Advertisement

International Environmental Agreements

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 167–185 | Cite as

How Can the European Union Contribute to a COP-6 Agreement? An Overview for Policy Makers

  • Bert Metz
  • Marcel Berk
  • Marcel T. J. Kok
  • Jelle G. van Minnen
  • Andre de Moor
  • Albert Faber
Article

Abstract

During the 6th Conference of Parties (COP-6) in The Hague, the Netherlands, November 2000, crucial progress on a number of outstanding issues related to the Kyoto Protocol will have to be made to open the way for its early ratification, if not to save it from complete failure. Given the present lack of internal US political support for the Kyoto Protocol, the EU may play a pivotal role in making the Kyoto Protocol agreement a reality even without initial ratification of the US, if its able to provide sufficient leadership. In this overview article we discuss the main issues under negotiation, the problems of finding agreement and opportunities for the EU to catalyse a compromise agreement at COP-6, building on key scientific papers as included in this issue and discussions at the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment Climate Policy Workshop in Amsterdam. Key elements are the inclusion of sinks, the use of the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms as a supplement to domestic action and the international compliance system. Domestic implementation of climate policy is a major factor for the EU's credibility.

clean development mechanism climate policy compliance EFIEA emission trading EU leadership Kyoto Protocol land-use change ratification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarwal, A., S. Narain and A. Sharma, eds. (1999), Green Politics. Global Environmental Negotiations No. 1, Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).Google Scholar
  2. Barker, T., T. Kram, S. Oberthür and M. Voogt (2001), ‘The Role of EU Internal Policies in Implementing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options to Achieve Kyoto Targets’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1, 243–265, in this issue.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, T. and K. E. Rosendahl (2001), Ancillary Benefits of GHG Mitigation in Europe: SO 2 NOx and PM10 Reductions from Policies to Meet the Kyoto Targets Using the E3ME Model and ExternE Valuation. Paper presented to the IPCC/OECD Expert Meeting on Ancillary Benefits, Washington DC, 27–29 March.Google Scholar
  4. Bollen. J. C., A. Gielen and H. Timmer (1999), ‘Clubs, Ceilings and CDM: Macroeconomics of Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol’, in The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-model Evaluation, Special Issue of the Energy Journal, pp. 177–206.Google Scholar
  5. CPB/RIVM, (2001), Economic Effects of the Kyoto Mechanisms. The Hague/Bilthoven: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis/National Institute for Research for Public Health and the Environment (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  6. Da Silva, S. and H. B. Kotagama (1999), Value of Carbon Sequestration and Sink Service of Forests in Sri Lanka: Justification for International Resource Transfer for Forests Conservation. Proceeding of the EFIEA workshop ‘Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities’, Milan, 4–6 April.Google Scholar
  7. Environmental Negotiations Bulletin (2000a), 12, 11 September, http://www.iisd.ca/linkages.Google Scholar
  8. Environmental Negotiations Bulletin (2000b), Summary of the Thirteenth Sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC, 4–15 September 2000, 12(151), 18 September, http://www.iisd.ca/linkages.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (1999), From Cardiff to Helsinki and Beyond. Report to the European Council on Integrating Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development into Community Policies, Commission Working Document, SEC (1999) 1941, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission Press Release (2000), Parliament-Council Conciliation Committee Agreement on CO2 Emissions Monitoring Scheme from New Passengers Cars. Press release 6596/00, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2000a), Green Paper on Greenhouse Emissions Trading within the European Union. COM (2000) 87, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2000a), Green Paper on Greenhouse Emissions Trading within the European Union. COM (2000) 87, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (2000b), EU Policies and Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM (2000)88, Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. European Environment Agency (1999), Overview of National Programmes to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Copenhagen: EEA Topic Report 8.Google Scholar
  15. Grubb, M. (2000), Economic Context: A Review of Model Results and Sensitivities. Paper presented at the workshop on Quantifying Kyoto, 30–31 August, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, http://www.riia.org/research/eep/quantifying.htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. Grubb, M., D. Brack, and C. Vrolijk (1999), The Kyoto Protocol, A Guide and Assessment. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  17. Gummer, J. and R. Moreland (2000), The European Union and Global Climate Change-A Review of Five National Programmes. Arlington: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
  18. Gupta, J. and M. Grubb (eds.) (2000), Climate Change and European Leadership-A Sustainable Role for Europe? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Gupta, J. and L. Ringius (2001), ‘The EU's Climate Leadership: Reconciling Ambition and Reality’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1, 281–299, in this issue.Google Scholar
  20. Haites, E. (2000), Institutional Features of the Kyoto Mechanisms and the COP-6 Decisions. Paper presented at the Quantifying Kyoto Workshop, August London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. http://www/riia.org/Research/eep/quantifying.htmlGoogle Scholar
  21. Hourcade, J-C. and R. D. Morgenstern (2000), Chairmen's Summary of Discussions at First Session, CIRED/RFF Workshop on Compliance and Supplementarity in the Kyoto Framework, Paris: CIRED, June 26–27. http:/www/weathervane.rff.org/Google Scholar
