Climate change: Shaping the future of global emissions

The third COP or COP-3 was held in the Japanese city of Kyoto from December 1-11, 1997. One of the primary agendas of COP-3 was built into the COP-2 deliberations when the Ad-hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) decided that there would be a legal instrument or protocol which would set quantified emissions and reduction objectives (QELTROs or targets), which would be adopted at COP-3.

The road to Kyoto

At COP-1, it dawned on members that the commitments would prove to be inadequate to meet the ultimate objective of reducing emissions targets for the year 2000. Furthermore, there was no provision for the period beyond 2000. It may also be recalled that the Berlin mandate of COP-1 required no new commitments from developing countries. This was because the industrialised countries or Annex-I countries were historically responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions and they must therefore shoulder the major responsibility in the reduction of emissions. However, there was a provision to “advance the implementation” of existing commitments under FCCC Article 4(1), which applied to all FCCC parties, including developing countries. These became much-discussed issues in the run-up to the Kyoto negotiations.

The AGBM met eight times to discuss the issue of emission targets or QELTROs. The eighth meeting was held in Bonn in October 1997, which was marked by long debates between developed or Annex-I countries and the developing countries led by G-77 plus China. As the eighth meeting of the AGBM began, US President Bill Clinton called for a more substantive and meaningful participation of developing countries. Developing countries agreed to participate but refused to give any new commitments recalling the COP-1 mandate.

The Kyoto Protocol

At the end of COP-3, parties to UNFCCC made a breakthrough and arrived at the Kyoto Protocol, which was recognised as a ‘treaty’ under the Vienna Convention and was therefore legally enforceable. The Protocol had the following main elements: legally binding emissions targets for Annex I countries (these countries were included in Annex B to the Protocol), the inclusion of not only CO2, N2O and methane but also three synthetic greenhouse gases (GHGs), namely, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, flexibility in the implementation period with the base year as 1990 and the target years as 2008-2012, emissions trading and other market-based instruments, provision for joint implementation between Annex I countries and between developed and developing countries, and coverage of emissions and sequestration by land use change and forestry. Let us discuss each of these briefly below.

Article 3 of the protocol set out the binding emissions targets or QELROs for Annex I countries. The targets were set against the base year 1990. However, for the three synthetic GHGs, the base year set was 1995. Each country was given a different target (since there was no agreement on a uniform target for all Annex I countries), with the US given a target of a reduction of 7 per cent from 1990 levels and the EC a target of 8 per cent. The overall target was 5.2 per cent for all Annex I countries. This had to be achieved by 2008-2012, which gave a fair measure of flexibility in implementation.

There was also a provision for emissions and sequestration from land use change and forests. Problems in measuring the contribution of forests as sinks of greenhouse gas emissions led to a lack of compromise. Ultimately, it was decided that forests as sinks would not be included in calculating base year emissions, but they would count towards emissions reductions in the implementation period. Deforestation would be penalised and afforestation would be rewarded: in other words, the additionality of forest cover was being rewarded, not the stock of forest, per se.

Another important provision of the Protocol was emissions trading and other market-based mechanisms. There were four types of emissions trading provided for in the Kyoto Protocol:

v Provision of Joint Implementation (JI) between Annex I countries. This was a project-based approach, wherein countries or private sector players could set up emission reduction projects in any other Annex I country and use the emission reduction to meet their national targets.

v The second provision was for target-based emissions trading, wherein countries simply traded between themselves and used such trades towards meeting their national commitments.

v The third provision was to permit intra-EC trading. It also allowed Annex I countries to come together in a bubble and commitments could be met individually or jointly. This was mainly to permit participants in a regional economic integration organisation to undertake emissions trading among them.

v The fourth provision was called the Clean Development Mechanism, wherein Annex I countries could set up emission reduction projects in developing countries and use these to meet their national targets. The profits from these projects would be used to support developing countries in adaptation measures as well as for administrative expenses.

Another important inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol was that developing countries could take voluntary emissions targets. This was a compromise between the Berlin mandate under which developing countries were precluded from taking commitments on the one hand, and the overall objective of ‘advancing the implementation’ of existing commitments under the Framework Convention on the other hand.

An important feature of the Kyoto Protocol was the compliance issue. The emissions targets were legally binding, required regular reporting and review, and included steps to be taken in case of non-compliance (which were however non-binding).

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997 but came into force only in 2005. The reason was that the protocol had a provision which stated that the protocol would enter into force 90 days after two criteria were met: one, it had to be ratified by at least 55 countries; and two, countries ratifying the protocol had to include those responsible for 55 per cent of the 1990 emissions by developed countries. The first criterion was met in May 2002 and the second in November 2004. Interestingly, the second criterion was held up till the last because Russia and Eastern Europe wanted to leverage their positions. This was because Russia and the Eastern European countries’ emissions were 30 per cent lesser than the 1990 levels and these were granted to them as fully tradable emission entitlements, which could be encashed in the future.

Interestingly, the US, one of the biggest emitters, signed the Protocol in 1998, but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature. This was mainly because of domestic politics, with the Senate insisting that developing countries also take binding

emission cuts and the pressure from heavy industries such as power and utility companies, the paper industry and commercial real estate companies. Another reason was the credit given to Russia and Eastern European countries.

Conclusion

The Kyoto Protocol was a historic international agreement and an important milestone in climate change negotiations. A mechanism for emissions trading was established and the issue of non-compliance was included. The next COP would develop more comprehensive rules and regulations for emissions trading, better reporting and review mechanisms as well as devise a framework that would address the issue of consequences of non-compliance. There was also a hope that more and more countries would step up and sign the protocol.

The writer is Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal