Climatic Change

, Volume 120, Issue 4, pp 845–857 | Cite as

Impact of the Doha outcome on surplus emission allowances and their effect on developed country emissions

  • Claudine M. Chen
  • Johannes Gütschow
  • Marion Vieweg
  • Kirsten Macey
  • Michiel Schaeffer


The outcome from the December 2012 climate negotiations in Doha has clarified the rules regarding surplus units for the Kyoto Protocol. We summarize these new rules and estimate the resulting effective emissions during the second commitment period using our unit trade model. Other options to deal with surplus emission allowances are employed as benchmarks to assess the Doha outcome. The effective emissions for developed countries as a group under the Doha outcome could be 10–11 % below 1990 levels or 4–5 % points below business-as-usual levels for the second commitment period if we assume that non-Kyoto Protocol countries domestically achieve their targets. However, if mechanisms exist where non-Kyoto Protocol countries can trade units, their emissions could increase and effective emissions for developed countries could be 7–8 % below 1990 levels. In this low-ambition situation we find the main impact of the Doha surplus rules to be the introduction of the historical cap on emissions allowances. Without the effect of the cap, the Doha outcome allows the Parties to the second commitment period to emit at business-as-usual levels until 2020, while still leaving surplus units at the end of the second commitment period.


Emission Trading Scheme Emission Allowance Effective Emission Commitment Period Trade Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We acknowledge and appreciate funding by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (11_II_093_Global_A_SIDS_and_LDCs), and by the European Climate Foundation for the Climate Action Tracker.


  1. Allan A, Kruppa M (2012) Belarus negotiator hints at Kyoto exit, says others could follow. Accessed 5 Mar 2013
  2. Climate Action Tracker (2012) Accessed 24 Sept 2012
  3. Depledge J (2000) Tracing the origins of the Kyoto Protocol: an article-by-article textual history. UNFCCC, FCCC/TP/2000/2Google Scholar
  4. Dobrovidova O (2013) Russia threatens ‘radical measures’ in response to Kyoto Protocol extension, Accessed 5 Mar 2013
  5. den Elzen MGJ, Meinshausen M, Hof AF (2012) The impact of surplus units from the first Kyoto period on achieving the reduction pledges of the Cancun agreements. Climatic Change 114(2):401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grassi G, Elzen MGJ, Hof AF, Pilli R, Federici S (2012) The role of the land use, land use change and forestry sector in achieving Annex I reduction pledges. Climatic Change 115(3–4):873–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. King E (2013) Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia meet to discuss kyoto, Accessed 5 Mar 2013
  8. Kollmuss A (2013) Doha Decisions on the Kyoto surplus explained, Accessed 4 Mar 2013
  9. Nabel J, Macey K, Chen C (2010) PRIMAP reference data for LULUCF accounting, Accessed 24 Sept 2012
  10. Nabel JEMS, Rogelj J, Chen CM, Markmann K, Gutzmann DJH, Meinshausen M (2011) Decision support for international climate policy—the PRIMAP emission module. Environ Model Softw 26(12):1419–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Point Carbon (2012) Carry over of AAUs from CP1 to CP2 - future implications for the climate regime. See Accessed 7 Mar 2013
  12. PRIMAP (2012) PRIMAPBaseline Reference: PRIMAP4BIS. Accessed 15 Feb 2013
  13. Rogelj J, Chen C, Nabel J, Macey K, Hare W, Schaeffer M, Markmann K, Hohne N, Andersen KK, Meinshausen M (2010) Analysis of the Copenhagen accord pledges and its global climatic impacts-a snapshot of dissonant ambitions. Environ Res Lett 5(3):034013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. UNEP (2011) Bridging the emissions gap: a UNEP synthesis report. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Google Scholar
  15. UNEP (2012) The emissions gap report. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), NairobiGoogle Scholar
  16. UNEP Risø(2012) CDM/JI pipeline analysis and database. See Accessed 2 Aug 2012
  17. UNFCCC (1997) Article 13 Paragraph 13, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  18. UNFCCC (2005) Decision 13/CMP.1, Modalities for the accounting of assigned amounts under Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, Annex, paragraphs 15 and 16, FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  19. UNFCCC (2011) Compilation of economy-wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by parties included in Annex I to the Convention, FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/INF.1/Rev.1. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  20. UNFCCC (2012a) Analysis of quantitative implications of options for addressing the surplus and carry-over of Kyoto units for the second and subsequent commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  21. UNFCCC (2012b) AOSIS revised proposal on surplus, May 18, 2012. Accessed 15 Sept 2012
  22. UNFCCC (2012c) Brazil proposal on carry-over: submission on surplus and carry-over of AAUs. Accessed 15 Sept 2012
  23. UNFCCC (2012d) Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol., FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/L.9. Accessed 28 Feb 2013
  24. UNFCCC (2012e) Proposal by the G77 & China on carry-over. Accessed 15 Sept 2012
  25. UNFCCC (2012f) Proposed Africa Group carry-over amendment for KP CP2, Bonn 2012. Accessed 15 Sept 2012
  26. Vieweg M, Schaeffer M, Chen C, Gütschow J, Hare B, Mace M, Rocha M, Macey K (2012) Political implications of the long-term effect of surpluses from the first and second Kyoto period, Climate Analytics working paper 2. See Accessed 24 Feb 2013
  27. Yamin F, Depledge J (2004) The international climate change regime, a guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudine M. Chen
    • 1
  • Johannes Gütschow
    • 1
  • Marion Vieweg
    • 2
  • Kirsten Macey
    • 2
  • Michiel Schaeffer
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Climate Analytics GmbHBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations