Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Among the 36 countries that fully participated to the first commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol (Annex B-2012 countrie...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Poster: Ex-post evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol: Four key lessons for the 2015 Paris Agreement

698 views

Published on

By: Romain MOREL and Igor SHISHLOV (CDC Climat Research)

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Poster: Ex-post evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol: Four key lessons for the 2015 Paris Agreement

  1. 1. Among the 36 countries that fully participated to the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B-2012 countries), only eight countries emitted higher levels of GHGs than initially committed. These eight countries represented 20% of emissions of Annex B- 2012 countries during the CP1. Annex B-2012 countries reduced their emissions by 24% between the base-year (generally 1990) and the 2008-2012 period. Abstract : This article is the first comprehensive ex-post analysis of the first commitment period (CP1) of the Kyoto Protocol based on data released in 2014.The results from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) show that developed countries fulfilled their commitments through varied strategies. However, the Kyoto protocol did not manage to stabilize global GHG concentrations; furthermore its direct impact on domestic emissions reductions is unclear. Nevertheless, the KP has likely paved the way for a low- carbon transition by establishing international standards on emissions monitoring and on emission reductions projects. Yet, domestic policies – especially the EU ETS – are the main driver of emissions reductions and the principal catalyzers of private finance flows. A new, more effective, agreement would therefore need to expand its coverage, and take down the specter of “internationally binding” emission reductions commitments in order to focus on MRV requirements. Similar to Kyoto, a Paris outcome could take the form of a framework agreement setting up requirements and mechanisms with subsequent implementing agreements expected by 2020. Ex-post evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol: Four key lessons for the 2015 Paris Agreement Romain MOREL and Igor SHISHLOV (CDC Climat Research) CDC Climat Research, 47 rue de la Victoire, 75009 Paris, France Corresponding author: romain.morel@cdcclimat.com Comparing GHG emissions with Kyoto objectives CDC Climat Research For more information, see “Climate report n°44” : http://bit.ly/KyotoExpost CDC Climat Research is the French Caisse des Dépôts’ think-tank dedicated to help public and private decision-makers to improve the way in which they understand, anticipate, and encourage the use of economic and financial resources aimed at promoting the transition to a low-carbon economy. http://www.cdcclimat.com Annualized 2008-2012 emissions compared with targets under the Kyoto Protocol by country Assessing the role of several decisions Note: The emission data include the LULUCF with the application of articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7 as reported in countries’ inventories. -130% -110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% -65% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% Evolution of GHG emissions btw 1990 and 2008-2012 with KP accountabiliy of LULUCF EU15 JANZ Others An. B-2012 EITs Annex B-2012 X=Y ± 5 pts New Zealand Norway Latvia Finland Austria Poland Lithuania Hungary Russia Advantaged by Kyoto rules Disadvantaged by Kyoto rules Romania Evolutionof GHG emissionsbtw1990 and 2008-2012 with usual UNFCCCaccountabilityof LULUCF Bulgaria 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GtCO2eq. EITs Annex B-1997 wo EITs KP target New KP target wo hot air B.-Y.-1997 1997-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011- 2012 B.-Y.-1997 1997-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 9 9,5 10 10,5 11 11,5 12 12,5 GtCO2eq. EITs Annex B-2012 wo EITs KP target New KP target wo hot air B.-Y.-1997 1997-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Drawing conclusions for a new global agreement EU ETS Japan Australia New Zealand Primary CDM Switz. 130 (130) -53 (205) 46 (46) 0.2 (0.2) 50 (51) 11 (91) 210 (210) 0 (20.4k) 0 (6.8k) 0 (2) 82 (84) 170 (170) 267 (267) 764 (764) 1 3 2 2 -25 (271) 455 (1.8k) -1 (1) 60 (99) Russia In million units Net transfer position of countries compared with base-year (annualized) 0% 5% 2.5% 10%-5% Ukraine 10 (10) 307 (307)1 3 31 (70) 187 (187) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (8) 2 (2) -0 (0) 38 (71) EU15 EU10 Ukraine Norway Switzerland & Liechtenstein 0 (145) 0 (35) 0 (13.8k) 0 (3.3k) 538 (1.1k) -85 (222) 17 (117) 108 (1.0k) 31 (70) 187 (187) 24 (24) 10 (10) 283 (283) 18 (97) 5 (18) 1 (1) 2 (3) 1 (1) -0.4 (1) 1 Rest of the world (incl. primary CDM) -0.4 (1) 850 (1.1k) -50 (51) 389 (599) 46 (46) 1 (1) 12 (12) 129 (130) -6 (7) 0% 10%-10% Net transfer position of countries compared with base- year (annualized) 20% European registry 1.5k (1.6k) 96 (1.3k) 2 217 (217) -59 (150)2 44 (248) -15 (40) 1 -5 (6) 10 (15) 3 1 (3) 356 (743)3 0 (2) 17 (78) EU ETS Japan Australia New Zealand Primary CDM Switz. 130 (130) -53 (205) 46 (46) 0.2 (0.2) 50 (51) 11 (91) 210 (210) 0 (20.4k) 0 (6.8k) 0 (2) 82 (84) 170 (170) 267 (267) 764 (764) 1 3 2 2 -25 (271) 455 (1.8k) -1 (1) 60 (99) Russia In million units Net transfer position of countries compared with base-year (annualized) 0% 5% 2.5% 10%-5% Ukraine 10 (10) 307 (307)1 3 31 (70) 187 (187) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (8) 2 (2) -0 (0) 38 (71) -45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% EU15 JANZ OthersAn.B-2012 AnnexB-2012woEITs EITs AnnexB-2012 USA&Canada AnnexB-1997 EU15 JANZ Other An. B- 2012 An. B- 2012 wo EITs EITs An. B- 2012 USA & Canada An. B- 1997 -70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40% Austria Article 3.3 Article 3.4 Article 3.7 2008-2012 GHG emissions evolution compared with B.-Y. exclud. LULUCF GHG evolution under KP Kyoto Target -70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40% Austria Article 3.3 Article 3.4 Article 3.7 2008-2012 GHG emissions evolution compared with B.-Y. exclud. LULUCF GHG evolution under KP Kyoto Target Several multilateral of unilateral decisions were taken since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol (1997). Among them, the – initial and effective – list of covered countries, the ambition of commitments, the inclusion of LULUCF emissions and flexibility mechanisms were the more impacting. Evolution of absolute emissions for KP countries with and without USA & Canada In order to globally trigger further efforts than observed, it would have been necessary to – partially or totally – cancel the “hot air” by setting more ambitious mitigation targets to EITs. If North-American countries had participated, the unplanned crisis would have given a margin to countries. Thus, no further efforts above those realized would have been needed. Nevertheless, this situations would have implied significant transfers between countries. Impacts of LULUCF rules under the Kyoto Protocol Note: A large black bar below a grew bar means that the given group of countries could be compliant without the use of flexibility mechanisms. The inclusion of LULUCF is beneficial for most countries while the aggregated impact is rather limited (2.9% of base-year emissions). KP rules significantly advantage a few countries but is, on average, more restrictive than usual UNFCCC accounting. World map of KP carbon unit trading as of 31 December 2013 Reading notes: Flows of AAUs are in blue, flows of CERs/ERUs are in orange. Figures in parentheses represent volumes traded. Figures outside parentheses represent the net transfer. The direction of the arrow indicates the net transfer of all carbon units. A positive figure represents a net transfer in the same direction as the arrow. E.g.: the volume of carbon units exchanged between EU ETS countries and Switzerland is 271 million AAUs and 1.8 billion CERs/ERUs. The net result of trades between these countries is that Switzerland received 25 million AAUs from EU ETS countries and EU ETS countries received 455 million CERs/ERUs from Switzerland. Only exchange volumes higher than 1 million are represented. Australia and Canada transferred units but for small amounts. Thus, these transfers are not represented. Thanks to flexibility mechanisms, all participating countries are in position of compliance. Surprisingly, while KP carbon units were originally designed for States, European companies were, by far, the most important users due to the EU ETS. Based on the results of this article, it is possible to draw four key lessons from the Kyoto experience for the establishment of a new global agreement that is expected to be adopted in Paris in 2015:  Size matters. The GHG emission coverage of the KP was insufficient to stop the growth of global GHG emissions. Thus, expanding the coverage is a priority. The KP included rules tailored for specific sectors’ or countries’ contexts that helped ensure their participation. In that perspective, it can be strategic to implement specific rules as long as it does not jeopardize the global environmental integrity.  The fantasy of a binding agreement. The KP is presented as an internationally binding agreement on GHG emissions. However, its binding nature is rather limited and virtual in practice. Extensive negotiations and resources were dedicated in demarcating the boundaries of compliance and dedicated tools that in some instances were not really used by countries. Dedicating significant negotiation resources and time, as it has been the case until now, on emissions reduction commitments and their legally binding nature may thus not be the most efficient approach.  Reliable information is key. Implementing Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) procedures is essential to build trust among countries and to recognize various domestic policies implemented. Therefore, it is an essential characteristic for any global agreement on climate change. The KP initiated the development and implementation of several MRV frameworks providing reliable and transparent information on GHG emissions and emission reductions.  Flexibility is required. Flexibility should be integrated both in the adoption process and the agreement itself. Similar to the KP, a new treaty could be adopted in two steps: a framework agreement in Paris and eventually the detailed rules and mechanisms in the following years. -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal UK Spain Sweden Australia Japan New Zealand Iceland Liechtenstein Monaco Norway Switzerland Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Lithuania Latvia Poland Romania Russian Federation Slovakia Slovenia Ukraine United States Canada EU15 JANZ Others An. B- 2012 Annex B-2012 wo EITs EITs Annex B- 2012 Annex B- 1997 AB Evolution of GHG emissions compared to the base-year Countries achieving their target Countries not achieving their target Target under the Kyoto Protocol -45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% EU15 JANZ OthersAn.B-2012 AnnexB-2012woEITs EITs AnnexB-2012 USA&Canada AnnexB-1997 -130% -110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% -65% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% Evolution of GHG emissions btw 1990 and 2008-2012 with KP accountabiliy of LULUCF EU15 JANZ Others An. B-2012 EITs Annex B-2012 X=Y ± 5 pts New Zealand Norway Latvia Finland Austria Poland Lithuania Hungary Russia Advantaged by Kyoto rules Disadvantaged by Kyoto rules Romania Evolutionof GHG emissionsbtw1990 and 2008-2012 with usual UNFCCCaccountabilityof LULUCF Bulgaria -130% -110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% -65% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% Evolution of GHG emissions btw 1990 and 2008-2012 with KP accountabiliy of LULUCF EU15 JANZ Others An. B-2012 EITs Annex B-2012 X=Y ± 5 pts New Zealand Norway Latvia Finland Austria Poland Lithuania Hungary Russia Advantaged by Kyoto rules Disadvantaged by Kyoto rules Romania Evolutionof GHG emissionsbtw1990 and 2008-2012 with usual UNFCCCaccountabilityof LULUCF Bulgaria -130% -110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% -65% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% Evolution of GHG emissions btw 1990 and 2008-2012 with KP accountabiliy of LULUCF EU15 JANZ Others An. B-2012 EITs Annex B-2012 X=Y ± 5 pts New Zealand Norway Latvia Finland Austria Poland Lithuania Hungary Russia Advantaged by Kyoto rules Disadvantaged by Kyoto rules Romania Evolutionof GHG emissionsbtw1990 and 2008-2012 with usual UNFCCCaccountabilityof LULUCF Bulgaria -130% -110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% -65% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% Evolution of GHG emissions btw 1990 and 2008-2012 with KP accountabiliy of LULUCF EU15 JANZ Others An. B-2012 EITs Annex B-2012 X=Y ± 5 pts New Zealand Norway Latvia Finland Austria Poland Lithuania Hungary Russia Advantaged by Kyoto rules Disadvantaged by Kyoto rules Romania Evolutionof GHG emissionsbtw1990 and 2008-2012 with usual UNFCCCaccountabilityof LULUCF Bulgaria

×