Kyoto Protocol (1997)
The Kyoto protocol (henceforth referred to as kyoto or ‘the protocol’) was adopted on 11th December, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force on 16th February, 2015. Currently, 197 parties are part of the protocol.
While the UNFCCC (henceforth referred to as ‘the convention’) only asked parties to adopt policies and measures on mitigation and to report the progress made on these measures periodically, kyoto required parties to commit to limit and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets. It bound developed countries, and placed a heavier burden on them since it recognized that they were largely responsible for the high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere1.
Article 1 introduced additional definitions beyond those highlighted in the convention.
In this article, the acronym ‘IPCC’ will be used to refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established in 1988 jointly by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.
The Montreal Protocol refers to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, adopted on 16th September 1987.
When referring to emissions of greenhouse gases, kyoto referred to emissions by gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. These include Carbon dioxide (C02), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs), Perfluorocarbons(PFCs) and Sulphur hexaflouride (SF6)2. For the purpose of brevity, these gases will be referred to plainly as ‘greenhouse gases’.
Some of the requirements in this protocol were meant for Annex 1 parties only. A list of Annex 1 and 2 parties are listed in the convention3.
Article 2 described specific policies and measures that each party in Annex 1 was required to adopt in order to achieve its quantified emission limitations4 and reduction commitments.
Each party was mandated to implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances. For example, parties were required to enhance energy efficiency5 in relevant sectors of their economy. They were also required to protect and enhance sinks6 and reservoirs7 of greenhouse gases, promote sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and deforestation as well as promote sustainable forms of agriculture. Moreover, parties were encouraged to research on, promote and enhance development and the use of renewable forms of energy, carbon sequestration8 technologies and advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies. Parties were encouraged to tackle market barriers that could hinder progress towards achieving the objective of the convention and application of market instruments. Examples include providing fiscal9 incentives, tax and duty exemptions and providing subsidies10 in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors. There was also a call to reduce methane emissions through recovery and use in waste management, as well as in the production, transport and distribution of energy. Parties were required to act on reducing emissions emanating from aviation and marine bunker fuels. They were mandated to implement these policies and measures in a way to minimize adverse effects of climate change, effects on international trade and social, environmental and economic impacts on other countries, especially developing countries.
To enhance individual and combined effectiveness of their policies and measures, kyoto encouraged parties to cooperate with each other. They were required to take steps to share their experiences and exchange information on these policies and measures, including developing ways of improving their comparability, transparency and effectiveness. The Conference of Parties, henceforth referred to as COP, was tasked with considering ways and means to elaborate the coordination of these policies and measures.
Article 3 described the binding emission limits in detail.
The main feature of kyoto was that each party was assigned an emission limit, known as a binding target, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, based on their individual circumstances and level of development. The limits , which were expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalence, are shown on page 20 of the protocol. Parties pledged to reduce their overall emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008-2012. For example, Germany agreed to limit its annual average emissions during 2008 to 2012 to 8% below the level of its 1990 emissions, meaning it was only allowed to emit 92% of its 1990 emissions. Emissions by each party were not to exceed the assigned amounts.
The protocol introduced the emissions trading mechanism11. It stipulated that any emission reduction unit or any part of an assigned amount that a party acquired from (transferred to) another party would be added to (subtracted from) the assigned amounts of the acquiring (transferring) party. It also stated that any certified emissions reductions which a party acquired from another party were to be added to the assigned amounts of the acquiring party.
Finally, the protocol called on Annex 1 parties to implement their commitments in such a way as to minimize adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on developing countries, especially the vulnerable parties identified in article 4 of the convention12.
Article 4 laid out a framework for collaboration among parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Parties that agreed to combine efforts to reduce their emissions were to inform the secretariat of the terms of the agreement on the date they submitted their instruments for ratification. The respective emissions level allocated to each of the parties would be set out in the agreement, which would remain in force for the entire commitment period.
Parties were deemed to have met their individual commitments provided their joint emissions did not exceed their total combined assigned emissions. Failure to this, each party would be responsible for its own level of emissions as set out in the agreement.
