ON Dec 12, world leaders reached a climate change accord in Paris. The agreement has been widely hailed as historic and world-changing by most world leaders. Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, called it a diplomatic triumph.

Undoubtedly, the climate agreement is historic in as much as its unprecedented consensual nature is concerned. In an age of growing international discord, the agreement represents the triumph of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. The agreement is also significant when seen in the backdrop of the last climate conference in Copen­hagen which concluded without any agreement.

Moreover, it is historic because it puts the issue of the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels on the agenda alongside scaling up the ambition of limiting the rise in world temperature to an ideal 1.5 degrees Celsius though keeping the increase to below 2°C as officially achievable.

The agreement incorporates a regular five-yearly review of carbon emission targets pledged by individual countries, and is also legally binding in the broadest sense of the term. In fact, there is a lot in the agreement to be upbeat about in the long term. And there is something for everybody to celebrate.

Yet in the drive to reach the broadest consensus, specific goals and targets have been done away with or watered down. Elizabeth Korbert, an influential writer on climate change, has called the agreement a triumph of comity over coherence.

Implementation of the climate change pact remains a problem.

On the surface, the agreement is broadly legal binding, though the devil of non-enforcement is in the detail. This is the agreement’s Achilles heel which has swelled the army of detractors after the initial euphoria. These doubts centre on a number of areas.

First, limiting warming to less than 2°C seems well beyond the wildest possibility. Even the preamble of the agreement acknowledges that the target will be hard to meet. The realisation of this target is further muddied when individual country targets submitted by 187 states are examined. The targets do not add up to realisation of the goal of achieving the 2°C target.

Secondly, there is no enforcement mechanism proposed in the agreement to make the gold of the agreement shine as put aptly by one blogger. Even modest targets proposed by individual nations are not enforceable. The targets set are entirely voluntary and depend on the political will of the countries involved. There is no firm commitment from the big polluters that they will reduce carbon emissions and there is no mechanism to sanction high polluters.

The United States fought hard to keep the deal sanction-free based on the argument that it would be easier to sell it to the climate-sceptic Republican Congress. Looked at this way, the deal is a big climbdown from the Kyoto Protocol which was more target-oriented and laced with some semblance of enforcement.

The issue of carbon pricing is also off the table in the new agreement. There is an indication of a five-yearly review of the carbon emission target which is going to start in 2023. In between, business as usual on climate change is likely to prevail.

Third, the Paris climate deal offers no guaranteed way forward on the festering issue of climate financing despite the developing countries’ overwhelming focus on it. The projected climate finance of $100 billion is entirely voluntary and aspirational. There is no firm and cast-iron commitment to contribute to the funding. The associated concern is that climate finance may be funded out of the money diverted from the already shrin­king aid bud­get of the de­ve­­l­oped countries.

Four , there is a growing concern that carbon trading and re­­newable energy will benefit business and industry, with the poor being left high and dry. In a neo-liberal age, with the declining power of the state over business regulation, it is hard to see how governments can force business into a direction which is not profit-oriented.

The world faces a climate emergency of unprecedented proportions. Yet, despite the hopeful and consensual wording of the document, action on agreement is hard to foresee. This is of a piece with previous attempts by the world’s leading powers to delay the implementation of agreements.

The Paris agreement may have achieved consensus on a range of contentious issues. But the test of the deal would lie in the grinding work of monitoring and holding governments to account for the targets submitted by them and living up to the aspirational words embodied in the agreement. Now, as always, it falls to local and global civil society to prepare itself to hold governments to account and shout out louder for climate justice and equity.

The writer is a development consultant and policy analyst.

Published in Dawn, December 29th, 2015