KOYOTO CONFERENCE

Negotiations for a Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
commenced in 1995 after the first COP meeting in Berlin. Determined that the commitments
provided in Article 4 of the Convention were ‘not adequate’ and decided to launch a process to
strengthen the commitments of Annex I parties through the adoption of a Protocol.

The group set a deadline namely, Kyoto Conference to establish legally binding targets for
reducing emissions in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide. Therefore, a Conference was held at Kyoto
on climate change on December 1, 1997 to review the progress made in 5yrs from UNFCCC and
to formulate plans and strategies and objectives for the future.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on the 3rd COP and was opened for signature on 16th March
1998. The Protocol has 28 Articles and 2 Annexes:

Annex I: Greenhouse Gases

Annex II: Developed Nations

Non-Annex Nations: Developing Nations [in real, there is no such annex like this, but foe the
convenience of all the parties, the developing nations have been categorized as Non-annex
Countries]

The parties to UNFCCC, in pursuit of its ultimate objectives as stated in Article 2 of UNFCCC
agreed to fulfil the obligations contained in UNFCCC through Kyoto Protocol.

The Protocol came into force on February 16th, 2005.

The Kyoto Protocol is a complex regime addressing both adaptation and mitigation, and gave
effect to the principle in the UNFCCC that developed countries should lead in emissions
reduction. This is articulated through the principle of ‘common but differentiated
responsibilities’ that stems from the Rio Declaration, 1992. Accordingly, the Protocol places
different obligations for developed countries i.e. Annex II countries, and developing countries
i.e. Non-Annex Countries.

The basic obligation accepted by the Annex I countries is set out in Article 3(1) which provides
that parties shall individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate or anthropogenic CO2
emissions of GHG’s listed in Annex I does not exceed their assigned amount.
Further, the Protocol provided that in the pre-commitment period up until 2005, each Annex
parties are required to have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under the
Protocol. The first commitment period commences in 2008 and continues up till 2012. However,
parties with economies in transition need not 1990 as their base year, but rather can use a
different base year calculated in accordance with Art 3(5).

Six gases are covered by the emissions reduction commitments of the Annex II parties: CO2,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride. [rests are
covered under the Vienna Convention].

THE MECHANISMS UNDER KYOTO PROTOCOL:

Under the Protocol, parties are allowed to meet their targets by using the so called flexible
mechanisms which are three:

JOINT IMPLEMENTATION [ARTICLE 6]:

Article 6 provides that for the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3 any Annex II
party may transfer or acquire from any Annex II party the Emission Reduction Credits (ERC’s)
resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic removals by sinks of GHG’s in any
sector of the economy. This method was first introduced in the 1991 during the negotiations of
Climate Change Convention by Developed Countries. Under Article 6, both the host and the
donor countries have commitments and so, there will be no overall change in the assigned global
amounts for the Annex II countries because emissions reduced in the host countries and deducted
from its assigned amounts are added to the assigned amounts of the donor countries

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM) [ARTICLE 12]:

The CDM allows Annex II parties to carry on emissions reductions projects in Non-annex parties
and use the Certified Emissions Reductions (CER’s) accruing from such project activities to
contribute to compliance with part of their quantified emissions limitations and reduction
commitments under Article 3. A share of the proceeds of such projects must be used to cover
administrative expenses as well as to assist developing countries parties that are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation. Therefore, the
stated purpose of CDM is to help the developing countries achieve sustainable development and
the developed countries to achieve their emissions commitments.
In simple terms, developed countries pay for the projects undertaken in the developing countries.
Article 12 further provides that CER obtained between 2000-2005 can be used to assist in
achieving compliance in the first commitment period.
On the surface, CDM is an attractive concept to both developed and developing countries.
Developed countries are provided with an opportunity to achieve their commitments more cost-
effectively, while developing countries can be helped to achieve their developmental and
environmental goals through investments and clean development which they might otherwise not
be able to afford. However, in reality CDM contains a number of serious weakness which means
it could not only fail to deliver ‘clean development but could actually allow global emissions to
increase rather than decrease. For instance, it allows developed countries to add CER’s generated
from projects from developing countries to their assigned amounts. Thus, credits generated
through CDM are additional to the total budget or assigned amounts of Annex II countries.
EMISSIONS TRADING [ARTICLE 17]:
Article 17 allows the Annex II parties to participate in emissions trading for the purpose of
fulfilling their commitments under Article 3 but provides that any such trading must be
supplemental to domestic actions taken to achieve emissions reductions. This mechanism works
by setting a legally binding limit on each party’s emission and then permitting parties to trade
part of this. This means that developed countries whose emissions are less than their assigned
amount can sell their unused portion to countries whose emissions exceed their assigned
amounts. The net result is the same as if both countries achieved their commitments, since
emissions are deducted from the assigned amounts of the selling countries and added to the
assigned amounts of the buying countries.
Many economists believe this system to be an economically effective means of achieving global
emissions reductions. However, the main defect of this mechanism is that in case, if a developing
country exceeds its assigned amount, the there is no way of penalizing that country.
• Further, Article 19 deals with the amendments to the provisions or the annexes to this
Protocol and also deals with addition of new provisions or annexes to the Protocol.
• Article 25 provides that there can be no reservations for any provisions to the present
Protocol.
 • Till the year 2008-2010 (3 years), Luxemburg and Canada were the farthest from their
emissions targets. They crossed their targets by 30% and 29% respectively. Similarly,
other countries that emitted more than their target levels are Austria, Iceland, New
Zealand, US, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Japan, Ireland,
Netherland.
• Countries like Finland, Belgium, Croatia, Portugal, Germany, France, Greece, UK,
Sweden are in comfortable positions having a surplus of emissions. Lastly, Ukraine is
the target over-supplier of Kyoto units with -55%.
• Further, China and India are becoming important players in the global GHG’s arena. The
CO2 emissions in these countries have increased by 9% and 6% respectively as on 2011.

Role Of Judiciary In Sustainable Development

In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development released the
report Our Common Future, commonly called the Brundtland Report. The report included a
definition of “sustainable development” which is now widely used as:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

To follow the principle of sustainable development, it must be taught at the ground level and
therefore, the law college in Cooch Behar and various schools teaches about the concept of
sustainable development. Supreme Court in it’s numerous of judgments upheld the right to clean
environment as an important part of Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution
of India. The Right to clean environment to the citizens needs to be protected for the
development of the country. Therefore, a proper balance needs to be maintained between the
developmental activities and environment protection. To maintain this balance and to ensure
environment protection as well to ensure right to clean environment for future generation we
need to strictly follow the guide lines and principles of Sustainable Development. Especially the
Law colleges have adopted the subject called Environmental law and under the syllabus of
Environmental law the concept of sustainable development is included.

Sustainable Development can be defined as those developments that aims to meet the need of the
present without sacrificing the needs of the future generation. In 1987, Brundtland Commission
headed by the Norwegian P.M. Harlem presented a report on “Our common future” where it was
expressly stated that harmonization of the two needs: Environment protection and promotion of
development has led to the growth and development of the principles of Sustainable
Development.

Supreme court has played a very crucial role in promoting sustainable development in the light
of Article 21 of the constitution and upholding certain principle for the same. It is important to
mention that the Parliament has enacted several legislations to prevent environmental
degradationand promote clean environment. These legislations have received relevant
interpretation from the supreme court to promote the doctrine of sustainable development. The
doctrine of Sustainable development was first applied by the Supreme court in the case of
Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996 5 SCC 650),the Supreme Court while
maintaining the principle of Polluter Pay and Pecuniary Principle as a piece of ecological law
articulated that securing the damaged piece of the climate is the an integral part of the course of
sustainable development, and subsequently in the current case, the polluter was held responsible
to pay harms to the concerned victims just as harms for the recuperation of the damaged climate.

Similarly in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [1985 2 SCC 431], the issue raised over proceeding of mining activities in the uneven
regions causing ecological pollution. The Supreme Court while maintaining the right to clean
climate as a fundamental right ensured under Part – III of the Constitution requested to end the
mining activities in the sloping regions. The Court additionally held that stopping of the mining
activities would bring about the extraordinary monetary difficulty for individuals, however the
value should be paid for the climate and for the insurance of various aspects of Environmental
Rights ensured under right to life of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its
series of decisions maintained and keep up with the principles and convention of sustainable
development by keep a legitimate harmony between the ecological insurance and developmental
activities of the general public.

Therefore, Sustainable Development is one of the important means to achieve environmental

protection and improvement in the light of societal betterment. The doctrine of Sustainable
Development has been held by the judiciary as an empty slogan that requires implementation and
reasonable interpretation from the courts. Therefore we can say that the Law colleges in every
region focus on sustainable development including the Law College in Cooch Behar.