Igor Shishlov
email: igor.shishlov@i4ce.org

Romain Morel
email: romain.morel@i4ce.org

Compliance of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first Commitment Period

Keywords: Kyoto Protocol, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Emissions Trading, Carbon Accounting

This article provides an ex-post analysis of compliance of parties to the Kyoto Protocol during the CP1 (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) based on the final data on national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and exchanges in carbon units that became available at the end of 2015. The analysis shows that among the 36 countries that fully participated to the CP1, only nine countries emitted higher levels of GHGs than committed under the Kyoto Protocol and therefore had to resort to flexibility mechanisms. Countries implemented different compliance strategies: purchasing carbon units abroad, stimulating the domestic use of carbon credits by the private sector and incentivizing domestic emission reductions through climate policies. While countries party to the Protocol largely surpassed their aggregate commitment by 2.4 Gt CO 2 e per annum, the bulk of this overachievement is due to an estimated 2.2 Gt CO 2 e per annum of "hot air" -or the emission reductions that already occurred in economies in transition before 1997. The participation of the USA and Canada would have added a net 1 Gt CO 2 e per annum of overshoot and LULUCF accounting rules further removed 0.4 Gt CO 2 e per annum from the net result excluding LULUCF. None of these factors, some of which can be deemed illegitimate, would therefore on its own have led to global non-compliance, even without use of the 0.3 Gt CO 2 e of emissions reductions generated per annum by the CDM. The impact of domestic policies and "carbon leakage"neither of them quantitatively assessed here -should not be neglected either.

Policy relevance

Given the ongoing evolution of the international climate regime and the adoption of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, we believe that there is a need to evaluate the results of the first Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol. To our knowledge there has been no synthetic quantitative ex-post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol based on the final emissions data for 2008-2012 that became available in late-2015. This article attempts to fill this gap focusing on domestic and international compliance of the Parties to the Protocol in the CP1.

Introduction

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, established greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for 38 developed countries and economies in transition (EIT) -Annex B parties to the Protocol. These mitigation targets were enounced in countries' emissions allowances -Assigned Amount Units (AAU). In order to maximize the economic efficiency of achieving their targets, parties were allowed to exchange AAUs and to use carbon credits resulting from emissions reduction projects -Joint Implementation (JI) in Annex B countries and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in non-Annex B countries.

The first Commitment Period (CP1) under the Kyoto Protocol ended on 31 December 2012.

In April 2014, Annex B countries submitted their final GHG emissions data. By 10 July 2015, all of these data had been reviewed and therefore truly finalized. Trading of units under the Kyoto Protocol was allowed until the end of the so-called "true-up period" on 18 November 2015. Data covering the use of units during this period is available and is planned to be reviewed by February 2016 with aggregated final data expected by April 2016. Although this trading data is not truly final, coherences checks and the accumulated experience of last years makes expect small variations with currently available data. It is therefore possible to conduct an ex-post assessment of the results of the CP1 of the Kyoto Protocol, which is the main objective of this article.

There have been hundreds of studies related to the Kyoto Protocol and its flexibility mechanisms. The key research topics included among others: the history of the Kyoto Protocol and the CDM [START_REF] Bolin | A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change[END_REF][START_REF] Lecocq | The Clean Development Mechanism: History, Status, and Prospects[END_REF]Ambrosi 2007 respectively), ex-ante assessments of the Kyoto Protocol's economic costs (e.g. [START_REF] Weyant | The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol[END_REF][START_REF] Nordhaus | Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol[END_REF] and environmental impacts (e.g. [START_REF] Barrett | Political Economy of the Kyoto Protocol[END_REF]), analysis of the performance of the CDM [START_REF] Castro | Empirical Analysis of Performance of CDM Projects[END_REF][START_REF] Wara | A Realistic Policy on International Carbon Offsets[END_REF]Schneider 2009;[START_REF] Haya | Measuring Emissions Against an Alternative Future: Fundamental Flaws in the Structure of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism[END_REF]Shishlov and Bellassen 2012) and JI [START_REF] Zhenchuk | The Integrity of Joint Implementation Projects in Ukraine[END_REF][START_REF] Shishlov | Joint Implementation: A Frontier Mechanism within the Borders of an Emissions Cap[END_REF][START_REF] Kollmuss | Has Joint Implementation Reduced GHG Emissions? Lessons Learned for the Design of Carbon Market Mechanisms[END_REF], the use of Kyoto units under the European Union's Emissions Trading System (EU ETS, [START_REF] Stephan | Use of Kyoto Credits by European Industrial Installations: From an Efficient Market to a Burst Bubble[END_REF], carbon accounting in the CDM [START_REF] Warnecke | Can CDM Monitoring Requirements Be Reduced While Maintaining Environmental Integrity?[END_REF][START_REF] Shishlov | 10 Lessons from 10 Years of the CDM[END_REF] and its contribution to sustainable development [START_REF] Schneider | Is the CDM Fulfilling Its Environmental and Sustainable Development Objectives? An Evaluation of the CDM and Options for Improvement[END_REF][START_REF] Gupta | Clean and Sustainable? An Evaluation of the Contribution of the Clean Development Mechanism to Sustainable Development in Host Countries[END_REF][START_REF] Boyd | Reforming the CDM for Sustainable Development: Lessons Learned and Policy Futures[END_REF][START_REF] Haya | Hydropower in the CDM: Examining Additionality and Criteria for Sustainability[END_REF], to name only a few.

To our knowledge, however, there has been no synthetic quantitative ex-post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol based on the final emissions and trading data of the CP1. Even true-up reports do not show a readable analysis of individual and aggregated strategies to comply. This article thus attempts to fill this gap. The research methodology is primarily based on the analysis of publicly available primary data sources (UNFCCC databases, UNEP DTU CDM/JI Pipeline, International Transaction Log, etc.). UNFCCC legal documents and a literature review are used to interpret the quantitative findings.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the domestic emissions reductions of Annex B countries with their respective emissions reduction targets. Section 3 reviews the international compliance by analyzing the use of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms by Parties. Finally, Section 4 draws conclusions on the results of the CP1 of the Kyoto Protocol.

Domestic emissions reductions of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol

Under the Kyoto Protocol, thirty-eight countries -hereafter called "Annex B-1997 countries" 1 -accounting for 39% of 2010 global GHG emissions -committed to a 5% decrease of their emissions between 2008 and 2012 in comparison with their base-year emissions -most often 1990 (see Appendix). With the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the USA and the withdrawal of Canada in 2011, the commitment of the 36 remaining countries -hereafter called "Annex B-2012 countries" -accounting for 24% of global GHG emissions in 2010 -was equivalent to a 4% decrease of their emissions.

Most countries reduced their emissions more than required by the Protocol

In April 2014, Annex B countries submitted their final emissions data for the CP1. By 10 July 2015, all of these data have been reviewed and therefore truly finalized. These data shows that among the thirty-six countries that fully participated to the CP1 of the Kyoto Protocol, only nine countries -Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland -emitted higher levels of GHGs than committed under the Kyoto Protocol including Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) emissions and sinks 1 See the appendix for a detailed list of countries.

(Figure 1). While these countries represented 20% of emissions of Annex B-2012 countries during the CP1, their aggregate overshoot of the cap is only around 36 Mt CO 2 e per year or less than 1% of Annex B-2012 countries average annual emissions during the CP1. In order to comply with their commitments under the Protocol, these countries therefore had to resort to flexibility mechanisms (see Section 3). As to the relative difference between the average annual emissions of Annex B-2012 countries in 2008-2012 and their respective Kyoto targets, it can be observed that all economy-in-transition (EIT) countries reduced their emissions significantly more than committed (Figure 2). More specifically, all EITs except Croatia and Slovenia overreached their respective targets by more than 20%pt 2 . At a broader level, the underachievement of some countries is more than offset by other countries. Indeed, the average annual aggregated GHG emissions of Annex B-2012 countries in 2008-2012 were 24% below the base-year emissions, while their aggregate target was only 4% reduction: the overall Kyoto 2 For example, Poland's target was -6%, and its average annual aggregated GHG emissions in 2008-2012 was 29.7% below base year. It therefore overreached its target by 29.7 -6 = 23.7%pt.

Overall compliance would have been achieved even without "hot air"

The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the rapid contraction of the economies of the Eastern Bloc. This in turn resulted in a large drop in GHG emissions of these countries compared to their respective base-year emissions -in most cases 1990. While the EIT countries started to recover in mid-1990s, their GHG emissions were still far below the baseyear during the CP1 (Figure 3). The resulting surplus of emissions allowances is often referred to as "hot air", as these emission reductions occurred before the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The amount of "hot air" can be roughly estimated as the difference between base-year and 1997 emissions in EITs. This is coherent with the fact that the Kyoto Protocol was adopted around the time when the GDP of EITs started recovering. Using this simplified approach the amount of "hot air" is estimated at 2.2 Gt CO 2 e per annum or 11 Gt CO 2 e over the five-year period of the CP1. Note that part of the emissions reductions that occurred in Germany can also be attributed to the restructuring of the East German economy following the reunification [START_REF] Schleicha | Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Germany -Lucky Strike or Hard Work?[END_REF]. These emissions reductions are not included in our estimate of "hot air".

In order to estimate the impact of "hot air" on the ambition of the Kyoto Protocol the annual emissions cap can be artificially adjusted by 2.2 Gt CO 2 e. Even in this case, the overall target of Annex B-2012 countries would have been overachieved by 0.2 Gt CO 2 e. Without the inclusion of LULUCF however (see Section 2.4), 0.15 Gt CO 2 e per year would have been missing to achieve the overall target (Figure 3). While not negligible, this deficit could be easily covered by carbon credits from developing countries created by the CDM (see Section 3.3).

Factors explaining the overachievement of the overall Kyoto target

The overachievement of the global Kyoto target in the CP1 can be explained by four main factors. The first two were already suggested by ex-ante studies that analyzed the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol [START_REF] Nordhaus | Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol[END_REF][START_REF] Böhringer | Cooling down Hot Air: A Global CGE Analysis of Post-Kyoto Carbon Abatement Strategies[END_REF][START_REF] Manne | US Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact on Compliance Costs and CO 2 Emissions[END_REF], while the latter two naturally emerged in more recent research [START_REF] Schiermeier | Hot Air[END_REF][START_REF] Peters | Rapid Growth in CO2 Emissions after the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis[END_REF][START_REF] Gloaguen | Assessing the Factors behind CO2 Emissions Changes over the Phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS: An Econometric Analysis[END_REF]:

(1) "Hot air" from the economies in transition;

(2) The non-participation of the USA and Canada;

(3) The global financial and economic crisis that decreased GHG emissions;

(4) Policies and measures put in place by signatory countries.

While the "hot air" surplus was apparent back in 1997, it was expected to be balanced by the deficit of emissions allowances in the USA and by expected large economic recovery of EITs.

Significant transfers of allowances between the USA and EITs were therefore expected [START_REF] Nordhaus | Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol[END_REF]. Indeed, with the participation of North-American countries, Annex B-1997 countries still have a comfortable annual margin of 1.0 Gt CO 2 e excluding LULUCF. Nevertheless, in terms of compliance of individual countries, this would have required significant transfers of carbon allowances between parties, notably from EITs to the USA and Canada. At the same time, it was known back in 1997 that the Kyoto Protocol could enter into force without the ratification by the USA, while the late withdrawal of countriesas it happened with Canada -was allowed.

Combining factors (1) and (2), i.e. adjusting the cap by the amount of "hot air" and including the USA and Canada, overall compliance with Kyoto targets would not have been achieved. Indeed, the deficit of emissions allowances, including LULUCF for all countries except USA and Canada would have been around 1.0 Gt CO 2 e annually, representing 5.1% of base-year emissions. Had North-American countries participated, the application of LULUCF accounting rules to their total would probably also have reduced this deficit. Moreover, they would probably have implemented tougher mitigation policies and financed more overseas emissions reductions, which would have further reduced this hypothetical compliance gap.

In reality, however, both countries produced significantly higher emissions than their initial target.

Concerning factor (3), the total impact of the 2008-2009 crisis on the emissions of Annex B-1997 countries was of comparable magnitude to the impact of the contraction of the EITs following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between 2007 and 2009, annual emissions of Annex B-1997 countries declined by 1.5 Gt CO 2 e. This amount is an upper estimate, as part of these emissions reductions may also be attributed to tougher national and regional climate policies. Indeed, within the scope of the EU ETS, the econometric analysis of [START_REF] Gloaguen | Assessing the Factors behind CO2 Emissions Changes over the Phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS: An Econometric Analysis[END_REF] attributes more than half of emissions reductions to climate policies.

More generally, the World Bank (2014) reported that 39 national jurisdictions have implemented or are scheduled to implement carbon pricing instruments, including emissions trading systems and taxes. Amongst them, the EU ETS is the largest example of national policy incentivizing both domestic emission reductions and the use of Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. Moreover, many countries have put in place other climate policies such as energy efficiency measures or renewable energy support programs in order to incentivize private investments in emissions reductions.

While it is difficult to establish a direct causal link between the Kyoto Protocol and domestic climate policies, the political signal created by the international climate negotiations has likely boosted policies on national and regional levels. For example, the EU directive 2003/87/EC justifies the introduction of the EU ETS by the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol by the EU and its member states. Further evaluation of the impact of domestic policies on GHG emissions is outside the scope of this article.

A fifth factor has also been suggested as key to explain the overachievement of the global Kyoto target, namely "carbon leakage" due to the relocation of industrial activity from Annex 1 to non-Annex 1 Parties. Given that the verified national GHG inventory data on which the present assessment does not exist for non-Annex 1 countries, there is little we can add here to the existing literature on "carbon leakage". To our knowledge, this factor is not significant. Indeed, existing studies did not detect any significant impact of the EU ETS on the competitiveness of European industry [START_REF] Branger | Carbon Leakage and Competitiveness of Cement and Steel Industries under the EU ETS: Much Ado about Nothing[END_REF][START_REF] Ellerman | Pricing Carbon: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme[END_REF]Sartor, 2012b). In addition, the Technology-adjusted Consumption-Based Accounting (TCBA) / Production-Based Accounting (PBA) emissions ratio underwent only minor changes over 1995-2009 for Annex B-2012 countries, suggesting the increase in low-carbon exports offset the increase in "imported emissions" [START_REF] Kander | National Greenhouse-Gas Accounting for Effective Climate Policy on International Trade[END_REF]) over the period.

The impact of LULUCF accounting rules on domestic emissions

When the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, the accounting rules for LULUCF emissions were not finalized. Nevertheless, their inclusion in the Protocol was later enabled through the articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7:  Article 3.4 allows countries to optionally include in their national inventories the carbon emissions and sequestration related to the management of forests, croplands and grasslands. In practice, this mainly concerns forests and includes all changes in the carbon stocks of lands that have been forests since 1990. The Kyoto Protocol caps the quantity of Removal Units (RMUs) that a country can receive from a positive "3.4 budget", in principle to factor out effects linked to the normal aging of forests and the acceleration of their growth because of climate change.

 Article 3.3 requires an accounting for emissions and sinks linked to reforestation and deforestation resulting in land use changes. The net variation between 2008 and 2012 of the carbon stock of these lands, the use of which has changed since 1990, constitutes the "3.3 budget".

 Article 3.7 only concerns countries, for which LULUCF was a net source of emissions in 1990. For these countries, net emissions from deforestation in 1990 are added to the base-year emissions, which translates into extra AAUs in proportion to the country's reduction target. This was intended to balance the expected deficit in the "3.3 budget" and create a net reward for reduced deforestation.

At the global level, emissions excluding LULUCF accounting decreased by 21.3% in Annex B-2012 countries while emissions including these provisions decreased by 24.2%. The impact of LULUCF accounting was thus beneficial for most countries, totaling net emissions reductions of 0.42 Gt CO 2 e (Figure 4). Approximately one-third of this figure comes from the application of Article 3.7 to Australia while another third is due to the application of Article While the aggregate impact of LULUCF accounting on the overall balance of the Kyoto Protocol is limited, on an individual country level, articles 3.3 and 3.4 were game-changing for Italy, Slovenia and New Zealand. Indeed, these countries are in compliance with their Kyoto targets thanks to the integration of these rules. The impact of LULUCF accounting under articles 3.3 and 3.4 is beneficial for almost all countries, with the exception of Belgium, Netherlands, Estonia, Lichtenstein and Australia.

A small contribution of flexibility mechanisms to target compliance

Section 2.1 demonstrated that even though parties to the Kyoto Protocol achieved their aggregate emissions reduction target, some individual parties would not have been compliant domestically without the use of flexibility mechanisms. This section therefore reviews the use of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms and different countries' strategies.

Kyoto Protocol's flexibility mechanisms

Besides the emissions reduction targets, the Kyoto Protocol incorporated so-called "flexibility mechanisms" primarily aimed at containing the cost of compliance:

 "Bubbling" (article 4 of the Protocol) allows a group of Annex B countries to take a collective GHG emissions reduction commitment and then to share it among them, as it was done by the countries of the European Union (EU);  Joint Implementation (JI, Article 6 of the Protocol) allows Annex B countries to offset their emissions by purchasing carbon credits resulting from projects in other Annex B countries. JI projects, thus, generate Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), which have to be converted from the AAUs of the host country. Therefore, JI does not affect the overall cap of Annex B countries, but only redistributes the emissions reduction efforts among them.

Balance of carbon units under the Kyoto Protocol by the end of the CP1

In order to comply with their commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B countries must surrender the amount of carbon units -allowances or carbon credits -equivalent to their GHG emissions during the CP1. All carbon units are listed in national registries that publish annual reports, while the final verified emissions data for 2008-2012 has been available since 10 July 2015 (see Section 2). These data show that no country lacked sufficient units for compliance as of the end of the true-up period, on 18 November 2015. However, Ukraine did not submit its true-up report, neither retired units for compliance while it holds more than enough units to do so. Thus, it is technically not in compliance with Kyoto Protocol's rules.

The individual position of countries participating in the EU ETS shall be interpreted with caution as part of their units has been transferred to the European Union registry (Figure 5).

Except Ukraine, all Annex B-2012 countries retired enough units and are therefore in full compliance with the Kyoto Protocol by the end of the CP1. Nevertheless, countries used different strategies to take benefit, or not, of their remaining units: some of these remaining units have been cancelled while others are being carried-over to the second commitment period (Figure 5). This figure takes into account the operations recorded in countries' registries and makes the difference between units with a cost -either of opportunity or following a purchase of these units for compliance, a past benefit -i.e. units transferred to other countries, or a future benefit -i.e. units carried-over for the second commitment period and therefore that keep their intrinsic value. The amount of cancelled or lost units for Ukraine is calculated on the theoretical amount of units that Ukraine should have retired for compliance.

Source: authors' calculations based on UNFCCC, national inventories and national registries data.

The impact of regional and national ETSs on the emissions and carbon units' balance is twofold. First, under the EU ETS -that covers various Annex B countries -the cross-border exchange of an EU allowance (EUA) between two EU Annex B countries automatically implied the simultaneous exchange of an AAU. The trade of AAUs, which was theoretically reserved to countries and not for private entities, is therefore mainly driven by the private sector within the EU (see Section 3.3). Second, when a company surrenders a Kyoto credit under the EU ETS, the country "retires" the corresponding units and uses it for its own compliance under the Kyoto Protocol.

Emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol

Emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol can take the form of direct AAU trade or in the form of trading of carbon credits -ERUs that are backed by AAUs or CERs that are created ex-nihilo using the CDM mechanism (see Section 3.1). As of 1 January 2016 the 7,684 registered CDM and 604 JI projects had issued 1,642 million CERs (of which 1,468 million for CP1 emissions reductions) and 864 million ERUs (all of them for CP1 emissions reductions) respectively (UNEP DTU 2015). Both CER and ERU supplies are largely concentrated in advanced developing countries and economies in transition respectively. Indeed, 85% of all issued CERs come from 4 largest CDM countries: China, India, South Korea and Brazil, while African countries account for less than 2%. Similarly, over 90% of all issued ERUs come from Russia and Ukraine, while Western Europe accounts for only 3%.

Japan, the EU and New Zealand were the major players in carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol during the CP1. Indeed, these countries were the largest net importers of both emissions allowances and carbon credits. At the same time, they implemented different strategies to comply with their commitments.

Japan was the second largest GHG emitter after Russia among Annex B-2012 countries.

Having adopted the emissions reduction target of 6% below the 1990 base year level, Japan was short of AAUs to cover its commitment and therefore had to resort to Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. Japan anticipated the need for units and steadily increased acquisition of AAUs, CERs and ERUs throughout the CP1. As soon as the end of 2013 Japan already held 150 million CERs and 22 million ERUs on its accounts. Additionally, the country has purchased 226 million AAUs (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan 2014). All these transfers were more than enough to cover Japan's initial lack of units.

A large share of these purchases were effectuated through private Japanese companies that may surrender Kyoto units under the Japanese Voluntary Scheme (World Bank 2012). Many of the acquisitions had occurred through so-called Green Investment Schemes (GISs) in cooperation with Czech Republic, Ukraine and Estonia. Under this scheme, Czech Republic, Ukraine and Estonia committed to invest the respective revenues further domestic emissions reduction. The main objective of such arrangements was to prevent countries with large AAU surpluses from simply selling their "hot air" and to bolster the environmental integrity of carbon trading.

Even though some European countries may have needed to purchase units for compliance, the transactions within and towards the EU were mainly driven by the private sector.

Indeed, the trading of carbon units is dominated by AAU transfers -as a result of EUA trading under the EU ETS. The main destination for carbon credit transfers were the EU-15 countries that purchased more than 1 billion CERs and ERUs (Figure 6).

New Zealand has been an active player on the carbon market since its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, principally through the creation of a special framework: Projects to Reduce Emissions (PRE). The scheme encouraged voluntary early offset projects that could later be included into the JI scheme and used in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) that began operating in 2008 [START_REF] Shishlov | Joint Implementation: A Frontier Mechanism within the Borders of an Emissions Cap[END_REF]. In addition, the NZ ETS allowed the use of international Kyoto credits facilitating the purchase of 90 Mt CO 2 e credits.

E.g.: the volume of carbon units exchanged between EU15 countries and EU10 countries is 1.2 billion AAUs and 224 million CERs/ERUs. The net result of trades between these countries is that EU10 received 83 million

CERs/ERUs from EU15 countries and EU15 countries received 568 million AAUs from EU10 countries.

Only exchange volumes higher than 40 million are represented. Iceland and Canada transferred units but for small amounts. Thus, these transfers are not represented. Source: authors' calculations based on UNFCCC, national inventories and national registries data.

While Japan, the EU and New Zealand were the largest net importers of carbon units, Switzerland acted as a hub for carbon trading and an entry door for carbon credits in Europe.

Indeed, the role of Switzerland is remarkable compared to its own emissions. Switzerland's trading volume represents 13 times its amount of initially received AAUs. Even the net position of the country is unusual with a surplus of more than one third of its base-year emissions. This may be explained by the fact that many CDM/JI project developers and carbon credit traders are located in Switzerland: they may currently hold the excess CERs that became un-sellable after the EU ETS demand dried up [START_REF] Stephan | Use of Kyoto Credits by European Industrial Installations: From an Efficient Market to a Burst Bubble[END_REF]. The early connection of the Swiss registry with the International Transaction Log (ITL) has probably also played a role as it ensured delivery of the Kyoto credits to the national accounts of European investors before 2008 (Alberola and Stephan 2010).

Conclusions

This article provided an ex-post analysis of compliance of Annex B parties to the Kyoto Protocol during the CP1 (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012). To this end primary data on national GHG emissions and exchanges in carbon units were analyzed. This analysis showed that among the 36 countries that fully participated to the CP1, only nine countries -Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland -emitted higher levels of GHGs than committed under the Kyoto Protocol including Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Their aggregate overshoot of the cap is only 36 Mt CO 2 e per year or less than 1% of Annex B-2012 countries average annual emissions during the CP1. All in all however, Annex B-2012 countries over-complied with the Kyoto Protocol by 2.4 Gt CO 2 e per annum.

Of the possible explanations of this over-achievement, "hot-air" was estimated at 2.2 Gt CO 2 e per annum, the participation of the USA and Canada would have added a net 1 Gt CO 2 e per annum of overshoot and LULUCF accounting rules further removed 0.4 Gt CO 2 e per annum from the net result excluding LULUCF. None of these factors, some of which can be deemed illegitimate, would therefore on its own have led to global non-compliance, even without use of the 0.3 Gt CO 2 e of emissions reductions generated per annum by the CDM.

The impact of domestic policies -not assessed here -should not be neglected either: within the scope of the EU ETS alone, it has been estimated to 0.1 Gt CO 2 e per annum [START_REF] Gloaguen | Assessing the Factors behind CO2 Emissions Changes over the Phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS: An Econometric Analysis[END_REF].

Countries used flexibility mechanisms and Japan, the EU and New Zealand were the major net importers of carbon units during the CP1. Different countries implemented different strategies to comply with their commitments and to take benefit of flexibility mechanisms: directly purchasing carbon units, stimulating the domestic use of carbon credits by the private sector and incentivizing domestic emission reductions through different climate policies. Amongst them, the EU ETS is the largest example of national policy incentivizing both domestic emission reductions and the use of Kyoto credits. It has been the main driver of carbon units trading and the main source of demand for CERs and ERUs.

On the supply side, the largest net exporters of AAUs were Poland, Romania and Czech Republic. As to project-based carbon credits, they mostly originated from large developing countries -China, India, South Korea and Brazil account for 85% of issued CERs -and transition economies -Ukraine and Russia account for 90% of issued ERUs.

In a nutshell, we disentangled the quantitative legacy of the Kyoto Protocol, showing that it cannot be reduced to a single punchline such as "global compliance" or "hot air". We did not touched upon the qualitative legacy of the Protocol, which may be worth a separate assessment. While it may be difficult to establish a direct causal link between the Kyoto Protocol and domestic climate policies, the international climate agreement has likely boosted policies at national and regional levels. In addition, the procedures and human capital produced by the Kyoto Protocol, in particular in the field of Monitoring, Reporting and Verification -rebranded as "transparency" in the Paris Agreement -are valuable assets used by all sorts of climate mitigation tools and policies around the world.

Figure 1 -

 1 Figure 1 -Absolute difference between the average annual emissions of Annex B-2012 countries in 2008-2012 and their respective Kyoto targets including LULUCF (in MtCO 2 e)

  target has been overachieved by 2.4 Gt CO 2 e. Detailed data on countries' GHG emissions during the CP1 is presented in the Appendix.

Figure 2 -

 2 Figure 2 -Relative difference between the average annual emissions of Annex B-2012 countries in 2008-2012 and their respective Kyoto targets including LULUCF (in %pt 2 )

Figure 3 -

 3 Figure 3 -Evolution of Annex B-2012 absolute annual emissions excluding LULUCF*

Figure 4 -

 4 Figure 4 -Impact of LULUCF accounting (articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7) as % of base-year emissions



  The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM, Article 12 of the Protocol) allows Annex B countries to offset their emissions by investing into emissions reduction projects in non-Annex B countries that do not have emission caps. The CDM projects, thus, generate Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) -carbon credits that can be used by Annex B countries for compliance with their Kyoto targets in addition to their AAUs.  International Emissions Trading (IET, Article 17 of the Protocol) allows Annex B countries to directly trade their AAUs. Thus, IET does not affect the total cap of Annex B countries, but only redistributes the AAUs among them. AAU, CER and ERU transactions are overseen by the UNFCCC through the International Transaction Log (ITL).

Figure 5 -

 5 Figure 5 -Comparison of the use of units by countries excluding distributed AAUs used for domestic compliance

Figure 6 -

 6 Figure 6 -Carbon trading flows as of 18 November 2015 (as % of base-year emissions)

Appendix -GHG emissions data by country in

As they are not part of the Kyoto Protocol, USA and Canada did not report LULUCF with KP rules. Therefore LULUCF is not taken into account for these countries.

Article 3.7 of the Protocol allows voluntary countries to take into account LULUCF for the calculation of the base-year. This table shows the impact for these countries in terms of equivalent emission reductions.


Daan Broeder
email: daan.broeder@mpi.nl

Thierry Declerck

Laurent Romary^

Markus Uneson

Sven Strömqvist

Peter Wittenburg

A Large Metadata Domain of Language Resources

The INTERA and ECHO projects were partly intended to create a critical mass of open and linked metadata descriptions of language resources helping researchers to understand the benefits of an increased visibility of language resources in the Internet and to motivate them to participate. The work was based on using the new IMDI version 3.0.3 which is a result of experiences with the earlier version and new requirements coming from the involved partners. While in INTERA major data centers in Europe are participating, the ECHO project focuses on resources that can be seen as part of human cultural heritage. In general about 27 institutions and projects are currently active with as goal to have in the summer of 2004 a large browsable and searchable domain. The experience shows that the creation of high quality metadata is not trivial and asks for a considerable amount of effort and skills, since manual work alone is too time consuming.

Introduction

At LREC 2000 in Athens the first workshop1 about metadata concepts for making language resources visible in and discoverable via the Internet was organized by some of the authors. At LREC 2002 two groups demonstrated operational frameworks for creating metadata for language resources and to work with them for management and discovery purposes. While OLAC2 (Open Language Community Archives Community) started form a Dublin Core point of view with the goal to create a set that allows for the description of all types of language resources, software tools, and advice, the IMDI3 (ISLE Metdata Initiative) activities started with a slightly different approach. The focus was primarily on multimedia/multimodal corpora and a more detailed set was worked out that can be used not only for resource discovery but also for exploitation and managing large corpora. Most importantly, IMDI allows its metadata descriptions to be organized into linked hierarchies supporting browsing and enabling data managers to carry out a variety of management tasks.

The two years since 2002 have been used to improve the metadata sets based on the experience of the communities. They have also been used to create an interoperable domain, i.e., a mapping schema was worked out between the IMDI and OLAC sets and the IMDI domain acts as an OLAC data provider. IMDI records can be searched for from the OLAC domain.

IMDI Metadata Set 3.0.3

Based on the experiences and on a broad discussion process including field linguists, corpus linguists and language engineers, the IMDI set 3.0.3 was designed as part of the INTERA project4 and is available as an XMLschema. It was adapted to simplify the content description and the artificial distinction between collectors and other participants probably influenced by Dublin Core was removed. Three major extensions were applied: First, it is now possible to describe written resources. This was necessary, since most language collections contain written resources in the form of transcriptions, field notes, sketch grammars, phoneme descriptions and others more. Second, as a consequence of long discussions with participants of the MILE lexicon initiative, it is now possible to describe lexicons with a specialized set of descriptor elements. Third, it is now possible to define and add project-specific profiles. In the earlier version IMDI supported already the possibility of extensions at various levels in the form of user defined category-value pairs, i.e., the user was able to define a private category and associate values with it. This feature was used by individuals and also projects to include special descriptors, however, these descriptors were not fully supported by the IMDI tools. In the new version, however, projects or sub-domains such as the Dutch Spoken Corpus respectively the Sign Language community can define a set of important categories and these are supported while editing or searching.

Therefore, IMDI exists of its core definitions that have to be stable to assure users that their work will be exploitable even after many years and of sub-community specific extensions, which nevertheless are result of discussion processes.

IMDI Framework

Further, the IMDI initiative came up with a whole bunch of professional and tools 5 for the latest metadata set version 3.0.3 such as  a professional and mature Editor that allows users to create fully IMDI compliant metadata descriptions and that supports all IMDI features such as controlled vocabularies and project specific profiles  a handy browser that allows navigating in the distributed domain of linked metadata XML files supporting searching as well as browsing, the setting of bookmarks etc (fig. 1)  a tree-builder that allows the user to create new userspecific virtual trees by linking arbitrary metadata descriptions and creating arbitrary nodes  on-the-fly transformed HTML presentation of the metadata files that allow users to browse in the linked metadata domain with normal web-browsers (fig. 2)  a full-text search tool that gathers all metadata information and treats it like unstructured information in particular for untrained users  an access management system fully integrated with the metadata domain (fig. 3)  a wrapper that offers IMDI records according to the OAI MHP (metadata harvesting protocol)

Figure 1 shows the interface of the XML-based special browser that offers advanced functionality.

Figure 2 shows the interface for browsing in the metadata domain with the help of normal HTML presentations. The location is indicated by showing the path.

Distributed Metadata

Metadata that is going to be used for discovery purposes has to be distributed, i.e., the individual descriptions can be stored at different servers. The OAI model defines data and service providers both related via the metadata harvesting protocol that defines the interaction pattern and the packaging. The data providers have to provide Dublin Core records to achieve semantic interoperability. However, the OAI protocol also allows to send records specified by another schema such as IMDI. Based on this information service providers can build services for example for searching that cover a large group of different repositories working internally with different metadata sets.

Figure 3 shows the home page that allows to manage users, groups and access rights. This management tool is closely related to metadata to provide administrative efficiency.

Although the OAI protocol is comparatively simple to implement, the common praxis is still to harvest XMLfiles. The ECHO project has shown that most of the institutions are not yet prepared to support OAI. The IMDI metadata infrastructure was assuming from the beginning that metadata records can be located at various institutionseven on the notebook of remotely working fieldworkers. Therefore, IMDI metadata records can be linked in a simple waysimilar as web-sites. The browser only needs a registered URL to integrate the IMDI descriptions into the domain. For searching, the IMDI tools will scan all known metadata links and create indexes that can then be exploited.

However, all IMDI tools expect IMDI type of metadata records, i.e., IMDI is not a concept for establishing interoperability between different metadata sets. Within the ECHO project an integrated metadata domain was built that includes ten different repositories from five different disciplines. It was shown that interoperability at the structural level was mainly achieved by harvesting XML-structured files and at the semantic level by creating special mappings (Wittenburg, 2003/2004). The Dublin Core approach reduces too much of the semantic richness of the provided information. Therefore, it is seen just as another view on the data. This new emerging domain including the activities of about 27 partners includes textual corpora, national speech corpora, multimedia/multimodal corpora, parallel corpora, lexicons and various types of written resources.

Critical Mass of Metadata

Yet we don't have a final estimate about the number of individual resources that will be described and available at the end of 2004 when the two mentioned projects will be finished. At the Max-Planck-Institute there are currently about 30.000 sessions described by metadata. Large corpora such as SMARTKOM, the Dutch Spoken Corpus, the LABLITA corpus and the ATILF corpus will be part of the new domain, so we can expect that there will be many more resource units described and therefore searchable.

It is hoped that this emerging domain is large enough to demonstrate the usefulness of metadata for discovery purposes and that it will inspire others to participate. The ENABLER7 overview has clearly indicated that there is a lack of visibility of language resources in the Internet and that their accessibility is even worse. Therefore, the creation of metadata must be a high priority program to foster re-usage. In a declaration agreed upon at the ENABLER meeting in Paris in 2003 it was stated that the funding agencies should make the generation and integration of proper and openly available metadata descriptions according to one of the two currently existing standards (OLAC or IMDI) obligatory.

Metadata Creation Process

In the first phase of INTERA and ECHO various European data centers and research institutions were approached whether they are interested to participate in creating an integrated metadata domain. The initiative had good resonance, i.e., most reacted in a positive way. However, the knowledge about the principles and goals of metadata creation and the expectations were very different. Some expected a larger amount of funding support and did not see that metadata is not meant to clean up the state of their repositories.

Most of the data centers that finally participated were aware of the relevance and concept of metadata. Therefore, there was no need for intensive training programs. However, since these centers with large corpora were already using header type of information or some internal database, it was not evident for them that IMDI not only requires metadata records. To create a browsable domain as well it is necessary to create a linked hierarchy of metadata descriptions and meaningful nodes that represent abstract concepts such as "language", "genre" and "age". It would be possible in IMDI to just deliver metadata records, simply create one node representing the institution and link all descriptions to this one node. But that would lead to long and unstructured lists that are not useful for browsing. To help creating such meaningful hierarchies programs would be necessary to create abstractions from the metadata descriptions semiautomatically.

The experiences with projects and institutions in the ECHO project were different. Here training courses and introductions were necessary to inform the researchers about all aspects of standardized metadata. In general these groups had to start from scratch, since they did not work with formal metadata beforehand. Metadata creation then means a considerable amount of work, since interviews are required and analysis work is needed to fill in the values for the metadata elements.

In special cases such as the Sign Language community a discussion process was initiated that led to additional categories that were absolutely necessary. Only with categories such as "actor.blind" metadata would be easily exploitable by the members of that specific community. Therefore, the concept of project or community specific profiles was introduced.

Problems

The efforts needed to create metadata descriptions varied considerably as well as the available skills to write scripts to semi-automatically create basic information that can be enhanced manually. Although the IMDI infrastructure offers an editor with useful options to increase the efficiency such as storing and re-using blocks of information, manual metadata creation is very time consuming and often not feasible.

The experience showed that it is much more easier to use spreadsheet tools such as EXCEL for researchers to create and manipulate a large set of records. The same is true for experienced people that prefer to use scripts to create the metadata records. However, these techniques in general create metadata of bad quality. The following types of problems were encountered:  There is no guarantee that scripts produce wellformed XML files.

 The character encoding often is not UNICODE.  Most problematic is that the tools used do not provide support for the controlled vocabularies leading to typo errors, spelling variants and many others.

It is the service provider who has to invest time to check the correctness of the produced metadata records and to improve the metadata records in collaboration with the data providers. The OAI 8 model that requires a validation at the moment of registration and simply points to the errors is in general not sufficient. Without additional help many of the data providers would stop.

Improving the content of the metadata descriptions is very important for successful searching. Two phenomena can be observed: (1) Since metadata creation is a hard job, even in evident cases elements are not filled in.

(2) As already indicated all kinds of variations can be found, since the creators partly do not make use of controlled vocabularies.

First, in a very large collection it is a problem to identify such errors or missing values. Second, how to correct them without starting time consuming interactions with the various data providers. To detect errors and variants it makes sense to first run a validation against the controlled vocabularies. Until now, however, the errors have to be corrected manually. Methods that use a formal closeness (one character difference) or other type of heuristics were not yet applied. Variants that occur due to language differences (for example Afrique, Afrika, Africa) could be corrected if one would have suitable online dictionaries or terminology databases.

Third, filling in empty elements is even more difficult, since there can be many reasons why elements were not used. Until now these cases were identified by accident, i.e., someone inspecting metadata records, finding that for example the country is filled in but not the continent. A script using geographic thesaurus information could very easily add information in such a simple case. If the "genre" field, however, is not filled in there is no simple chance to identify this except by producing long lists. Still it would not be evident how such fields have to be filled in, since only the researchers can do this.

Another aspect that was found during the metadata creation work is that many institutions are looking for institutions that can store there collections. They don't have the human resources to organize them and maintain them in a proper state so that they can be used by others. So we need ingest tools that easily allows researchers to hand over their data to another institution in an easy way.

At the MPI such a system is currently in work. Ingestion will be tightly combined with metadata creation.

Future

Much effort is taken to create and maintain metadata descriptions and it is expected that projects such as INTERA and ECHO will help to increase the awareness that metadata is very important. Therefore, we have to 8 Open Archives Initiative: http://openarchives.org assure that the investments will be maintained over a long period.

All IMDI categories were registered within the emerging ISO TC37/SC4 data category repository. In doing so semantic definitions are carried out in a widely agreed and machine readable way. It is expected that also OLAC and TEI categories will be entered in the same way. This would give all definitions a higher degree of stability. It would also allow us to make the semantic mapping between the categories explicit. It would also open the possibilities that researchers create their own mappings between categories and even develop own metadata sets by re-using the existing and well-defined categories.

It is expected that creating metadata will also become more attractive when new applications will become available. The INTERA project has as one other goal to link the domain of language resources with that of tools that operate on such resources. The MIME type concept is not new, however, the requirements go far beyond this. Bundles of resources have to be processed by tools combining several of them in one step. Characteristics of resources such their annotation schemes are relevant to detect the most useful tool. Within the INTERA project an interaction between the IMDI domain and the ACL tool registry [START_REF]ACL Software[END_REF] is being developed that is based on the open Language Resource Exchange Protocol (LREP).

Conclusions

In this paper we presented the metadata creation work in the INTERA and ECHO projects and the experiences that were made. The creation of high quality metadata descriptions in general costs more effort than was originally expected. Given that many researchers still see metadata creation as an overhead, makes infrastructure projects of this sort a difficult, but nevertheless important enterprise.

A sufficiently large metadata domain is expected to become available this year. To convince other institutions and individuals to contribute to this domain more utilities have to be developed to easily create large sets of metadata descriptions, to derive corpus-structured semiautomatically and to enrich the content.

http://www.mpi.nl/ISLE

OLAC: http://language-archives.org

IMDI: http://www.mpi.nl/IMDI

Integrated European language Resource Area: http://www.elda.fr/index.html

All tools are Open Source and available at the sites: http://www.mpi.nl/tools or http://www.mpi.nl/IMDI

European Cultural Heritage Online: http://www.mpi.nl/echo

ENABLER: http://www.enabler-network.org