International cooperation

Part IV

The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol

Session 7

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Main outcome of IPCC and the Rio Earth Summit

(1992), and first international agreement on climate

Choice between 2 possible options: A global treaty on the atmosphere A treaty focused on climate change

General objective: the stabilisation of a GHG concentration at a level that would avoid dangerous interference with the climate

Two key priciples: Common but differentiated responsibility Respective capacities.

Not binding, no mandatory limits for GHG emissions. Sole obligation: GHG inventory to be submitted each year.

Three important mechanisms: Mandatory protocols Countries divided in Annex I countries, Annex II countries

(a subset of Annex I) and developing countries This division has not changed since.

COP to be held every year

The Kyoto Protocol

Mandatory update of UNFCCC

Opened for signature in 1997, entered into force 8 years later

Conditions: 55 parties, and 55% of CO2 emissions

176 countries have ratified. Only 37 have to reduce their emissions

General design of the Protocol Fixed term: expires in 2012 General objectives: cut GHG emissions by an

average 5% from 1990 (base year) Underpinning principle: common but

differentiated responsibility Distinction between Annex I countries and non

Annex I countries Flexible mechanisms Heavy emphasis on mitigation, little emphasis on

adaptation

Kyoto and Europe All EU-members’ ratifications deposited simultaneoulsy on

31 May 2002 EU counted as an individual entity EU produces about 22% of gas emissions Agreed to a cut of 8% from 1990 levels One of the major supporters of the treaty EU elected to be treated as a ‘bubble’, and created an EU

Emissions Trading Scheme France: 0%. No need to cut emissions Germany: -21%. Has reduced its emissions by 17.2% between

1990 and 2004. UK: -12.5%. Appears to be on course to meet its target.

Different commitments

Flexible mechanisms Innovative aspect of the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms relying on the market, rather than on

states Highly criticised as paramount of ‘environmental

liberalism’ Three mechanisms:

Carbon market (‘cap and trade’) Clean Development Mechanism Joint Implementation

The carbon market:The EU Emission Trading Scheme General principle: maximisation of economic

efficiency – at the expense of ethics? Industries are given quotas of emission allowances Application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle Scheme started in 2005, all 27 countries take part Problems:

Price of carbon highly versatile Covers about half of the EU’s CO2 emissions Too many quotas on the market

Third phase 2013-2020, with auctioning and a central authority Crippled with corruption problems

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Aims to combine development and climate, equity

and efficiency Economic efficiency: costs of abatment are

cheaper in developing countries Functioning:

Alternative to domestic reductions Allow Annex I countries to invest in projects that

reduce emissions in developing countries New carbon credits: Certified Emission Reductions

(CERs)

Geographical distribution of CDMs

Criticism Reality of avoided emissions

Principle of additionality Incentive to misrepresent reality Overpricing and overestimation

Unlimited credits A country could completely externalise its efforts Transfer of emissions?

Development objectives ? Almost no CDM projects in Africa

Joint implementation

Similar mechanism as CDM, but in Annex I countries (i.e. In Eastern Europe and Russia)

Provides Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), where 1 ERU = 1 ton of CO2

No new credits Long and fastidious process

Some final words Kyoto is an agreement between industrialised

countries, where developing countries are mostly oberservers:

No limits on emissions Do not benefit from flexible mechanisms Treaty focused on mitigation, not adaptation

Role of civil society in international cooperation?

Role of local entities?