Orchestra of Treaties: A Future Climate Regime Scenario with Multiple Treaties among Like-minded Countries



The Orchestra of Treaties scenario emerges if countries share the following principles for re-building the climate regime (1) recognize the sovereignty concerns attending energy policies; (2) build upon national interests in technology and development; (3) avoid conflicts and enhance cooperation by appropriately framing core issues; and (4) address not only short-term emission cuts but also long-term technological change.In this scenario, countries will share these principles by drawing on the hard lessons of past UNFCCC negotiations. The framing of the climate change problem as the allocation of emission quota created an adversarial style of negotiation that resulted in distrust among countries. Moreover, the negotiations have been characterized by unpredictable outcomes. Since energy policies were deemed as sovereignty concerns, countries did not want to put such issues on the agenda to avoid a potentially intrusive outcome. This negotiation style brought about shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol and may lead to a stalemate in future negotiations.

The scenario captures the dynamics that emerge when multiple efforts are pursued by flexible coordination of actors motivated through diverse incentives. The emerging regime, the Orchestra of Treaties, will consist of four building blocks, of which three grow outside of UNFCCC.
  1. (1)

    Group of Emission Markets (GEM) begins with separate domestic markets without internationally imposed emission targets. The markets are then gradually coordinated through price signals. The advantage of this pathway is that it fosters the establishment of emission markets without conflicting with sovereignty concerns for energy policy, thereby enabling key large emitters to establish emission markets.

  2. (2)

    Zero Emission Technology Treaty (ZETT) that addresses long-term technological change. This will set zero CO2 emission from the energy sector as the long-term goal, thereby creating strong signals to stakeholders. It will begin as a non-binding pledge and review system so that it does not conflict with sovereignty concerns.

  3. (3)

    Climate-wise Development Treaty (CDT) that addresses the concerns of developing countries, which are development, adaptation, technological transfer and mitigation. In this treaty, developed countries agree to revise their assistance policies to make development more sustainable and climate-wise.

  4. (4)
    UNFCCC will serve as an information exchange arena, target funding mechanism and a political focal point.
    • If the political interests and views remain diverse across countries, the Orchestra of Treaties may be the most environmentally effective regime among the alternatives. As for the evolution over time, once the technological and political feasibility of some climate policies have been demonstrated by key developed countries, all countries will be confident enough to deepen their commitments in the wider issue area. They might eventually return to a Kyoto-type structure with full participation once confidence has been built, but this may take decades.

    • Concerns frequently voiced about this scenario include that the regime may impose additional negotiating burden upon developing countries, or that a departure from a Kyoto style framework may end up with losing political momentum.



climate policy like-minded countries post-2012 scenarios technology treaty 



United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change


Group of Emission Markets


Zero Emission Technology Treaty


Climate-wise Development Treaty


sulfur dioxides


carbon dioxide


research and development


greenhouse gases


Kyoto Protocol


Global Environmental Facility


Conference of Parties


International Energy Agency


European Organization for Nuclear Research


Official Development Assistance


Nitrous oxides


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumert, K.A. eds. 2002Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the ClimateWorld Resources InstituteWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. den Elzen M. (2003), ‘Modelling Different Policy Scenarios: Impacts on Global Emissions’, presentation at Post-2012 Climate Policy Options: European Perspectives, conference at Hamburg Institute of International Economics, 4–5 September 2003Google Scholar
  3. Fujii, Y., Yamaji, K. 1998Assessment of Technological Options in the Global Energy System for Limiting the Atmospheric CO2 ConcentrationEnvironmental Economics and Policy Studies1113139Google Scholar
  4. Haas, P.M.Keohane, R.O.Levy, M.A. eds. 1993Institutions for the Earth: Source of Effective International Environmental ProtectionMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Heller, T., Shukla, P.R. 2003Development and Climate: Engaging Developing Countries, Working DraftPew Center on Global Climate ChangeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. IEA (2002), Beyond Kyoto: Energy Dynamics and Climate Stabilization. Paris: IEA Publications, available online at http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/envissu/cop9/files/beyond_kyoto.pdf (Accessed 27 August 2004)Google Scholar
  7. McDonald, A. and L. Schrattenholzer (2001), ‘Learning Rates for Energy Technologies’, Energy Policy 29(4), 255–261, Reprinted as RR-01-014, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  8. Pershing, J., Tudela, F. 2003A Long-term Target: Framing the Climate Effort, Working DraftPew Center on Global Climate ChangeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Philibert, C. 2004International Energy Technology Collaboration and Climate ChangeInternational Energy AgencyParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Salter, L. 1988Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of StandardsKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Sugiyama, T. 2003The Scenario Analysis of Global Policy to Prevent Global WarmingCentral Research Institute of Electric Power TokyoIndustryCRIEPI Working Paper Y02920Google Scholar
  12. UNEP/RIVM/IIED (2003), ‘Development and Climate Project’ homepage, available online at www.developmentfirst.org (Accessed 30 August 2004)Google Scholar
  13. Victor, D (2003), ‘After Kyoto’, presentation at Symposium on the Future Framework on Climate Change Beyond 2012, New Energy and Industrial Development Organization (NEDO) and Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI), Tokyo, 19 September 2003Google Scholar
  14. Vogel, D. 1995Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global EconomyHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Young, O. 2002The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and ScaleMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)ChiyodakuJapan
  2. 2.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations