as the mechanism of naming and shaming.
In a new study conducted by the School of Global Politics and Strategy (GPS) at the University of California, San Diego, it indicated that this mechanism of naming and defamation could constitute an effective incentive for many countries. In order to fulfill its climate pledges related to reducing emissions and switching to clean energy, in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The study was titled: “Naming and defamation as a strategy for enforcing the Paris Agreement: the role of political institutions and public interest,” and it was published in one of the publications of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). To evaluate the process of this mechanism included in the 2015 Paris Agreement, through the agreement’s Enhancing Transparency Framework (ETF).
What is the Enhanced Transparency Framework?
The Paris Agreement was a turning point in international climate policy, a point initially discussed at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
The agreement not only sets ambitious global goals – such as limiting the rise in average global temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels – but it provides a framework and political model that gives countries greater freedom in setting their own climate change goals.
But the problem here is that achieving these goals is not binding. Therefore, an innovative structure that includes international review and transparency mechanisms was incorporated into the agreement, to ensure the implementation of the goals and objectives set by each country. The enhanced transparency framework is an essential element of that architecture.
The transparency framework that enhances action and support is an essential element of the design, implementation and credibility of the Paris Agreement. The Framework sets out how Parties to the Convention will submit reports showing progress made in mitigating climate change, adaptation measures and support provided or received, and provides international procedures for reviewing and evaluating those reports.
In light of the above, the enhanced transparency framework has gained great importance. Under it, parties must submit regular reports on the progress they have made in implementing the goals set by each country at the national level, and these reports are subject to review by international experts.
Therefore, the transparency framework creates the basis for global public opinion to name and defame (condemn) countries that have failed to fulfill their promises. This procedure, known as “naming and defamation,” can compensate for the absence of binding provisions in the agreement related to achieving specific goals. That is why the enhanced transparency framework is an essential pillar of the Paris Agreement.
Ensuring the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement
As we have explained, the Enhanced Transparency Framework requires that States parties publicly declare their objectives and the progress made towards achieving these objectives. The study in question indicates that an enhanced transparency framework is most effective in motivating countries with stronger commitments to combating climate change.
“The framers of the Paris Agreement knew that strong enforcement mechanisms – such as trade sanctions – would not work,” said study co-author David Victor, professor of industrial innovation at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California, California. Most analysts also assumed that the agreement would not be effective without strong implementation, and that the enhanced transparency framework would have no real impact, but our findings suggest otherwise. The mechanism of naming and shaming works well, at least for some countries.”
The study shows that the policy of shaming and condemnation may not work everywhere, but it is a particularly important mechanism for countries that already have strong incentives to move forward to limit climate change. Even these countries need to be highlighted, to keep these motivations active, and to urge these countries to comply with the obligations they have set for themselves under the Paris Agreement.
In Europe, where countries have made the most ambitious climate pledges, rising energy prices and disruptions to Russian gas supplies have created a need to reserve higher-emitting energy technologies such as coal until mothballed plants are brought back online. Despite this – and thanks to the international vision and political pressures within those countries – many European countries are trying to maintain emissions levels in line with the climate goals to which they had previously committed.
As for the United States, the naming and shaming mechanism is also likely to be effective, but not to the same degree as in Europe, according to the study.
Opinions of experts and scientists
The findings of the new study are derived from responses from a sample of participants in the Conferences of the Parties (COP), which consists of more than 800 diplomatic and scientific experts who have participated – for decades – in climate policy discussions; These findings are therefore crucial, as they are based on the opinions of the people responsible for making key policy decisions, and are therefore important for assessing what might motivate their countries to act on climate.
Examples of the questions asked to these experts: Is the enhanced transparency framework in the Paris Agreement effective? Do you support the use of such a mechanism to motivate countries to achieve goals? Do you see the Enhanced Transparency Framework as a legitimate way to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement?
In general, 77% of the experts included in the study agreed with the use of the naming and defamation mechanism; That is, using the enhanced transparency framework in the Paris Agreement; To compare countries’ mitigation efforts. The results also indicate that 57% of all participants expect this mechanism to significantly affect the performance of climate policy in their countries.
Is defamation and condemnation enough?
There is no doubt that the naming and shaming mechanism is a good thing, as it can keep most climate-motivated countries on the right track; Reducing emissions and carbon is difficult, and changes in conditions and energy markets can make it even more difficult.
Many industrialized countries in Europe are responsible for huge amounts of emissions. When these countries are exposed to any crisis – as we have seen recently – the opportunity exists for policymakers to easily return to environmentally harmful and unsustainable choices, as happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But this did not happen as abruptly as expected, given that these countries took into account the enhanced transparency framework.
The survey participants were also asked about the institutions that should be responsible for implementing the mechanism of naming and defamation, and the results indicated – by an overwhelming majority – a preference for famous scientists, in addition to neutral international organizations, such as the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, previous studies have found that diplomatic and scientific organizations such as the United Nations may be ineffective in implementing such mechanisms.
While naming and shaming is a mechanism that makes international cooperation successful, the study’s authors believe that other strategies such as trade sanctions may also be useful, something that will require a separate study. To demonstrate its effectiveness.
