'Top down' or 'bottom up' - different discourses on tackling climate change. Part 2.

So what should it be? Top down or bottom up or can you do both?
Source:Google images

For part 1 click here

Despite the arguably proven philosophy of the global deal, Falkner et al. (2010) go onto argue that the relative failures of Copenhagen demonstrate that the strategy may have outlived its usefulness, experiencing diminishing returns resulting from shifts in climate politics. Obstacles to international cooperation, include a lack of political will among major emitters with many counties lacking necessary domestic support. Previously of the five leading emitters of CO2 (China, US, EU, Russia and India) only the EU has strongly supported a legally binding agreement (although this may have changed recently - see future blog on pledges in the lead up to Paris).

Furthermore structural shifts in the international political economy also mark serious challenges for the global deal (Falkner et al. 2010). Whilst EU/US divisions used to be the main are of contention, the main divide is now between emerging and developed nations. The changing balance of power significantly strengthens the veto power of developing nations. Whilst the US at Copenhagen made its commitments dependent on those made by major emerging economies, China like may other major emerging economies demanded that industrialised countries bear a greater historical responsibility and thus should take a lead in controlling emissions, with poorer countries needing to catch up economically before heavy responsibility is placed upon them. In addition, debates also surround the effectiveness of the UN negotiation framework (Falkner et al. 2010), with two years being spent preparing for the conference, yet the negotiation texts prepared were completely ignored in the Accord. Progress was also primarily made using smaller and more exclusive negotiation groups and new multi-track diplomacy, a break from the traditional negotiation.

This so called failure of the top-down approach has led to the development of discourses arguing for a bottom-up approach to climate policy. One paper uses a simple but effective analogy to demonstrate the logic of a bottom up approach (Rayner, 2010).

Q: How do you eat an elephant

A: One Piece at a time

The paper argues that despite its dominance, an 'elegant' top down approach of legally binding targets enabled through carbon trading markets underestimates market complexities and overestimate the willingness of politicians to priorities climate change over welfare issues. It is also argued that top down approaches neglect the importance of adaption. Instead a bottom up approach:

'emphasizes the ‘direction of travel’ over targets and timetables and approaches the development of effective measures to minimize global warming through a diverse range of policy actions, originating from the ‘bottom up’ within nations, based on their own institutional, technological, economic and political capacities; but which cumulatively will lead to a fundamental technological shift in global patterns of energy and land use' (Rayner, 2010)

The bottom up approaches requires climate change policies to be designed and implemented at the lowest feasible level of organization. I.e when something can be done at lower organizational levels it should be. A bottom up approach also focuses directly on adaption which is by definition local in nature. I agree with Rayner when he argues that although adaption is by no means a substitute for mitigation it is vital for saving lives and bring immediate benefits to humanity. Arguments in favour of bottom up approaches also highlight the huge potential for cities to tackle climate change through tackling issues of energy, transport, water and spatial development. These arguments are in fact echoed by a new report by the UN which confirms crucial role of cities and companies.

A further discourse put forward as an alternative to the global deal is the 'building blocks approach'  (Falkner et al. 2010) which markets itself as closer to a global deal strategy than a pure bottom up approach, with the long-term objective of an integrated policy regime, yet disregards with 'a dose of political realism'the idea of a legally binding treaty. Furthermore, despite distancing itself from the bottom up approach it has many similarities. The building block approach:

'disaggregates global climate governance into component parts that can be developed in a more flexible manner, involving different sets of negotiations based on varying political geometries and regime types...Rather than wait for a single agreement to cover all governance mechanisms, individual agreements are developed on matters such as technology innovation and diffusion, adaptation funding, deforestation and sectoral approaches for industrial sectors'.

In my opinion a lot can be learnt from the bottom up approach, there are clearly flaws in pursuing a top down approach, which is clearly creating diminishing returns for climate governance. Yet, I am also concerned by the true ability of a bottom up approach to promote change, with its 'modest and practical approach' (Rayner, 2010). I am concerned that completely abandoning an integrated climate regime, or top down approach and focusing solely on bottom up approaches removes the stimulus for developing ambitious domestic policies, enhancing the lowest common denominator (Falkner et al. 2010), as well as potentially loosing the other benefits of a global strategy outlined previously.

To me, it seems illogical to completely abandon a top down system that as been at the forefront of negotiations for a new system that is unproven and no more guaranteed to ensure success. Climate change is a global problem and requires a global response. Yet the top down approach does require modification. It seems logical instead to pursue a legally binding global deal that also combines and purses elements of both bottom up and building block approaches creating a complex regime with integrated management. Why should each approach be exclusive of one another. Surely combing the most effective elements covers all basis and maximizes the chances of climate change being tackled effectively. Such an approach in fact appears to be emerging in the lead up to the COP21. The climate talks are still pursuing a new international agreement on climate and top down approaches will be used to manage the new Green Climate Fund and the $100 billion dollars a year by 2020 pledged to help developing countries cope with climate change. However, the INDCs agreed in Lima as part of a new approach mark the combination of top down systems with  a bottom-up approach in which countries put forward their agreements in the context of their own national circumstances, capabilities and priorities to reduce climate change. How successful this new approach is still up for debate. However, my next blogs aims to answer this by analysing this new approach along with the other initiatives that have been intended to spur action on in the run-up to Paris.