KYOTO PROTOCOL

(APPLICATION, SUCCESS,
FAILURE)
INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) was established in 1992 to provide an international forum for
countries to address climate change.
By 1997, the UNFCCC had adopted its first legally binding international
climate treaty with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets in
what was called the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto
Protocol at COP-3 in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997, marking a
turning point for international climate action and set the stage for the
Paris Agreement. Kyoto was the first ever international climate treaty that
established legally binding GHG emission targets and timetables.
 UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
(UNFCCC)

The significance of the UNFCCC cannot be overlooked as it finally provided a hard

objective in the fight against global warming, as well as providing the basic principles and
obligations and establishing procedures and institutions that would come to provide the
framework for future political and diplomatic action in the fight against this phenomenon.
The three main principles embodied in the UNFCCC were:

• Sustainable development (development that takes into account the needs of the current
generation without compromising those of future generations);

• The precautionary principle (which implies an obligation on states to take action even
where the science is uncertain if irreversible damage could be caused); and

• Common, but differentiated responsibilities (which takes into account the differing stages
of development of a country in setting obligations for them to meet).
KYOTO PROTOCOL

• treaty was finalized in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, after years of

negotiations, and it went into force in 2005. Nearly all nations
ratified the treaty, with the notable exception of the United States.
Developing countries, including China and India, weren't mandated
to reduce emissions, given that they'd contributed a relatively small
share of the current century-plus build-up of CO2.
• The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding
targets for industrialized countries for reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. As of 2008, 183 parties have ratified the
protocol, which includes India also.
• Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations
under the principle of “common but differentiated
responsibilities.” Under the protocol, the developed
countries are required to reduce emissions of GHGs by
an average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
DEFINITION OF 'KYOTO
PROTOCOL'
It is an international agreement that aims to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions and the presence of greenhouse
gases. Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol are
assigned maximum carbon emission levels and can
participate in carbon credit trading. Emitting more than
the assigned limit will result in a penalty for the violating
country in the form of a lower emission limit in the
following period.
OBJECTIVES OF KYOTO
PROTOCOL

• The objectives of the Kyoto protocol were-

• 1. To achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent anthropogenic
interference with the climate system within a time-frame
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate
change;
• 2. To ensure that food production is not threatened; and
• 3. To enable economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner.
SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
1) The six gases targeted for reduction included carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (used in air
conditioning), perfluorocarbons (often produced by aluminum
production) and sulfur hexafluoride (used in the electrical
industry). Carbon dioxide was the gas that policymakers were
most concerned about.
2) The general target that the developed countries have to meet is
to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by about 5% below
their 1990 levels in the timeframe addressed by the Kyoto
Protocol, namely 2008-2012.
3) To compensate for the sting of "binding targets," as they are called, the
agreement offers flexibility in how countries may meet their targets.
For example, they may partially compensate for their emissions by
increasing "sinks" -- forests, which remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere.
4) According to article 3.2 of the Kyoto protocol, by 2005, countries are
expected to have made demonstrable progress, though this has not been
specifically defined. Countries have been asked to create an effective
greenhouse gas accounting system.
5) Article 3.13 of the protocol incorporates a banking provision, which
provides that if the emissions of the countries mentioned in annexure 1
are less than its assigned amount for the first commitment period, then
this difference can be used to stay within the assigned amount of that
country in subsequent commitment periods.
6) According to article 4, two or more countries can meet their reduction
targets jointly, and can set their own individual targets so long as the
entire group under the ‘bubble’ meets their target in aggregate.
7) Article 6 further incorporates the provision on joint implementation,
which allows the industrialised countries to transfer or acquire
emission units from other industrialised countries, through projects
aimed at reducing emissions from sources, or enhancing removal by
sinks.
8) Article 10 calls for effective transfer of technologies that are publicly
owned or in the public domain. According to article 11 developed
countries are required to assist the developing countries vulnerable to
adverse effects of climate change in meeting the cost of adaptations.
9) Some mechanisms of the Protocol had enough support that they were
set up in advance of the Protocol's entry into force. The Clean
Development Mechanism, for example -- through which industrialized
countries can partly meet their binding emissions targets through
"credits" earned by sponsoring greenhouse-gas-reducing projects in
developing countries already had an executive board before the Kyoto
Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005.
 COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED
RESPONSIBILITIES (CBDR)
PRINCIPLES
• The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) divided the
world into two parts i.e. the countries that had “historical responsibility” and
those that did not. The first were put in an annexure, called Annex-1 of the
UNFCCC document, while the others came to be known as non-Annex
countries, which had to follow the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities (CBDR).
• Common but Differentiated Responsibility (GBDR) principal has two
matrices. The first is the shared responsibility for shared resources. In
fighting climate change, there are common responsibilities which all States
should accept due to the common resource which is the environment we
share. The second is the differentiated responsibility because of the
variations in the economic, social and technological levels of States. Under
this notion, because developed nations have a higher capability they should
lead the fight against climate change. Also, because the developed nations
gained their current capability by “past economic exploitation of global
commons”, they should shoulder greater responsibilities.
APPLICATION OF KYOTO
PROTOCOL/ BREAKING DOWN
'KYOTO PROTOCOL'
• The first commitment period, during which countries were bound to meet these
targets, ran from 2008-2012. At that time 37 countries and the European Union
had binding goals. Developing countries like China and India were excluded from
the list because, as the UN put it, “the Protocol places a heavier burden on
developed nations under the principle of ‘common but differentiated
responsibilities.’” Planning for the Protocol began in 1992, but it wasn’t until
1997 that members met in Kyoto, Japan, to agree to broad outlines for emission
targets. Members would set a target based on carbon-dioxide emission outputs in
1990. The average target was a 5% cut from 1990 to 2012. The second
commitment period began on 1st January 2013 and will end in 2020.

• The individual targets the Protocol assigns for the countries vary from 7% for the
United States (although it has since withdrawn its support for the Protocol), to 8%
for the European Union which, however, it can distribute among its member
states. Some countries, on the other hand are allowed to increase their greenhouse
gas emission – such as Iceland (may have a 10% increase of emissions) or
Portugal (27% increase allowed).
THE KYOTO MECHANISM
Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national
measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting
their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. They are Emissions trading –
known as “the carbon market", Clean development mechanism (CDM), Joint
implementation (JI).

1) Emissions trading - Carbon trading

Countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol have accepted targets for
limiting or reducing emissions. These targets are expressed as levels of allowed
emissions, or “assigned amounts”. The allowed emissions are divided into
“assigned amount units” (AAUs). Since carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse
gas, it was termed carbon trading. Carbon is now tracked and traded like any other
commodity. This is often termed the carbon market.

2) Clean Development Mechanism

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12 of the
Protocol, allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation
commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to implement an emission-reduction project
in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission
reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be
counted towards meeting Kyoto targets.
3) Joint implementation The mechanism known as “joint
implementation,” defined in Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol,
allows a country with an emission reduction or limitation
commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to earn emission
reduction units (ERUs) from an emission-reduction or emission
removal project in another country, each equivalent to one
tonne of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting its Kyoto
target.
SUCCESS
- The 37 industrial nations that stuck with the protocol after the US
pulled out in 2005 say they exceeded their promises, cutting their
emissions for the period from 2008 to 2012 to an average of 16 per
cent below 1990 levels, compared with the 4.7 per cent promised in
the agreement. But the protocol only ever applied to rich
industrialised nations. Most of the cuts came from Eastern
European countries when their economies collapsed after the fall of
the Berlin Wall – reductions that would have happened anyway.
- But on a technical level Kyoto has seen dramatic developments it
can account for. It introduced the idea of a multinational carbon
market – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – and
delivered new rules for reporting, accounting and verifying
emissions.
- And its rules-based architecture influenced the creation of low
carbon legislation across the world – notably the UK’s 2008
FAILURE OF THE PROTOCOL-

• the protocol didn't become international law until more than

halfway through the 1990–2012 period. By that point, global
emissions had risen substantially. Some countries and regions,
including the European Union, were on track by 2011 to meet or
exceed their Kyoto goals, but other large nations were falling
woefully short. And the two biggest emitters of all – the United
States and China – churned out more than enough extra greenhouse
gas to erase all the reductions made by other countries during the
Kyoto period. Worldwide, emissions soared by nearly 40% from
1990 to 2009, according to the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency.
SOME PROBLEMS OF THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL MUST BE DISCUSSED:
1) The use of removals by sinks as a form to mitigate climate change is
controversial. Some argue that reforestation projects do not address the
main causes of greenhouse gas emissions (industrialisation and energy
use).
2) There are no side payments as an incentive for developing countries to
assume commitments. Commitments are set only for developed
countries. This problem contributes to a smaller fall of emissions at a
higher cost.
3) Developing countries may additionally increase their emissions
because of the leakage from developed countries. That is, investors
may favour developing countries because of a less stringent
environmental law and absence of environmental commitments.
4). Emission reductions cannot be precisely measured. This is the so-called baselines
problem. It questions the effectiveness of the environmental investments for climate
change mitigation. One needs to establish a methodology to measure liquid gains in
GHGs emissions that have a consensus between researchers in the field.
5). The final flaw and the one that caused the most issue was the fact that developing
countries were not required whatsoever to reduce their emissions, giving them what many
developed countries saw as an economic advantage. No developed country succeeded in
cutting their emission levels unless their economy completely crashed (like Russia).
6). The minimum participation clause (at least 55 developed countries responsible for at
least 55% of carbon dioxide emissions) acts to deter free-riding until this limit is reached.
From this point on there is no incentive to adhesion and the countries shall have the
benefits without cost; and
7). There is no mechanism to enforce compliance of the commitments. The initial
Brazilian proposal of CDF would work to enforce compliance, with incentives in the
form of emissions trading and punishment in the form of a monetary contribution to a
fund proportional to the difference between actual data and commitments.
8). The banking provision which allows the industrialised countries to bank emissions for
future use creates inequity. For example, if an industrialised country reduces more than its
targets for 2010, then it can bank them, even though it already has very high per capita
emissions. But India has very low per capita emissions today and hence cannot bank
anything today for their future use.
SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF
KYOTO PROTOCOL
Formally the protocol lives on. Climate talks in Doha in December created a
second “compliance period” stretching to 2020. (14) In Doha, Qatar, on 8
December 2012, the “Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol” was adopted.
The amendment includes:
∙ New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed
to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 1 January
2013 to 31 December 2020;

∙ A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in

the second commitment period; and

∙ Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically

referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which
needed to be updated for the second commitment period.
 CONCLUSION
• To conclude we can say that climate change threats are real and the countries
around the globe recognize this fact, including the USA. Domestic initiatives by
the countries and the binding targets for the reduction would be the likely path to
follow. Three things are required for successful treaty: mandate numerical
emission reduction targets for emissions, second, effective transfer of technology
and investment to poor countries for sustainable development, and third, result
oriented enforcement mechanism

• Clearly the Kyoto Protocol has been ineffective in institutionalising any change.
As Aldy said, “because no single approach guarantees a sure path to ultimate
success, the best strategy may be to pursue a variety of approaches
simultaneously”. It should begin with non-governmental organisations influencing
the general public to stimulate change from their local and regional councils,
which will then feed up into national governments. This domestic action approach
to climate change mitigation provides autonomy and flexibility, allowing countries
to develop legal responses to climate change that reflect the particularities of their
own jurisdictions. In doing so, the domestic regimes can provide the momentum
for an international response that can encompass a broader jurisdictional scope. As
this movement gathers momentum, steps should be put in place to implement a
global climate change authority based on a trusteeship model to protect the
environment for the benefit of mankind.