  22. Humphreys, S., Y. Sokona, and J. P. Thomas (1998), Equity in the CDM. Dakar: ENDA Tiers Monde.Google Scholar
  23. IPCC (1995), IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UNFCCC, Geneva. http://www.ipcc.chGoogle Scholar
  24. Koch, T. and A. Michaelowa (1999), Hot Air Reduction for Russia through Measures Prior to 2008 and Non-Quantifiable Projects. Paper presented during COP-5, November, Hamburg: Hamburg Institute for Economic Analysis.Google Scholar
  25. Metz, B. (2000), ‘International Equity in Climate Change Policy’, Integrated Assessment 1, 111–126.Google Scholar
  26. Metz, B., O. Davidson, J. W. Martens, S. van Rooyen, and L. van Wie, eds. (2000a), IPCC Special Report on the Methodological and Technological aspects of Technology Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Metz, B., A. Faber, M. Berk, M. Kok, J. G. van Minnen, and A. de Moor (2000b), From Kyoto to The Hague: European Perspectives on Making the Kyoto Protocol Work, A Summary of the Findings of the Second Climate Policy Workshop of the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands: RIVM report # 728 001 015.Google Scholar
  28. Michaelowa, A. and R. Betz (2001), ‘Implications of EU Enlargement on the EU Greenhouse Gas ‘Bubble’ and Internal Burden Sharing’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1, 267–279, in this issue.Google Scholar
  29. Mwandosya, M. J. (1999), Survival Emissions: A Perspective from the South on Global Climate Change Negotiations. Dar-es-Salaam: Centre for Energy, Environment, Science and Technology (CEEST)/DUP(1996)LTD.Google Scholar
  30. Nilsson, C. and A. Huhtala (2000), Is CO2 Trading Always Beneficial? A CGE-model Analysis on Secondary Environmental Benefits. Stockholm: National Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  31. Noble, I. R. (2000), Quantifying Land-Use Change and Forestry. Paper presented at the Quantifying research/Kyoto Workshop, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, August, http://www/riia.org/ep/quantifying.htmlGoogle Scholar
  32. Oberthür, S. and H. Ott (1995), ‘UN Convention on Climate Change: The First Conference of the Parties’, Environmental Policy and Law 25(4/5), 144–156.Google Scholar
  33. Oberthür, S. and H. Ott (1999), The Kyoto Protocol-International Climate Policy for the 21st Century. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. OECD (1999), Action against Climate Change, The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond, Paris.Google Scholar
  35. Reilly, J. (2000), The Kyoto Protocol and Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sinks. Paper presented at the workshop on Quantifying Kyoto, August, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, http://www.riia.org/research/eep/quantifying.htmlGoogle Scholar
  36. RIVM (2000a). Milieubalans 2000 (State of the Environment 2000). Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom Tjeenk Willink.Google Scholar
  37. RIVM, EFTEC, NTUA, IIASA (2000), European Environmental Priorities: An Integrated Economic and Environmental Assessment. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: RIVM, report no. 4815050100.Google Scholar
  38. UNFCCC (1992), The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  39. UNFCCC (1995), The Berlin Mandate, Decision 1/CP.1, UNFCCC/CP/1995/7/add. 1. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  40. UNFCCC (1997a), Paper No. 1: Brazil; Proposed Elements of a Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Presented by Brazil in Response to the Berlin Mandate, UNFCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3 GE.97. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  41. UNFCCC (1997b), Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  42. UNFCCC (2000a), Mechanisms pursuant to Articles 6.12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol-Text for Further Negotiation on Principles, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines-Note by the Chairmen, FCCC/SB/2000/3. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  43. UNFCCC (2000b), National Communications from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention: Green-house Gas Inventory Data from 1990 to 1998, FCCC/SBI/2000/11, http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  44. UNFCCC (2000c), Procedures and Mechanisms Relating to Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/SB/2000/MISC.2. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  45. UNFCCC (2000d), Mechanisms Pursuant to Articles 6.12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol-Submissions from Parties, FCCC/SB/2000/Misc.4/add.2, http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesGoogle Scholar
  46. Vrolijk, C., M. Grubb, B. Metz, and E. Haites (2000), Quantifying Kyoto Workshop-A Summary, London: Royal Institute of international Affairs. http://www.riia.org/research/Google Scholar
  47. Watson, R., C. Zinyowera, R. Moss, and D. Dokken (eds.) (1998), IPCC Special Report on Regional Impacts of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Watson, R., I. Noble, B. Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, D. Verardo, and D. Dokken (eds.) (2000), IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Weyant, J. P. (1999), ‘The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-model Evaluation’, Special Issue of the Energy Journal.Google Scholar
  50. World Bank (2000), World Bank Launches First-of-its-kind Market-based Carbon Fund, News Release No. 2000/176/S, 18 February, Washington DC, http://www.prototypecarbonfund.orgGoogle Scholar
  51. Yamin, F., J. M. Burniaux, and A. Nentjes (2001), ‘Kyoto Mechanisms: Key Issues for Policy Makers for COP-6’, International Environmental Agreements-Politics, Law and Economics 1, 267–279, in this issue.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert Metz
    • 1
  • Marcel Berk
    • 1
  • Marcel T. J. Kok
    • 2
  • Jelle G. van Minnen
    • 1
  • Andre de Moor
    • 1
  • Albert Faber
    • 1
  1. 1.RIVMBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.NRPBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations