Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change ( in short: the Kyoto Protocol, named after the location of the conference Kyoto, Japan ) is a decreed on 11 December 1997 additional protocol to the UNFCCC United Nations ( UNFCCC) with the aim of climate protection. Which entered into force on 16 February 2005 Agreement for the first time establishes internationally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries, which are the main cause of global warming. By early December 2011 191 states and the European Union have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. never acceded to the Protocol, and Canada has announced its withdrawal from the Agreement on 13 December 2011.

The protocol provides for the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the industrialized countries in the so-called first commitment period (2008-2012) to an average of 5.2 percent over the 1990 level to reduce. For emerging and developing countries have no reduction targets are quantified. At the Conference of the Parties in December 2007 in Bali, the Parties had agreed on a timetable for negotiations on a potential starting in 2013 second commitment period. After more could be achieved in the follow-up conferences about 2009 in Copenhagen about agreement neither in Bali, the States agreed at the UN climate conference in Durban on such a second commitment period. Their design (including new reduction targets and a term either until the end of 2017 or end of 2020 ) should be adopted at the UN Climate Change Conference in Qatar, 2012. There, they agreed on a proposed extension of the Kyoto Protocol ( "Kyoto II" ) in 2020. Dispute are primarily the extent and distribution of future greenhouse gas reductions, the integration of emerging and developing countries to the reduction requirements and the level of financial transfers.

The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is primarily due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, livestock and clearing of forests. The regulated by the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2 serves as a reference value ), methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (laughing gas, N2O), partially halogenated fluorocarbons ( H-FKW/HFCs ), perfluorocarbons (PFCs / PFCs ) and sulfur hexafluoride ( SF6). At present there is little change in the general growth trend of this important greenhouse gases the agreement. The emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide continue to rise unabated. Emissions of methane and various hydrocarbons has stabilized for other reasons, such as the protection of the ozone layer as a result of the Montreal Protocol.

• 2.1 Decided reduction targets

• 3.1 The " Buenos Aires Plan of Action "
• 3.2 The double COP 6 in The Hague and Bonn
• 3.3 Recent decisions in Marrakech in 2001

• 4.1 History and delays in the ratification process

• 5.1 Emissions Trading ( Emissions Trading )
• 5.2 Joint Implementation ( Joint Implementation)
• 5.3 CDM Development ( Clean Development Mechanism)

• 6.1 collapse of the Eastern European economies
• 6.2 Member States of the European Union
• 6.3 The 15 largest issuers in Appendix B

Prehistory

1992: Rio and the Framework Convention on Climate

In June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED ) was held in Rio de Janeiro. At the hitherto largest international conference traveled both emissary of almost all governments as well as representatives of many NGOs to Brazil. In Rio several multilateral environmental agreements have been agreed, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In addition, the Agenda 21 should especially promote at regional and local levels, the increased efforts to improve sustainability, to which henceforth also the climate was counted.

The UNFCCC established under international law binding the goal to prevent dangerous and anthropogenic interference with the climate system of the Earth. They had already been adopted on a permanent from April 30 to May 9, 1992 Conference in New York City and was then signed at UNCED by most states. Two years later, on 21 March 1994, entered into force.

The Convention establishes a precautionary principle, after about climate change actual climate protection measures should be taken by the international community even if not yet full scientific certainty. To meet their goal, provides for the Convention to adopt additional protocols or other legally binding agreement. This should include concrete commitments to climate protection and be designed according to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities " of all States Parties, which implies that "the Parties, the developed country Parties in combating climate change and its adverse effects take the lead [ should ] ".

1995: The "Berlin Mandate" at COP -1

One year after the entry into force of the UNFCCC held its first UN climate conference from March 28 to April 7, 1995 in Berlin. On this COP (Conference of the Parties, COP) to the UNFCCC, the so-called COP -1, the participating States agreed on the "Berlin Mandate". This mandate included the establishment of a formal "Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate " (Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin mandates, T & CM ). This working group had the task of working out between annual climate conferences a protocol or another legally binding instrument should include fixed reduction targets and a time frame to achieve them. For the purposes of the principles set out in the UNFCCC principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities " emerging and developing countries were excluded already at this stage of mandatory reductions. In addition, the subsidiary bodies Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA ) for scientific and technical matters and Subsidiary Body for Implementation ( SBI) were established for issues relating to implementation and Bonn established as the seat of the Climate Change Secretariat.

The then Federal Environment Minister Angela Merkel, early to commit significant contribution to the far-reaching promises on the part of the German delegation to the largest single contribution to greenhouse gas reduction among all industrialized countries. This early commitment is regarded as a crucial factor, which is why a legally binding emission reduction initially dismissive of stationary states until 1997 but still could be brought on board.

1996: The " Declaration of Geneva " at COP -2

Prior to the Second Conference of States Parties in Geneva in July 1996 the working group established had already held three preparatory meetings on the Berlin Mandate, chaired by the Argentine Raúl Estrada Oyuela. In Geneva itself coinciding with the COP -2, the fourth meeting was held. The ministers present and other negotiators agreed to a complicated voting process to the "Geneva Ministerial Declaration" ( Geneva Ministerial Declaration). In it, the conclusions were made from the 1995 finished second IPCC assessment report on the scientific basis for the further process of international climate policy and reaffirms the upcoming drafting of a legally binding regime for reducing greenhouse gases. At the Berlin Conference still open which came to light resistance from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and particularly the OPEC countries against explicit reduction targets could thus be overcome.

1997: Last meeting of the Working Group on the Berlin Mandate

In the months before the third climate conference in Kyoto various components and designs of a future climate protocol had been discussed at the meetings of the above Working Group on the Berlin Mandate. In March 1997, the T & CM - 6, for example, the EU had ventured a foray and proposed a reduction of the three main greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the industrialized countries by 15 % by 2010. Within the group of influential industrialized EU non-member states, called JUSSCANNZ (consisting of Japan, the U.S., Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand), were particularly interested in the United States the greatest possible flexibility within the future climate regime. They led, among other things, a proposal of emission budgets in the debate, could be credited to a subsequent year after the one year is not used, but conceded emissions when a committed reduction has not been reached.

The JUSSCANNZ group hesitated with the presentation of specific reduction targets and has been set by the EU with a further proposal under increasing pressure. By 2005, the decision of the EU Environment Ministers of June 1997, the EU would agree along with other industrialized countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 7.5%. The renewed initiative of the EU countries was carried forward to the T & CM seventh session in August. To take into account the draft treaty text to see their point of view, the JUSSCANNZ members now had to also make concrete proposals. The last opportunity to do so was the eighth meeting of the Working Group on the Berlin Mandate in October 1997, which was the last official T & CM - meeting before the climate change conference in December in Kyoto at the same time. There, Japan presented the proposal of maximum 5 % reduction in the period 2008-2012 compared to 1990, with the possibility of deviating downward exceptions. Developing countries still outperformed the other hand, the EU's offer by demanding 35 % reduction by 2020 and to at the request of OPEC to set up a compensation fund.

But the critical element was the United States and by television transmitted to Bonn proposed by President Bill Clinton. He saw no reduction, but only a stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels and a later conceivable, unquantified reduction for the period 2008-2012. Clinton also called for the establishment of the " flexible mechanisms " of emissions trading and Joint Implementation ( Joint Implementation) ( see below). While were less significant points such as location and amenities of the Secretariat, the subsidiary bodies ( subsidiary bodies ) or dispute resolution have been established, but the central concern of the negotiations, there was still disagreement. Thus it was at the final conference of the negotiation cycle in Kyoto to get a result.

The Climate Change Conference in Kyoto in 1997

That in the two years after the decision of the Berlin Mandate drafted by the dedicated working group in its fundamentals protocol was on the third Conference of the Parties, COP -3 in Kyoto in December 1997 for final hearing on. The conference was huge: Of the 158 Parties to the UNFCCC and 6 observer countries nearly 2,300 delegates were sent, non-governmental and other international organizations had sent 3,900 observers, and over 3,700 media representatives were present. The total number of people present thus amounted to almost 10,000. From 1 to 10 December, the timetable, the delegates had the opportunity to resolve the many outstanding issues of future climate policy.

