In order to ensure the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, the impact of this above study should be fully taken into account. For a voluntary mechanism – cdn of the Paris Agreement – to be effective, a systematic monitoring and evaluation mechanism must be put in place. Practical consideration for developing countries (e.B a technical assistant) is also a crucial factor in improving the effectiveness of the agreement. The results show the significant negative impact of the protocol on economic performance. The decline in GDP is therefore a critical obstacle, particularly for developing countries. Empirical models shall include the programme impact variable to determine the effectiveness of the Protocol on the basis of the Parties` affiliation to Annex I. Information on each country`s participation in the Protocol comes from the UNFCCC [10], the official website of the Secretariat of the Kyoto Protocol. The programme effect variables of the models determine whether the parties belong to Annex I by assigning a value of 1 if the country is affiliated to Annex I in the reference year. For the functional variables of GDP, this study uses gross fixed capital formation, participation rate (percentage of the population aged 15 to 64) and adjusted saving – education expenditure (US dollar (USD)). Data on GDP and capital are expressed in constant USD from the year 2000, while expenditure on education is in current USD due to data limitations. Another important aspect of the Protocol`s analysis from a sustainable development perspective is its impact on economic performance, as different types of economic activities produce greenhouse gases. Annex I Parties with binding emission reduction commitments may experience some economic decline due to technical difficulties and economic constraints [22]. Research by Nordhaus and Boyer [9] shows that policies are very cost-effective.

Some insist that developed countries are suffering economic losses as a result of carbon reduction; However, as the Protocol has sought to reduce the cost of emission reductions by introducing market-based mechanisms, it should achieve its emission reduction target more effectively by reducing associated costs [7, 23, 24]. For example, the CDM introduced in Article 12 of the Protocol may be a contributing factor. Under the CDM, Annex I Parties may meet part of their emission reduction commitments under the Protocol by purchasing certified emission reductions (CERs) from CDM projects in developing countries [10, 25]. In this case, the purchase of CERs can easily replace their obligation to meet their obligations in their own country, as comparatively lower capacities are effective in reducing emissions in developing countries. Was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol a success? It depends on how you interpret the numbers. The protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, when greenhouse gases quickly threatened our climate, life on Earth and the planet itself. Today, the Kyoto Protocol continues in other forms and its issues are still under discussion. In 2019, dialogue is still alive, but it has become a complex quagmire that includes politics, money, lack of leadership, lack of consensus, and bureaucracy. Today, despite countless plans and some measures, solutions to the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming have not been implemented. The Kyoto Protocol recognized that developed countries are primarily responsible for the current high emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which can be attributed to more than 150 years of industrial activity.

As a result, the protocol imposes a heavier burden on developed countries than on less developed countries. In addition, further studies should take into account the impact of the Protocol, taking into account leakage of environmental damage between Parties not listed in Annex I. Since the present study assesses the overall effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol among Annex I countries, it is difficult to examine the impact of the Protocol on non-Annex I countries. Rising emissions and economic growth in other parts of the world are also an important factor that must be taken into account in order to deepen our understanding of the Effectiveness of the Protocol. The possibility of dealing with cases of non-compliance, i.e. dealing with countries that exceed their emission targets, remains undecided. Approval of procedures and mechanisms for detecting and dealing with infringements is to be negotiated at COP4 in Buenos Aires in November 1998. The adoption of binding measures in the event of non-compliance requires an amendment to the Protocol subject to the checks and balances associated with the adoption and ratification of an amendment.

It should be noted that external shocks to energy demand need to be taken into account in the long run. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a temporary reduction in global CO2 emissions. Scientists insist that the pandemic has had a significant positive impact on the decline in global CO2 emissions, as domestic industrial activity and energy consumption have changed significantly during the crisis [61, 62]. Therefore, a long-term analysis of the effectiveness of an environmental regime should take into account the impact of external shocks on the factors affecting CO2 emissions and on the economic aspects of the participants. In December 2012, at the end of the Protocol`s first commitment period, Parties to the Kyoto Protocol met in Doha, Qatar, to adopt an amendment to the original Kyoto Agreement. This so-called Doha amendment added new emission reduction targets for the second commitment period 2012-2020 for participating countries. The Doha Amendment had a short lifespan. In 2015, at the Paris Summit on Sustainable Development, all PARTICIPANTS in the UNFCCC signed another pact, the Paris Climate Agreement, which effectively replaced the Kyoto Protocol. The intensification of transboundary environmental issues over the past half century has highlighted the need to create effective international instruments [1, 2]. International environmental agreements (IAAs) contribute to improving transnational cooperation to combat global environmental degradation [1]. States may commit to protecting the environment by being part of one or more BAIs [3].

The results indicate that the Kyoto Protocol has had a significant positive impact on the reduction of CO2 emissions and a negative impact on the GDP of Annex 1 Parties. The model forecasts to capture the differences between the actual and counterfactual situations shall provide the monetary value of the economic loss and the environmental benefits of participation in Annex I Parties. Although this study has made it possible to grasp the overall effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol using advanced methods, the interpretation of this result needs to be further examined. The increase in the number of EIAs has led to a corresponding increase in the number of studies examining and evaluating their effectiveness. The scientists performed quantitative analysis by applying different methods and creating datasets to estimate the impact of BAIs. However, the results of previous studies remain controversial. Proponents insist that an IEA has a significant positive impact on improving the quality of the environment [4, 5], while opponents see it as an empty promise that entails significant costs for implementation [6-9]. The endemic nature of international politics – for example, many actors, different socio-economic conditions between parties, analyses and datasets on the subject – has become limited.

And the Kyoto Protocol should not be judged solely on the basis of emissions figures, Shishlov says: it also helped lay the groundwork for the Paris Climate Agreement late last year. Second, economic losses and environmental benefits are directly compared to monetary measures. The total LOSS OF GDP resulting from participation in Annex 1 is as stated above and is estimated at USD 2.273 billion per year. For direct comparison, the total CO2 reduction, estimated at 2,995 MT per year, can be converted into monetary value. Tol conducted a meta-analysis of the marginal cost of carbon damage based on values calculated from 28 published studies. It concluded that the median and average cost of damage are $14 and $93 per tonne, respectively [48]. Using the median value, the total marginal benefit of reducing CO2 emissions is about $42 billion, or about 2% of the total GDP loss. Instead, using the average increases the benefit to $279 billion, or about 12 percent of the marginal damage to total GDP. This study applied the marginal costs of carbon emissions damage, which are effective in comparing the costs and benefits of REDUCING CO2 in a monetary value. However, these marginal costs do not reflect all the damage caused by CO2 emissions in the real world.

The oil variables are based on annual crude oil price data from the EIA [36], while the official exchange rate and consumer price index (CPI) of each country were derived from the IDT [35]. We calculate the national real price of oil using the price of crude oil, the official exchange rate (local currency unit (LCU) per USD, average of the period) and the CPI based on the following equation from previous studies: National real oil price for each country = [(Brent crude oil price (USD per barrel)) (Official exchange rate (LCU per USD, period average))] / (CPI (2010 = 100)) [37-39]. The ETS variable, which indicates the degree of national energy policy, is based on the 2015 status report of the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP) [37, 39, 40]. It is also a dummy variable that assumes a value of 1 when we look at the state of the introduction of the ETS in a given year. The EUSE variable is derived from data on GDP per unit of energy consumed (constant at 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD per kg of oil equivalent) in FDI [35]. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of the relevant variables after the matching process. The matching method separates the database into two records for 1997-2008 and 2005-2008. . .

.