Are international environmental agreements effective in helping the law to adapt?

There are many agreements where UN countries have met and decided upon a set of targets and rules which they often agree on and sign to say that they will adhere to the agreements. Perhaps two of the most famous examples are the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ (1992) and the ‘Paris Agreement’ (Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015).

There are several hundred international environmental agreements, however, most of them only include a limited number of countries. Also, they are only binding for the countries that have ratified them to make them official law.

The Kyoto Protocol 1997

The Kyoto Protocol is “an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.”(United Nations ‘Climate Change’ website, ‘Kyoto Protocol’ page, (2008) ( http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php ) The United Nations Climate Change website explains that “under the Protocol, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures”. This is good because it means that all signed up countries are working together towards a common goal of a more sustainable future but it can still be done in a way which is flexible to the different needs and development rates of individual countries as some, most likely less economically developed countries may have heavier industry in some areas, for example. However, the Protocol also “offers them an additional means to meet their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms: international emission trading, clean development an joint implementation.” This is positive because it allows for flexibility still whilst offering help to countries to make sure that they can actually reach their targets and succeed in making their nations more sustainable. Like the convention, the Protocol is “designed to assist countries in adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. It facilitates the development and deployment of technologies that can help increase resilience to the impacts of climate change." There is also an “adaptation fund” to make sure that the targets and mechanisms put in place can be afforded fully by poorer nations. This implies it is a truly global effort to help legal systems adapt sufficiently to global sustainability issues. Working collaboratively on this scale is good because all the signed-up nations can work together to help combat global climate change whilst still having the flexibility to make sure it works for their people.

Has the Kyoto Protocol been successful as a key model of whether international environmental agreements are effective in helping the law to adapt sufficiently to growing sustainability issues across the globe?

1. “The headline results tell us that between 1990 and 2012 the original Kyoto Protocol parties reduced their CO2 emissions by 12.5%, which is well beyond the 2012 target of 4.7% (CO2 only, rather than greenhouse gases, and including Canada). The Kyoto Protocol was therefore a huge success.”(‘The Kyoto Protocol: Climate Change Success or Global Warming Failure?’,‘Circular Ecology’ (4/2/2015), Blog by Dr Craig Jones.(http://www.circularecology.com/news/the-kyoto-protocol-climate-change-success-or-global-warming-failure). This is what the main figures suggest and make the protocol out to be a huge success. However, this “revelation that would stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the climate to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”was, arguably, not such a huge success even though C02 emissions were still reduced as “there are more successes than failures” (‘Has the Kyoto protocol made any difference to carbon emissions?’ , ‘The Guardian’Newspaper Online (Duncan Clarke 2012)) when looking at “how countries have performed against their targets”.

The Graph Below is from the ‘The Guardian’ Newspaper Online (Duncan Clarke 2012) and shows “the gap between each nation's percentage target and its actual percentage change between 1990 and 2010”. The original data was sourced from the United Nations Climate Change Date base page. (United Nations Climate Change Date base page, (http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/kp_data_unfccc/base_year_data/items/4354.php)

This graph demonstrates how successful the Protocol seems however, “coming to light now is that this was also a political masterstroke that would ensure the success of the Kyoto Protocol before it had even begun.” (‘The Kyoto Protocol: Climate Change Success or Global Warming Failure?’,‘Circular Ecology’ (4/2/2015), Blog by Dr Craig Jones.) It is clear that the emissions came down very quickly after 1990. An interesting explanation for this is that “there was a rapid decline in heavy manufacturing industries across Russia and the newly independent states” after the fall of the Soviet Union. Dr Craig Jones writing for the ‘Circular Ecology’ blog writes that “this collapse was particularly significant in Russia and Ukraine, the two largest energy consumers in this group" which is a “key reason for the decline in energy consumption of the Kyoto Protocol parties”. The independence of the Republics of the Soviet Union effectively split the figures up and reduced the effects of the original state’s C02 emissions dramatically.

This can be shown in this graphic by Dr Craig Jones for ‘Circular Ecology’:

‘Circular Ecology’ (Dr Craig Jones, 2015) (http://www.circularecology.com/news/the-kyoto-protocol-climate-change-success-or-global-warming-failure)

It seems that the Kyoto Protocol, as a key model of whether international environmental agreements are effective in helping the law to adapt sufficiently to growing sustainability issues, has been partially successful as it has demonstrated a decline in emissions and it has acted as an international catalyst for the development of new environmental laws in many counties which ratified the Protocol. However, it is clear that there were some clever political movements to try to make it appear more of a success on paper than in perhaps was in terms of figures. But, it still achieved well in adapting the law to growing environmental issues so it is still relevant and useful for today.