The conference was divided into three parts. One day before the start of COP have not yet formally finished eighth meeting of the T & CM was continued from October 1997 and largely ended without result on the same day. During the first week of the actual Kyoto negotiations, the delegates should then clarify as many points as possible remained open, and the rest was left to the three-day coming together of the relevant national ministers at the end of the round.

The originally scheduled ten days of negotiations became one of the most dynamic and unüberschaubarsten international environmental conferences that it has ever been. In addition to the almost incidental discussions, the Framework Convention on Climate concerning the actual COP -3, was a " total committee" established (Committee of the Whole, COW), which carried out the climate protocol negotiations. It was chaired by -. , As with the meetings of the T & CM - Raúl Estrada Oyuela The COW turn founded several subordinate rounds of negotiations on institutional issues and the role and concerns of developing countries, and to many informal groups that came together to discuss issues such as carbon sinks or emissions trading.

The negotiations dragged on well beyond the planned time frame. Only 20 hours after its targeted completion of the conference was actually declared over. At this time the most important delegates had negotiated 30 hours without sleep and with only short breaks, after they had previously hardly come in the days and nights to rest. Ultimately, a consensus on the main issues was achieved, which included mainly precisely quantified reduction targets for all industrialized countries. However, many other critical points could not be clarified, but were postponed to a later meeting stattzufindende.

Agreed reduction targets

The information gathered in the Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized Parties have made ​​a commitment until 2012 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the period of 2008 to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels ( the breakdown by countries see below). Annex A to the Protocol lists six greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, HFCs, PFCs, N2O, SF6) to which the obligations are to be applied. Different countries have different standards here, which depend mainly on their economic development. A reduction in emissions by 8 per cent is earmarked for the EU. According to the principle of burden sharing ( burden sharing ), EU Member States have among themselves divided this average reduction target. Here, Germany for example, has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 21%, the UK is expected to reduce by 12.5 %, France stabilized its emissions to 1990 levels, and Spain can increase its emissions even by 15%.

The group of Eastern European countries or " economies in transition " (economies in transition ) has either, as in the case of Russia and Ukraine committed not to exceed the emission level of 1990, or like the Czech Republic and Romania approved a reduction of up to 8%. Due to the economic collapse of 1990, this transition countries are still far away soon after two decades of the then level of emissions. For emerging economies such as the People's Republic of China, India and Brazil, as well as for all developing countries have no restrictions are due to their low per capita emissions and in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC to " common but differentiated responsibilities " (see above ) provided.

The reduction targets adopted reaped immediate criticism. In particular, environmentalists went and go the reduction targets of the Protocol does not go far enough. Representatives of business, however, feared high costs due to the implementation of the Protocol.

Technical amendments to the protocol from 1998 to 2001

The " Buenos Aires Plan of Action "

The Kyoto Protocol had various technical issues unresolved, including particularly the inclusion of carbon sinks such as forests on the emissions budget of industrialized countries committed themselves to a reduction in Annex B of the Protocol. One year after the Kyoto Conference, in November 1998, delegates voted at COP -4 in Buenos Aires Action Plan same ( Buenos Aires Plan of Action, Eng. Buenos Aires Plan of Action, short BAPA ). The BAPA included a mandate, with the substantially the details of the following elements of the Protocol should be clarified before COP -6 in 2000: The accounting of sinks on national emission budgets, technology transfer and the financing of climate change in developing countries and monitoring of the reduction agreements. For a scientifically informed figuring the sink should be an expected for 2000 Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC ) on " land use, land use change and forestry " ( Land Use, Land -Use Change And Forestry, LULUCF) be awaited.

The double COP 6 in The Hague and Bonn

After two years of multilateral discussions a first attempt, the overdue decisions on the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP -6) of the UNFCCC in The Hague from 13 to 25 November 2000 failed to meet. It broke on several lines of conflict: between the European Union on the one hand, advocated stricter regulations on the sink, and Japan, Russia, the U.S. and Canada on the other side who advocated for more exemptions, and between the industrialized (Annex B - ) states in relation to the G77, which includes funding mechanisms concerned. Because the negotiations were tied to the timetable of the " Buenos Aires Plan of Action ", the conference was not formally ended, but simply " broken " to get in shape of COP - 6, part 2 (including COP -6, called 5) from 16. to be resumed in Bonn until 27 July 2001. In March 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush had been the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto process announced (see below), and the U.S. representative attended the second half of the COP -6 nurmehr as observers.

In Bonn, there came one hand, to a significant slowdown partly to the original intention of the Kyoto Protocol. Not only is the attempt by the European Union was rejected, should not be applied in climate change, the "flexible mechanisms" only as accurate quantified complement to national efforts. A binding maximum value that these mechanisms may contribute to reducing emissions, was rejected by the majority of the negotiating parties. On the other hand, were just decided important steps for developing countries, including in the areas of technology transfer and financing of mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change. Other questions, however, remained open as before. This included once again the difficult question of the accounting of carbon sinks that could only be resolved definitively in 2001 in Marrakech.

Recent decisions in Marrakech in 2001

At COP -7 in Marrakech, Morocco, which lasted from October 29 to November 10, 2001, we were finally able to resolve the last outstanding issues four years after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. The importance of the meeting is reflected in the 4,400 with comparatively high number of participants, including representatives of 172 governments, 234 intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and 166 media services.

Through the generous accounting of sinks the reduction commitments of Japan, Russia and Canada were in fact decreased in the sequence. With the provisions agreed in Marrakech was clear that especially with Russia a sweeping trade was to be expected with a lot of 'hot air'. Because Russia at the time of follow-up negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol nearly 40 % less greenhouse gases emitted than in 1990 and had become involved in the protocol to any emission reduction, but only to stabilize at the level of 1990, it now has a more than generous allocation of emission rewarded. " Hot air" is it therefore acted because the certificates facing no real saving, but the reduction, which led to the award of certificates, dated back for more than a decade. Despite this strong incentive for Russia, it was unclear whether it would ratify the Protocol at all and whether this is done einjustierte Kyoto system ever have stock or would not collapse but rather before it enters into.

Entry into force

The Protocol should enter into force when at least 55 states, caused summed up more than 55% of carbon dioxide emissions in 1990, have ratified the agreement. The number of at least 55 participating countries was reached with Iceland's ratification on 23 May 2002. Following the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Protocol in 2001, the international community had to wait for those taken on 5 November 2004 Russia's accession ( see below). With the ratification of Russia under President Vladimir Putin, on a share of about 18 % of CO2 emissions from 1990 is omitted, the second condition was met.

On 16 February 2005, 90 days after ratification by the Russian parliament, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force then. At this time it had ratified 128 countries. Today, 192 countries are fully valid Parties to the Protocol, are therefore acceded to either have ratified or formally agreed with him otherwise.

History and delay the ratification process

The Member States of the European Union have signed the protocol symbolically soon after the 1997 Kyoto conference, and they have joined him very quickly after the decisions of Marrakech in 2001 final. Germany ratified the Protocol on 31 May 2002, committing themselves to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases in the period 2008 to 2012 by 21% compared to the 1990 level. All other EU countries followed later than previously mutually agreed deadline of 31 May 2002. Croatia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 20 May 2007.

Some countries like the U.S. and Australia had the protocol initially signed but did not ratify. Already in June 1997, six months before the decisive conference in Kyoto, the Senate of the United States had the so-called Byrd - Hagel Resolution with 95:0 votes unanimously adopted. This refuse the senators to ratify an internationally binding climate agreement unless and developing countries would be obliged to emission reductions, or if the U.S. economy a "serious harm" threatened. They discussed whether the exceptions for the emerging country China were particularly crucial for the United States.

U.S. President Bill Clinton presented the text of the contract in subsequent years not prior to the vote. After George W. Bush took over the presidency in 2001, he stated it was not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and withdraw from Al Gore in 1998 symbolically signature made in the USA. Thus, the United States had stepped out of the Kyoto process, a step that was attributed to the strengthened conservative forces in the United States. The turnaround of the U.S. in the early 2000s almost led to the failure of the protocol, since the prescribed requirements have not been met at the commencement date. Only now could be reached with Russia's accession to international legal obligation of the Protocol.

Russia had delayed so long with a decision. Only after the log unclear remaining rules for emissions trading and the accounting of sinks ( particularly forests ) were clarified in large parts of Russia's favor, spoke from a Russian perspective, particularly the expected from the emissions trading profit for ratification: In the years after the reference year 1990, many polluting factories were shut down for reasons of profitability in Russia. Therefore, the emissions were likely to continue for a long time under which the base year, so that Russia can " pollution rights " against foreign exchange to other industrialized countries sell after entry into force of the Protocol, the need to invest in cleaner technology without large sums. Especially this part of the subsequent provisions of the Kyoto Protocol has been criticized by observers as trading 'hot air': the emissions of industrialized countries, which can buy certificates from Eastern European countries in the balance, no real saving is elsewhere over. The release for ratification took place on 22 October 2004 by the Duma, after President Putin had strongly made ​​in advance for an implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Several OPEC countries have abandoned their reservations over the years and ratified the Convention. The EU had even before the accession of Russia along with several other states, including Canada and Japan, agreed to achieve even without formal entry into force of the Protocol their pledged CO2 reduction targets by 2012. Only on 3 December 2007, the newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd 's first official act after being sworn ratified the Protocol. In order for the United States and Canada are now the only industrialized countries that do not legally binding international member of the Kyoto Protocol (as of Dec. 2011). As of March 15, 2011, a total of 192 countries have ratified the Protocol.

Flexible Mechanisms

In its 2002 final fixed version of the Kyoto Protocol provides for several "flexible mechanisms' by which the signatory countries can achieve their goals. These mechanisms can be applied voluntarily and should make it easier to achieve the planned reductions. They are invariably economically centered mechanisms, limiting unnecessary climate change, according to some observers. This lack complementary approaches to the instruments mentioned below, such a technology transfer protocol between developed and developing countries or further action of the international forest protection as envisaged under the United Nations Forum on Forests.

Emissions Trading ( Emissions Trading )

The emissions trading is one of the essential enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol instruments. The idea is that emissions are reduced where it is cheapest to do so. A distinction is emissions trading between countries, which has been set in the Kyoto Protocol and the EU's internal emissions trading between businesses.

Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol emphasizes that emissions trading is supposed to represent something more than direct measures to reduce greenhouse gases. This is to prevent that states rely on it to buy their reduction commitments by other participants in emissions trading.

Joint implementation ( Joint Implementation)

As a Joint Implementation ( JI) is a measure of an industrialized country called, which is carried out in another country; Requirement is that both countries a reduction commitment under the Kyoto Protocol are subject. The emission reduction achieved by the investment is solely attributed to the investor country. This allows countries with relatively high costs of reducing emissions to meet their obligations by investing in countries with more easily achievable savings. The JI mechanism has been created especially with regard to the Eastern European countries represented in Appendix B. In addition to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should therefore be pursued simultaneously the necessary modernization of the former communist economies.

CDM development (Clean Development Mechanism)

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM ) allows a developed country to implement measures to reduce CO2 emissions in a developing country and to get credit for the emissions saved there on its own emissions budget. The difference to a joint implementation is that the industrial country has its reduction commitment can partially meet in a developing country without such a commitment.

Since the location of an emission reduction is in principle unimportant and one from any reduction expected a reduced negative impact on the climate, so can cost measures implemented, climate change be made economically efficient. The CDM has been introduced to facilitate the one hand, developed countries to achieve their emission reduction targets, while promoting an urgently needed to modernize technology transfer to developing countries.

However, since developing countries are not subject to reduction commitments, it must be ensured for each project that the emission avoidance in addition ( additionality ) takes place, ie the income from the sale of the generated by the CDM CERs ( certified emission reductions ) must be crucial for the action. For if the corresponding investment even without the sale of CERs performed ( for example, because of the construction of a wind power plant already is profitable), it is the sale of CERs merely a profit-taking, which is not the emissions offsets in the investor country. In this case, the CDM leads to additional emissions compared to the reference scenario (no trading of CERs). This is particularly criticized in connection with the so-called Linking Directive of the European Union, which links the EU emissions trading, the CDM and allows companies to buy emission reductions instead of CDM certificates.

In addition, it is possible that a group of Contracting States may meet together their reduction targets. This so-called burden sharing has been specifically included in the protocol for the European Union. This has established itself as the Confederacy to an overall reduction of 8%. Internally, there are distinctly different goals. Thus, Luxembourg, Denmark and Germany have to reach the most extensive savings with 28 % and 21% each. The strongest increases were permissible Spain, Greece and Portugal conceded with 15 %, 25 % and 27 %.

Compliance with the reduction commitments

Collapse of the Eastern European economies

Despite the small reduction targets they are not consistently pursued by many states and ultimately probably reached only by some. Although there was between 1990 and 2004 nor to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions reduction of all committed Annex I countries by 15.3 %, but here the emissions rose again between 2000 and 2004 already at 2.9%. The reason for this pattern is that the bulk of the computation reduction is achieved due to the collapse of the Eastern European economies after 1990, have recovered strongly in recent years. The so-called economies or countries in transition to market economy reduced their emissions between 1990 and 2000 by 39.3 %, after which the trend reversed: From 2000 to 2004 the output there rose by 4.1 %. The remaining Annex B countries come to a rise in their emissions by 8.8 % from 1990 to 2000, and a further increase by 2% from 2000 to 2004. Whilst this represents a braked increase during the last years, but is still far from the received reduction targets.

Member States of the European Union

In Germany it was from 1990 to 2004 sought to reduce CO2 emissions by 17.2 percent. Roughly half thereof due to the collapse of East German industry after reunification, while the other part is for savings and modernization measures in the area of the old Federal Republic. With the exception of the UK, it was in most other states to sometimes drastic increases in the quantities of output, so that the majority of the EU members, the self-imposed reduction targets by 2012 at best can achieve with additional measures and otherwise miss. So far (as of 2006) was the EU -15 reduce their emissions only by 2.7 %. The European Environment Agency believes, however, that as the increased use of Kyoto mechanisms and carbon sinks the 8 additional measures - % target can still be achieved or even exceeded significantly.

The 15 largest issuers in Appendix B

The following table gives an overview of the emissions of the 15 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in 1990 from Annex B of the Protocol, which includes a total of 39 states. Shown is the current absolute level of emissions in 1990, the reduction commitments made in detail, the actual value as at 2012 for the year 2010 and finally its deviation from the setpoint. The 15 States listed united in 1990 to be 91.2 % of the emissions of all Annex B countries, 2010, she caused as it was 92%. For the EU countries, in the course of 1998 internally negotiated targets are specified which correspond to put together the EU-wide target of reducing by 8%.

Extension of the Kyoto Protocol by 2020

Presently negotiated on the future of the Kyoto Protocol. The focus is on the conflict over a newer protocol that combines far-reaching reduction commitments with a greater number of compulsory participating States. Negotiations are conducted primarily on the annual UN climate conferences. At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in 2007, it was agreed to adopt to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009 a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This did not materialize. Also in Copenhagen only a minimal consensus could be found without binding reduction targets ( the "Copenhagen Accord ").

As a result, Japan refused to renew the Kyoto Protocol and declared in 2010, you would not for a second commitment period available. Canada went one step further and gave December 13, 2011 its withdrawal from the agreement known. The background to this decision is to increase the Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in recent years, which would lead to high fines after themselves. Whether it is first disintegration of the international climate regime or simply a consistent action of the incumbent since May 2011 the Conservative government in this step, is still unclear.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol therefore was more than uncertain. This, despite the fact that the States representatives agreed at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban in 2011 to extend the Kyoto Protocol first with a second commitment period. The aim is that the signatory countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. The industrialized countries concerned should submit proposals by May 2012 for their contribution to the reduction. The reduction contributions and the duration of the second commitment period ( either until the end of 2017 or until the end of 2020 ) should be decided at the 18th UN Climate Change Conference in Qatar. There it was agreed under pressure from the summit host to a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol ( "Kyoto II" ) in 2020. At the second commitment period are Australia, the 27 EU countries and other European States, who for about eleven to 13 percent of global CO2 emissions are responsible - Russia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand announced their resignation. German media described the result as a "mini- compromise".