Climate negotiators meet in Bonn from June 1 for a key ten-day UN summit as this year’s deadline for a new global climate deal, to replace the Kyoto Protocol, draws closer. After several years of intensive diplomacy, governments have until this December at a major UN conference hosted in Paris to secure agreement.

Last week, French President Francois Hollande warned that time was short for a deal and called upon world leaders to find solutions for the complex challenges still in play. In Hollande’s words, “200 days are left…that may seem a lot of time, but in fact there’s very little…it’s urgent”.

In the context, agreement of another, even more complex top-down deal than was Kyoto in 1997 may be unrealistic in 2015 given the limited time now left for negotiation. Kyoto produced a landmark and vital agreement with commitments for around 40 developed countries and the EU states, but the even greater complexity of a potential Paris deal means we may well need a different model today.

The top-down approach employed in 1997 risks being too cumbersome for what will be an agreement potentially encompassing more than 190 industrialised and also developing countries. So with the Paris deadlines fast approaching, ministers and policymakers must now consider new ways to break the log-jam. And, there are potential breakthrough ideas that could help secure success.

For instance, an alternative ‘bottom-up’ blueprint is emerging for a global agreement based upon national climate legislation. In stark contrast to the slow pace of UN talks, such national action is advancing fast.

Since Kyoto was negotiated, over 450 climate-related laws have been passed in 66 countries covering around 88 per cent of global greenhouse gases. As research from the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics underlines, this momentum is happening in developed and developing countries across all continents.

This is transformational, and the key question is how best can we craft an agreement that builds upon this momentum. The answer is that we should seek a formula with nationally legal-binding legislation and regulation at its core. This is a proposal already advocated in certain quarters, including the Council of Europe, an international organisation promoting cooperation between European countries in the areas of legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law, and cultural cooperation. The Council of Europe proposal would include a core agreement centred around a global target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is in line with the commitment agreed by governments to keep global average temperature rise below 2˚C compared with pre-industrial levels. The difference is that this target would be delivered through national action.

Under such an agreement, countries would pass domestic climate legislation and/or regulations by 2020 with clear targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These national targets will be reported to the UN and be consistent with the goal that temperature rises should be restricted to no more than 2 Celsius, thus increasing prospects of preventing dangerous or runaway climate change.

The agreement’s credibility would be underpinned by an independent body to monitor and verify government commitments. This will include regular reviews of national pledges to ensure national legislation is aligned with the global target to reduce emissions. This formula is not dissimilar to that embodied in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The latter has been described by former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date” with 197 countries now signatories.

Diplomatic consensus

So, there is a good precedent. And, let’s not forget that the Montreal Protocol was signed by leaders from across the political spectrum from Republican US President Ronald Reagan to French Socialist President Francois Mitterand underlining the potential for international diplomatic consensus on environmental issues. Interestingly, this is a formula which the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, the US and China, seem to be moving towards too. For instance, the Obama administration, given its inability to get any UN climate deal ratified in the US Senate, is reportedly seeking a ‘politically-binding’ global accord.

Under this, countries would make voluntary pledges as part of a deal in 2015, and then be ‘named and shamed’ if they do not subsequently take domestic measures to realise these cuts. And China is developing national climate legislation, and also considering carbon constraints under its 13th Five Year Plan due for approval in March 2016.

Given the huge stakes in play in coming months, the UN talks process must be kept alive, allowing us until 2020 to reach final details before Kyoto expires. And, perhaps the single best way of doing this is to agree the framework and principles behind a global agreement in 2015 based upon domestic action.

Imperfect as a global climate treaty based on national action may be, it may now represent the most likely blueprint for success in Paris. World leaders should prepare the groundwork for such an agreement which could become a foundation stone of global sustainable development for decades to come.

— Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS (the Centre for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy at the London School of Economics), and a former UK Government Special Adviser.