INTRODUCTION
During the last decades, and especially since the 2015 Paris Agreements and the derived western momentum around global warming, climate change and subsequent natural hazards caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions have emerged as a major danger to the global community. In this context, and as explains Börhinger [1] right after its implementation, "this international concern about climate change led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997" [1].
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: BRIEF HISTORY AND CONTENT
Fully implemented on 16 february 2005 [2], "the Kyoto Protocol operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing industrialized countries and economies in transition to limit and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets" [2]. As per the published UN document (An exhaustive account of the Kyoto Protocol's implementation segments can be found in Article 2.1.a. of the Kyoto Protocol), those commitments, differents from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the latter being related to the Paris Agreements, go from energy efficiency enhancement to sustainable agriculture development, carbon dioxide sequestration technologies development or fiscal/market-based mechanisms implementation [3], all in order - for countries - to achieve their quantified emissions limitation. One key principle of the Kyoto Protocol when it comes to assigning commitments is the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities", under which a subset of countries - the famous and so called "Annex B" in the official Kyoto Protocol document - is deemed to be "largely responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere" [2]. Those countries must hence adopt heavier mitigation and adaptation measures and play a larger role in GHG Emissions reduction. As explained by Kumazawa and Callaghan [4], "these targets [...] will account for a 5percent collective reduction of the 1990 emission levels by the first commitment period of 2008–2012" [4]. The specific levels of emissions allocated to each member states are determined in the early stages of the "EU Council Decision determining the respective emission levels allocated to the community and each of its Member States under the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Council Decision 2002/358/EC:
"These emission levels are calculated on the basis of the revised base-year emissions data submitted by Member States pursuant to Article 23 of Commission Decision 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, multiplied by the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitments set out in Annex II to Decision 2002/358/EC and Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, multiplied by five, to represent the five years of the Protocol's first commitment period."
Beyond assigning commitments, the Kyoto Protocol also defines the features, structure, abatment mechanisms, as well as monitoring and reporting protocols of the National GHG Emissions reductions. Beyond countries domestic measures, the three main flexibilitiy mechanisms for countries to reach their targets are i) International Emissions Trading (such as the EU ETS), which "commodifies" GHG Emissions and "as set out in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows countries that have emission units to spare - emissions permitted to them but not "used" - to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets" [5]; ii) the Clean Development Mechanism, which purpose shall be to assist Parties not included in Annex B in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex B in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3" [6], which "is the first global, environmental investment and credit scheme of its kind, providing a standardized emissions offset instrument, Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs)" [6], i.e. which defines offsets protocols that offsetting projects must abide by in order to qualify for carbon credits; and iii) the Joint Implementation mechanism, which first defined the features and eligibility criteria of international carbon markets and credits. It is important to note that several protocols designed under the CDM where used for specific compliance carbon markets around the world, e.g. the Compliance Offset Program manage by the California Air Ressources Board, or various protocols used for Voluntary Carbon Markets projects such as Verra of Gold Standard. Furthermore, as per the UNFCCC, Joint Implementation projects "offer Parties a flexible and cost-efficient means of fulfilling a part of their Kyoto commitments, while the host Party benefits from foreign investment and technology transfer" [7]. This mechanism was the legal step towards the construction of international carbon markets, currently under the scope or Article 6. For a clear synthesis on article 6 and why it matters, see "What You Need to Know About Article 6 of the Paris Agreement" [8] from the World Ressources Institute.
CRITICS
The Kyoto Protocol's design, negotiation phases and implementation were accompanied by constant criticism depending on the perspective, on the funding principles as well as on the anticipated efficiency. Various critics and comments may be classified under the following 5 categories identified in 2003 by Börhinger [1]: i) there were no penalties on free-riding or non-compliance: Penalties for non-compliance were gradually phased in, and are now widely present accross carbon pricing mechanisms, for example; ii) non-symmetric abatement costs, partial worldwide GHG Emissions coverage; no forecasted follow-up after Commitment Period 1 2008-2012 could hamper the Kyoto Protocol's efficiency. However, those critics were concurrent to the Kyoto Protocol's implementation. Milestone such as the Paris Agreement are a significant, \textit{a posteriori visible}, follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol. Thirdly, iii) arbitrary allocations of transfers of carbon units; iv) the lack of "any connection to ultimate economic or environmental policy objective" [1]; v) doubts on the efficiency of international permits trading; and vi) the Kyoto Protocol might only work on a holistic logic, i.e. no countries has any incentive to make it work, it must rely on an international mechanisms of monitoring and enforcement. All in all, the various COP that took place since the Kyoto Protocol designed solutions to the aforementioned problems and criticisms that were raised then. The annex offers an a posteriori depiction of the Kyoto Protocol relative effectiveness. Those info-graphics, obtained through an empirical study conducted by Maamoun [9] on the relative success of the Kyoto Protocol, show an absolute growth of GHG Emissions, whereas a counterfactual analysis demonstrate a decrease in relative GHG Emissions compared to Business As Usual, for annex B countries.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Börhinger, C.(2003). The Kyoto Protocol: A Review and Perspectives. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol.19, No.3.
[2] UNFCCC.(n.d.). What is the Kyoto Protocol ?
https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol
[3] United Nations.(1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
[4] Kumazawa, R., Callaghan, M.S.(2010). The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon
dioxide emissions. Journal of Economics and Finance 36(1):201-210.
[5] UNFCCC.(n.d.). Emissions trading.
https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol/mechanisms/emissions-trading
[6] UNFCCC.(n.d.). The Clean Development Mechanism.
[7] UNFCCC.(n.d.). Joint Implementation.
[8] World Resources Institute.(2019). What You Need to Know About Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
https://www.wri.org/insights/what-you-need-know-about-article-6-paris-agreement
[9] Maamoun, N.(2019). The Kyoto protocol: Empirical evidence of a hidden success. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Volume 95, Pages 227-256.
