Our First Climate Targets- Why Kyoto’s Legacy Still Matters

This is the second article in a series exploring the global climate meetings, the Conference of the Parties (COP). It explores the successes and failures of the landmark Kyoto Protocol, the first agreement to set national emissions reduction targets. Subsequent articles will cover the Copenhagen Accord, Paris Agreement, and the key issues at COP 27.

The first try

(Kyoto 1997- COP 3, global CO2 concentration 363 ppm)

Twenty-five years ago, international negotiators gathered in Kyoto, Japan for the third conference of the parties (COP 3). Global average temperatures had already risen 0.5 C since pre-industrial times and the world was emitting record quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Five years previously, nearly 200 nations had signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which pledged to limit emissions to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) interference with the climate system.” Now, the time had come for commitments. Negotiators worked day and night to develop the first explicit reduction targets. The successes and failures of the Kyoto Protocol would have lasting effects on the future of climate negotiations and on the future of the planet itself.

A New Protocol

At the time of Kyoto in 1997, industrialized nations were responsible for the majority of current global GHG emissions and nearly all historical emissions. Based on the framework convention’s concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” the Kyoto Protocol focused on committing the industrialized nations to emissions reductions. Although developing countries were encouraged to reduce emissions, legally binding targets only applied to 37 industrialized countries and the European Union. On average, these first targets aimed to reduce emissions by 5% compared to 1990 levels.

To improve the chances of hitting those targets, committed nations were required to develop specific policies to limit emissions. While expected to reduce emissions domestically, countries could also reach their targets through three market-based “flexibility mechanisms.” These mechanisms included International Emissions Trading (IET), which created a global carbon market where nations with surplus emissions reductions could sell those reductions to those falling short. Another mechanism enabled Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). CDM projects enabled industrialized nations to gain Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits for financing green infrastructure and carbon dioxide removal in developing nations. The final flexibility mechanism, Joint Implementation (JI), allowed a nation with a high cost of reducing emissions to finance GHG reduction projects in another country and earn credits towards their own emissions target.

The Protocol also featured other elements that have become hallmarks of international climate negotiations. Kyoto established an adaptation fund to support developing countries, which has grown into a $100 BN yearly commitment to adaptation. It also created an annual reporting process of emissions inventories and national reports to validate emissions reductions, a registry of international carbon transactions, and a compliance committee to support the enforcement of climate commitments.

Kyoto as a Landmark

So was Kyoto a success or a failure? Defenders will rightly state that it was the first (and to date, only) legally binding international GHG emissions reduction treaty. Despite the United States’ refusal to ratify the treaty, 192 nations were party to its terms. As mentioned above, the Kyoto Protocol introduced much of the architecture for later climate negotiations including the Paris Agreement. Kyoto’s legacy encompasses the adaptation fund, emissions registry, carbon markets, and other means of international cooperation designed to align incentives and raise ambition.

As implementation of Kyoto was significantly delayed (as ratification needed to cover at least 55% of global emissions), the first commitment period ran from 2008-2012. However, despite the wait, in 2012, results from the nations legally bound by Kyoto showed emissions reductions of 12.5% compared to 1990 levels. These reductions were made more substantial by the fact that emissions in many of these nations were on a rising trajectory before the Protocol was signed. On an individual basis, each of the 36 nations that fully participated in the first commitment period hit their targets.

A Bunch of Hot Air

Digging deeper into the reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, the results are less impressive than they appear. Most emissions reductions came from former Soviet states that had used emissions benchmarks from the USSR. The rapid deindustrialization after the collapse of the Soviet Union made meeting reduction targets a nearly foregone conclusion. When the former Soviet states are excluded, the total emissions reduction is only 2.7%. Equally concerning, 9 of the nations that hit their reduction targets needed to rely on the flexibility mechanisms to do so. The Global Financial Crisis during the first commitment period also helped reduce emissions.

The Protocol also failed to put constraints on the emissions of developing nations, leading to fierce criticism of an unfair playing field from industrialized countries. President George W. Bush used the exclusion of developing nations to rationalize American rejection of Kyoto: “I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.” The problem of developing nation emissions has only become more unavoidable since Kyoto. In 1997, the US and EU were the world’s largest emitters. In the following decades, major developing economies grew rapidly and their GHG emissions increased commensurately. China surpassed the United States in annual emissions in 2006, and India’s emissions are now nearly equal to those of the EU.

By 2012, global emissions had risen 44% from 1997 levels, driven predominantly by emissions growth in developing nations. Fifteen years of negotiation and implementation had failed to stem the rise in GHGs.

The Road to Copenhagen

Following Kyoto, subsequent COPs focused on addressing the challenges of putting the Protocol into practice and strengthening global climate action. At COP 7, the international community arrived at the Marrakech Accords, which created new rules on emissions trading and GHG account methods. It also further developed a compliance regime with consequences for failing to hit targets. In Bali in 2007 (COP 13), negotiations sought to expand and mobilize finance to promote mitigation and adaptation efforts worldwide. COP 13 also saw the creation of the Bali Road Map to develop a legally binding successor agreement to Kyoto that would commit all nations to emissions reductions. After two years of planning and negotiations, such an ambitious agreement seemed a distinct possibility at COP 15 in Copenhagen. Dubbed “Hopenhagen” by environmental campaigners, the reality of COP 15 would be far different.