Does the EU REALLY love the Kyoto Protocol?

If so, here is what it takes…

The context is known. The Kyoto Protocol is the only international instrument that includes binding targets for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases in developed countries. One cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring its continuation (if you need a recap, check the post by Kelly Rigg). But the protocol in itself is no silver bullet, and might well end up being more of an empty shell if some issues are not addressed.

While the United States, Canada, Russia and Japan have expressed their rejection of new commitments under the protocol, the EU has featured itself as a champion of a possible extension of its Kyoto obligations. This engagement is, however, subject to conditions. The EU is thus in a strong position to set the terms for a second commitment period. These terms are vital to the environmental integrity of the protocol.

Two questions would therefore need to be answered for the EU to prove its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Is Europe willing to improve the terms of the Kyoto Protocol in order to raise the environmental integrity of the obligations of its member states (and a few other partners)? Will it weight in these negotiations in order to ensure that other parties meet its own condition for the continuation of the protocol?

Three loopholes to be fixed to ensure environmental integrity of the Protocol

Such an extension would be an effective from an environmental point of view only if three issues are addressed. First, a solution must be found so that the stock of carbon credits accumulated by countries in Eastern Europe do not flood the market, as most of these credits do not result from mitigation policies. Second, accounting rules for emissions from forest management (beautifully nicknamed Lulucf at the UNFCCC) should be sufficiently stringent to ensure that no country could cut its forests without being hold accountable for it. Finally, the clean development mechanism should be improved so that the carbon market is not compromised by the existence of bad credits.

Only a first step towards more ambitious

Also, very few of the commitments currently on the table match the level of ambition identified by scientists as required to limit the increase of temperatures to 2 degres (let alone 1.5 degres). Parties must thus be able to revise and increase their targets once they have accepted a second commitment period. A shorter commitment period (5 years) would also create a better dynamic in Durban regarding negotiations towards a global deal (see this previous post).

Using the leverage that committing to Kyoto creates

The European Union has finally one last responsibility regarding the future of the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, it has clearly stated that it would only accept new obligations under the protocol in the context of the adoption of a roadmap that would include “mitigation commitments from in particular all major economies, in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities”. The willingness of the European Union could therefore act as leverage to encourage its partners to accept the prospect of a comprehensive agreement in the mid-term. But this leverage will be effective only if Europe truly engage in the negotiations and push other major economies to accept such a roadmap. Playing an active role in these discussions, Europe would substantively increase the chances that its conditions are met and thus create the environment for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol.