Agenda

Thursday 7 April 2016
Faculty Center, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
1100 S. McAllister Ave. Tempe, AZ

12:30 – 13:30 Welcome Lunch
13:30 – 14:30 Lessons from other regimes

Learning from other review processes in the UNFCCC and other issue areas.

Conversation starter: Harro van Asselt

Following a short presentation on possible lessons learned, this session is intended as an out-of-the-box thinking exercise, reflecting on possible lessons from existing review processes. This includes processes outside the UNFCCC context, such as the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, the Trade Policy Review Mechanism of the WTO, compliance mechanisms in other environmental treaties such as CITES and the Montreal Protocol, the peer review process of the OECD, and the IMF’s bilateral surveillance. In addition, lessons could be learned from existing review processes under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, including the expert reviews of inventories and National Communications, as well as the International Assessment and Review of Biennial Reports (including the multilateral assessment) and the International Consultations and Analysis. Moreover, experiences with the compliance mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol may offer important lessons on how (not) to approach compliance under the Paris Agreement. To stimulate participants’ thinking, a background paper comparing these experiences will be provided, along with a supplemental reading list.

14:30 – 15:30 Review of a “bottom up” regime

How can review best work in a ‘bottom up’ regime? 

Conversation starter: Thomas Hale

Following a short presentation on possible lessons learned, this session is intended as an out-of-the-box thinking exercise, reflecting on possible lessons from existing review processes. This includes processes outside the UNFCCC context, such as the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, the Trade Policy Review Mechanism of the WTO, compliance mechanisms in other environmental treaties such as CITES and the Montreal Protocol, the peer review process of the OECD, and the IMF’s bilateral surveillance. In addition, lessons could be learned from existing review processes under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, including the expert reviews of inventories and National Communications, as well as the International Assessment and Review of Biennial Reports (including the multilateral assessment) and the International Consultations and Analysis. Moreover, experiences with the compliance mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol may offer important lessons on how (not) to approach compliance under the Paris Agreement. To stimulate participants’ thinking, a background paper comparing these experiences will be provided, along with a supplemental reading list.

15:30 – 16:00 Coffee break
16:00 – 17:00 Design of review under the Paris Agreement (especially Art 13, 14, and 15, and their interaction)
Taking the text of the Paris Agreement (and accompanying decision) as a starting point, this session will address a range of pressing practical questions, including:

  • How should the compliance mechanism (Art 15) operate, and how should it relate to the transparency framework?
    Conversation starter: Sue Biniaz 
  • What exactly is to be reviewed, substantively, under Art 13, 14, 15?Conversation starter: Yamide Dagnet
  • How can ‘flexibility’ be provided throughout the review processes?
    Conversation starter: Sonja Klinsky
     
  • How should the review processes be timed and sequenced, keeping in mind their inter-relationships? 
    Conversation starter: Dan Bodansky
     
  • How can the review processes build on existing institutional arrangements for specific issues (e.g. the Adaptation Committee, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Technology Executive Committee)?
    Conversation starter: Bryce Rudyk 
  • Who should perform the reviews for the different processes and how will they be selected?
    Conversation starter: Meinhard Doelle
  • Can existing and future review processes be combined or streamlined?
    Conversation starter: Nat Keohane
17:00 – 18:00 Discussion of priority themes and questions
19:30

Dinner at House of Tricks

114 E 7th St, Tempe, AZ 85281
Please let the hostess know that you are here for the Arizona State University (ASU) Dinner

Friday 8 April 2016
John J. Ross – William C. Blakley Law Library, Rm LL-101
1102 S McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ 85287
(480) 965-6144

08:30 – 09:00 Breakfast
09:00 – 11:30 Discussion of key themes questions identified on Thursday
11:30 – 12:00 Next Steps

Start of 2nd Workshop: Implications of the Paris Agreement

John J. Ross – William C. Blakley Law Library, Rm LL-101
1102 S McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ 85287
(480) 965-6144

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch Event: Presentation by Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Senator from Rhode Island

(Lunch will be in Rm 105, Armstrong Hall, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law)

13:30 – 13:45 Welcome and Introductions
13:45 – 14:30 Update on post-Paris developments
14:30 – 16:00

Session 1: Implications of Paris for the United States

Initial comments: Nat Keohane and Elliott Diringer

United States participation in the Paris Agreement is generally seen as vital to the agreement’s success. President Obama is expected to join the agreement as a sole executive agreement, rather than submitting it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification or seeking Congressional approval.  And the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is expected to be the main means by which the United States implements the 26-28% emission reduction target in its NDC.

Prospects for U.S. participation and implementation, however, are uncertain. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan by the EPA raises questions about whether the plan will ultimately be upheld.  Plus, if the Republicans win the White House in November, the new president could scrap the Clean Power Plan and potentially withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Questions:

  • Can President Obama join the Paris Agreement without the approval of the Senate or Congress? Could his decision be challenged by Congress or in the courts?  What are the prospects for its being upheld?
  • How will the United States implement its obligations under the Paris Agreement? What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay E.P.A.’s implementation of the Clean Power Plan?
  • How will the Paris Agreement influence the future of U.S. climate policy? How much difference will it make?
16:00 – 16:30 Coffee Break
16:30 – 17:30 Continued discussion
19:00 Dinner at Gertrude’s Restaurant, Desert Botanical Garden
1201 N Galvin Pkwy, Phoenix, AZ 85008
Please let the hostess know that you are here for the Arizona State University (ASU) Dinner  

Saturday 9 April 2016
John J. Ross – William C. Blakley Law Library, Rm LL-101
1102 S McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ 85287
(480) 965-6144

08:30 – 09:00 Breakfast
09:00 – 10:15

Session 2: Implications of the Paris Agreement for non-state actors

Initial comments: Kirsten Engel and Harro van Asselt

 

Since the 1990s, non-state actors have initiated dozens of climate commitments, partnerships and voluntary initiatives, including many standard-setting schemes.  Since 2014, such commitments have become a significant part of the global climate regime.  At the New York Climate Summit, local governments, businesses, civil society organizations and multi-stakeholder coalitions made significant commitments, in “action areas” including finance, energy, forests, transport and cities.  At the Lima CoP, the Peruvian and French presidencies and the Secretary-General launched the Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA), to showcase commitments, help them scale up, and catalyze new ones.  They established the NAZCA portal to publicize climate actions.

In Paris, LPAA sponsored a series of “action days” at which non-state actors announced further commitments.  The CoP decision accepting the Paris Agreement welcomed these actions, encouraged stakeholders to register on NAZCA, and encouraged governments to collaborate with non-state actors on new initiatives.  It agreed to convene high-level commitment events at subsequent CoPs, and to appoint two “high-level champions” to elicit and support commitments.

Questions

  • What role can non-state commitments and initiatives play in the climate regime going forward?
  • How can the regime maximize their impact?
  • How can we best learn from their experiences? How will they interact with party’s nationally determined contributions?
10:15 – 10:45 Coffee break
10:45 – 12:00 Continued discussion
12:00 – 13:00 Lunch
13:00 – 14:15

Session 3: Implications of the Paris Agreement for International environmental law and international cooperation more generally

Initial comments: Susan Biniaz and Meinhard Doelle

The Paris Agreement is obviously important in the international effort to combat climate change.  But some argue that it has wider implications for international law and cooperation.  For example, Anne-Marie Slaughter has called it “a new model for global governance in the twenty-first century.”  Similarly, the president of the World Bank hailed the agreement as a “game changer.”

      Questions:

  • Does the Paris Agreement establish a new model of international cooperation, based on nationally determined contributions? How novel is that model and how likely is it to be replicated for other issues?
  • Does the Paris Agreement’s hybrid legal nature represent a new model for international law?
  • Does the Paris conference herald a new era in which the “G-2” (i.e., the United States and China) plays the central role in bridging international differences and enabling cooperation?
14:15-14:25 Coffee Break
14:25 – 16:00 Continued discussion
16:00 – 17:00 Wrap-up and closing
18:00 Informal dinner for people who are staying over Saturday night

 

Comments are closed.