Moreover, the protocol outlined that if any party decided to join efforts with a regional economic integration organization which was itself a party to the protocol, and both parties failed to reach their commitments, each member state of that organization together with the organization itself were to be held responsible for their own levels of emissions.
Article 5 outlined guidelines on methodologies for estimation of emissions and global warming potentials.
The protocol mandated parties to have in place a national system for estimation of emissions and global warming potentials13. This would be done no later than one year, prior to the start of the first commitment period. The global warming potentials and methodologies used to estimate emissions were those accepted by IPCC and agreed upon by COP. COP would provide guidelines for these systems as well regularly review and revise these methodologies and any adjustments based on the work of IPCC, and advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)14.
Article 6 established criteria for emissions reduction trading.
Annex 1 parties were allowed to trade emission reduction units with each other, resulting from projects aimed at reducing emissions, as long as i) the project had the approval of parties involved, ii) it actually resulted in a reduction in emissions, over and above the reductions that would occur naturally and iii) acquisition of the emission reduction units was supplemental to domestic emission reduction efforts. Parties were not allowed to engage in emissions trading if they hadn’t put in place a national system for estimating emissions and submitted records of their emissions as highlighted in article 5 and 7 respectively. Parties were also allowed to designate legal entities to participate in emissions reduction trading on their behalf.
Article 7 provided guidelines for submission of emission records.
Each party in Annex I was required to include necessary supplementary information in its annual emissions inventory to ensure compliance with emissions limits. This information was to be submitted to the COP on an annual basis.
The COP, on the other hand, was responsible for adopting and reviewing guidelines for the preparation of the information that parties were required to submit.
Article 8 outlined the review process for the information that parties submitted.
The information submitted by Annex 1 parties would be reviewed by expert review teams, in accordance with guidelines provided by the COP. These teams would comprise of experts selected from those nominated by parties to the convention and intergovernmental organizations, and be coordinated by the secretariat.
The expert review teams were required to provide a thorough and comprehensive technical assessment of all aspects of the implementation, including identifying any potential problems in the fulfillment of commitments. They were expected to prepare a report and present it to the COP.
The COP, assisted by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)15 and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) , would review the information submitted by parties and the reports prepared by the expert teams. They would also address questions raised by both the secretariat and the parties themselves.
In Article 9, COP was mandated to review this protocol in light of the best available scientific information and assessments on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information. The review of this protocol would be coordinated with reviews of the convention.
Article 10 provided guidelines inline with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities16
All parties (including non-Annex 1 parties) were required to formulate cost-effective national and regional programs to improve the quality of local emission factors17, activity data and/or models which reflect the socio-economic conditions of each party for the preparation and periodic updating of national inventories, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by COP.
Parties were mandated to formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and regional programs containing climate mitigation and adaptation measures, especially in the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors. Annex 1 parties needed to submit information on national programs geared towards these measures while all other parties needed to include in their national communications, information on programs which contained measures that the party believed could contribute to addressing climate change and its adverse impacts.
Parties were encouraged to cooperate in the development of technologies that had minimal or no negative impact on the environment while promoting sustainable development. They were urged to cooperate in scientific and technical research and promote the maintenance and development of data archives to reduce uncertainties related to the climate system. Furthermore, they were requested to work together in the development of education and training programs as well as strengthen national capacity building, train experts in the field and facilitate public awareness of and public access to information on climate change.
Finally, parties were mandated to include information on the programs and activities highlighted above, in their national communication to COP.
Article 11 mandated developed countries to provide new and additional financial resources, including finances for the transfer of technology, to meet the agreed full incremental costs incurred by developing country parties in advancing the implementation of existing commitments.
Article 12 introduced the clean development mechanism, aimed at i) assisting parties not included in Annex 1 in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the reduction of emissions in the atmosphere, and ii) assisting parties included in Annex 1 in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limits.
Parties not included in Annex 1 would benefit from project activities resulting in certified emission reductions, while parties included in Annex 1 would use the certified emission reductions accruing from such project activities to contribute to compliance with part of their quantified emission limitations and reduction commitments. This mechanism was intended to assist in arranging the necessary funding of certified project activities, and would be supervised by an executive board, with guidance from COP. Participation in the clean development mechanism was open to both public and private entities and was subject to whatever guidance was provided by the executive board.
Operational entities designated by COP were charged with certifying emission reductions resulting from each project. Emissions were to be certified on the basis of three key things. First, participation of each party needed to be voluntary. Second, there needed to be real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change. Lastly, projects should have resulted in a reduction in emissions, over and above the reduction that would have happened in the absence of the project. Certified emission reductions obtained during the period from 2000 up to the beginning of the first commitment period could be used to assist in achieving compliance in the first commitment period.
COP was charged with elaborating modalities and procedures with the objective of ensuring transparency, efficiency and accountability through independent auditing and verification of project activities. COP was also tasked with ensuring that a share of the proceeds from certified project activities was used to cover administrative expenses as well as to assist developing country parties that were particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the cost of adaptation.
The clean development mechanism played a significant role in establishing carbon markets18.
In Article 18, COP was tasked with approving the appropriate and effective procedures and mechanisms to determine and address cases of non-compliance with the provisions of this protocol, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.
The compliance regime for the Kyoto Protocol was later established to address compliance issues. It dictated that if a party failed to meet its emissions target, it was required to make up the difference in the second commitment period (2013-2020), with an additional 30% penalty. It was also mandated to develop a compliance action plan, setting out the actions that it would take to meet the target and the timetable for doing so. In addition, its eligibility to engage in emission reduction trading would be suspended19.
For more details on the information in this article as well as other articles not included, see the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol faced major challenges.
The world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and China, were not bound by the protocol. The United States signed kyoto having tremendously influenced major elements of the final agreement, such as the flexibility mechanisms. Yet it declined to ratify it claiming that the protocol had excluded major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy20, hence did not become a party(Hovi et al., 2010). China was at the time classified as a developing country and so was not part of the Annex 1 parties.
There were also reports issued in the first two years after the treaty took effect indicating that most participants would fail to meet their emission targets 21.
After a series of conferences marked by disagreements, delegates at COP21, held in Paris, France, signed a global non-binding agreement that became known as the Paris Agreement of 2015.
References
Footnotes
For a complete list of Annex 1 and 2 parties, refer to page 189 of the convention.↩︎
More details on emissions limits are given in article 3↩︎
Energy efficiency refers to using less energy to achieve the same level of output or service. It involves improving technology or processes to reduce energy consumption while maintaining performance. For example, using LED lights instead of traditional bulbs provides the same brightness with significantly less energy.↩︎
The UNFCC defined a sink as any process, activity or mechanism that removes greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. For example, a carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases e.g., plants, the ocean and soil.↩︎
The UNFCC defined a reservoir as a component or components of the climate system where a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a green house gas is stored.↩︎
Carbon sequestration is the process of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by capturing and storing it to mitigate climate change. It can occur naturally through forests, soils, and oceans or be enhanced through technological methods, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems.↩︎
The term ‘fiscal’ refers to anything related to government finances, including how the government generates revenue, manages budgets, and spends money. It involves taxation policies and public expenditures that affect the economy.↩︎
A subsidy is a financial aid or support provided by the government to individuals, businesses, or industries to encourage specific activities or reduce costs. This assistance can take the form of direct payments, tax breaks, or grants.↩︎
Refer to article 6 and 12↩︎
For details on the global warming potential of each greenhouse gas, refer to this article.↩︎
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility acknowledges that all countries share a collective obligation to protect the environment and address climate change because these issues affect the entire planet. But developed countries are typically seen as having a greater responsibility for past emissions due to their industrialization and historical carbon output. Developing countries on the other hand often face greater challenges in reducing emissions due to economic constraints, lack of technology, and developmental priorities. This principle recognizes that countries at different levels of development should not be held to the same standards or expectations. It aims to create a more just approach to international environmental agreements by considering economic and social contexts.↩︎
An emission factor is generally defined as the mass of a pollutant emitted per unit of activity (e.g., kilograms of CO₂ emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, or grams of NOx emitted per vehicle-kilometer traveled)↩︎
It allowed developed countries to invest in emission reduction projects in developing countries as a way to meet their own emissions reduction targets. This mechanism created a market for carbon credits, enabling the trading of these credits between countries and contributing to the development of international carbon markets.↩︎