Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Negotiation Process Leading to the Kyoto Protocol

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Climate Negotiation Factors

  • 1247 Accesses

Abstract

In the Kyoto Protocol developed countries committed to emission reductions in return for considerable flexibility to achieve these, including carbon credit trading. Negotiations took place with several small steps, thereby allowing negotiation tactics to lead towards a final agreement. Important tactical aspects of the negotiations were: personalities of key negotiators, growing scientific knowledge of climate change impacts, handling the ‘Kyoto crisis’ after the US withdrawal, and linking Russia’s support to the Kyoto Protocol with its desire to become WTO member.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    COP-1 was held one year after the entry-into-force of the UNFCCC, which took place in March 1994; between UNCED (1992) and COP-1 (1995) Parties continued negotiations in the context of the INC (see also Chap. 3, in which the first five sessions of INC are discussed; after UNCED, INC sessions continued until COP-1). The COP itself was established under the UNFCCC in Article 7 as the supreme body of the Convention with, among other tasks, the task to periodically examine the obligations of the Parties (UNFCCC 1992, p. 17, Art. 7).

  2. 2.

    In accordance with Article 4.2(d) of UNFCCC (1992).

  3. 3.

    The German delegation circulated the paper in preparation for its role as Chair of COP-1 (IISD 1995a).

  4. 4.

    Decision 1/CP.1 (UNFCCC 1995a). The name ‘Berlin Mandate’ was suggested by the US delegation.

  5. 5.

    Formally, countries negotiate as ‘Parties to the UNFCCC’ or ‘Parties’. However, since Parties, with the exception of the EU, which is a UNFCCC Party in itself, are in fact countries, in the remainder of this chapter, Parties are referred to as countries. For similar reason, in order to avoid too formal terminologies, in this chapter Annex I Parties are called developed (or industrialised) countries and non-Annex I Parties are referred to as developing countries.

  6. 6.

    Throughout the AGBM negotiations the legal shape of the negotiation outcome of the Berlin Mandate was still to be decided. In their proposals, countries, in conformity with the Berlin Mandate, referred to ‘a protocol or other legal instrument’, In the remainder of this section, the term ‘legal instrument’ will be used unless countries specifically mentioned ‘protocol’ (IISD 1995–1997).

  7. 7.

    The Triptych Approach was developed by the University of Utrecht (Phylipsen et al. 1998) and was based on historical and projected emission trends in three different (categories of) sectors within the EU: the power sector, internationally-operating energy-intensive industry, and domestically-oriented sectors.

  8. 8.

    The Byrd-Hagel Resolution was sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) and Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska) and expressed the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the US becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations (Passed by the Senate 95-0) (105th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 98) (Byrd and Hagel 1997).

  9. 9.

    Of the developing countries, Brazil proposed at AGBM-7 that in the future all countries should adopt commitments (IISD 1997c, p. 3).

  10. 10.

    Note that throughout the Kyoto discussions Parties generally referred to a protocol instead of a legal instrument. ‘Protocol’ also appeared in Estrada’s negotiation text (UNFCCC 1997b).

  11. 11.

    AGBM Chairman Raúl Estrada Oyela also led the negotiations in the context of the Berlin Mandate at COP-3.

  12. 12.

    JUSSCANZ was an acronym for a group of Parties with Japan, the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand. At later negotiation, JUSSCANZ became part of the Umbrella Group (see Box 2.1 in Chap. 2).

  13. 13.

    The Umbrella Group was the new name of the former JUSSCANZ group (see footnote 12 and Box 2.1).

  14. 14.

    The Marrakech Accords, agreed at COP-7 in Marrakech, Morocco, concluded the negotiations on the Buenos Aires Plan of Action and contained agreed modalities and procedures for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC 2001).

  15. 15.

    Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 17 December 2002; Australia ratified on 12 December 2007 (UNFCCC 2014).

  16. 16.

    In 1998, prices of Kyoto credits—JI and CDM project credits and assigned amount units—were expected to amount to approximately USD 20 per tonne CO2-eq. (Jepma et al. 1998). After the US withdrawal from the Kyoto process, project and actual prices dropped to approximately USD 5/tonne. According the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the annual value of Russia’s credits dropped from at least USD 10 billion per year to between USD 100 and USD 200 million per year (Bernard et al. 2003).

  17. 17.

    Eventually, 192 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC 2014).

  18. 18.

    Some authors argued that the Kyoto Protocol should be looked at as a learning-by-doing experiment, to be improved in subsequent protocols (Dessai and Schipper 2003).

References

  • Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs. Case studies on the climate and biodiversity conventions. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker & McKenzie (2003). Client alert: Timeline for Russian Federation Ratification of Kyoto Protocol. Chicago IL, USA: Baker & McKenzie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, A., Paltsev, S., Reilly, J., Vielle, M., & Viguier, L. (2003). Russia’s role in the Kyoto protocol, report no. 98. Cambridge MA, USA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, R., & Hagel, C. (1997, July 25). Byrd-Hagel resolution—105th congress, 1st Session, S.RES.98. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

  • Cubasch, U., Wuebbles, D., Chen, D., Facchini, M., Frame, D., Mahowald, N., et al. (2013). Introduction. In T. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 121–155). Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessai, S., & Schipper, E. (2003). The Marrakech accords to the Kyoto protocol: Analysis and future prospects. Global Environmental Change, 13, 149–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenhann, J. (2016, July 20). CDM/JI pipeline analysis and database. Retrieved from http://cdmpipeline.org

  • Government of the Russian Federation (2013, December 30). Submitted national communications. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/application/pdf/6nc_rus_2013-12-30[1].pdf

  • Henry, L., & McIntosh Sundstrom, L. (2007). Russia and the Kyoto protocol: Seeking an alignment of interests and image. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyvarinen, J. (2000). Best practices in policies and measures to address climate change: Opportunities for the UK and Germany in the international negotiation process. UK: Institute for European Environmental Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1995–1997). Reports on sessions of the ad hoc group on the Berlin Mandate, SBSTA/SBI sessions, COP2 and COP3. Earth negotiations bulletin. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/

  • IISD (1995a). Summary of the eleventh session of the INC for a framework convention on climate change 6–17 February 1995. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1995b). Summary of the first conference of the parties for the framework convention on climate change: 28 March–7 April 1995. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1995c). Report on the second session of the ad hoc group on the Berlin Mandate: 30 October–3 November 1995. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1996a). Summary of the second conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1996b). Report of the meetings of the subsidiary bodies on the UN framework convention on climate change: 9–18 December 1996. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1997a). Report of the meetings of the FCCC subsidiary bodies: 20–31 October 1997. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1997b). Report of the third conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change: 1–11 December 1997. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1997c). Report of the meetings of the subsidiary bodies to the framework convention on climate change. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (1997d). Report of the sixth session of the ad hoc group on the Berlin Mandate. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (2000a, September 18). Summary of the thirteenth sessions of the subsidiary bodies of the UN framework convention on climate change: 4–15 September 2000. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (2000b). Summary of the sixth conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (2001). Summary of the resumed sixth session of the conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change: 16–27 July 2001. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illarionov, A., & Pivovarova, N. (2004). Economic consequences of the Russian Federation’s ratification of the Kyoto protocol (Ekonomicheskie posledstviia ratifikatsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii Kiotskogo protokola). Voprosy ekonomiki, 11, 34–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • INC (1995a). A/AC.237/91 and Add.1. New York, USA: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (1995). Second assessment report: Climate change—Summary for policy makers. Geneve, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepma, C., van der Gaast, W., & Woerdman, E. (1998). The compatibility of flexible instruments under the Kyoto protocol. Bilthoven, The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • JIN (2003). e-Joint Implementatation Quarterly, nr2. Groningen, The Netherlands: Joint Implementation Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phylipsen, G., Bode, J., Blok, K., Merkus, H., & Metz, B. (1998). A triptych sectoral approach to burden sharing: GHG emissions in the European bubble. Energy Policy, 26(12), 929–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Boston Globe (2004, May 22). Putin promises to ratify Kyoto treaty—Move paves way for Russia to join world trade group. Retrieved April 18, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2003, December 6). Is Kyoto dead? The Economist.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1992). United Nations framework convention on climate change. Bonn: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1995a). Decision 1/CP.1—The Berlin Mandate: Review of the Adequacy of Article 4, paragraph 2(a) and (b), of the Convention (including proposals related to a protocol and decisions on follow-up). Berlin, Germany: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1996b). Report of the conference of the parties on its second session, held at Geneva from 8 to 15 July 1996—FCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1. Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1997a). Framework compilation of proposals from parties for the elements of a protocol or another legal instrument—Addendum: Note by the Chairman, FCCC/AGBM/1997/2/Add.1. Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1997b). Adoption of a protocol or another legal instrument: Fulfillment of the Berlin Mandate—Revised text under Negotiation—Note by the secretariat. Kyoto, Japan: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1998a). Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Bonn: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (1998b). Decision 1/CP.4—The Buenos Aires Plan of Action, FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.1. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2001). The Marrakech accord, decision 2/CP.7, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2014). Status of ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php

  • US EPA (2011). U.S. greenhouse gas inventory report archive. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/archive.html

  • Walsh, N. (2003, December 5). Moscow refuses to ratify treaty on climate change. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/dec/05/russia.climatechange

  • Zhang, Z. (2001). An assessment of the EU proposal for ceilings on the use of Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. Ecological Economics, 37(1), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. JIN Climate and Sustainability, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Wytze van der Gaast

Authors
  1. Wytze van der Gaast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wytze van der Gaast .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Gaast, W. (2017). The Negotiation Process Leading to the Kyoto Protocol. In: International Climate Negotiation Factors. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46798-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46798-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46797-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46798-6

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation