IEEJ: December 2011 All Rights Reserved
Special Bulletin

A Japanese Perspective on the International Energy Landscape (70)

December 13, 2011

COP17 Agrees on Roadmap to New International Framework after Difficult Talks
Ken Koyama, PhD
Chief Economist, Managing Director
The Institute of Energy Economics, JapanThe 17th Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
started in Durban, South Africa, on November 28 and ended on December 11, with agreement
reached on extension of the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment period under the Kyoto
Protocol and a roadmap to a new climate change framework.

Following COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 and COP16 in Cancun in 2010, the COP17
meeting focused on a new climate change framework after the first GHG reduction commitment
period ends in 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol. Although the meeting had been scheduled to end on
December 9, difficult coordination between countries with different interests forced the meeting to
be extended for two days. Eventually, an expected breakdown of negotiations was avoided andagreement was reached, putting an end to the marathon negotiations that lasted for two weeks.
As summarized on the website of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs1, the COP 17 agreed on(1) a plan to establish an ad hoc working group to produce by 2015 a new “legal” framework thatwill cover all major GHG emitting countries and take effect in 2020, (2) the establishment of thesecond commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and (3) more specific challenges including abasic design for the Green Climate Fund and a guideline for a measurement, reporting andverification mechanism, etc.

Before the COP17 meeting, major parties including the United States, Europe, Japan,
China and India were wide apart over key issues including the new international climate change
framework. Given such differences, fears about economic deterioration mainly in Europe and theUnited States, and the political season just before key elections and leadership changes in majorcountries in 2012 including the U.S. presidential election, observers doubted if the meeting could
produce any significant decision or agreement on the details of global warming measures. The
momentum for any new international agreement was not necessarily strong.

1

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kankyo/kiko/cop17/gaiyo.html

1IEEJ: December 2011 All Rights Reserved
Under such situation, major countries actually stuck to their respective positions
throughout the two-week meeting, with negotiations losing flexibility, according to media and otherreports. Even after the meeting entered the process to work out the final agreement, it was reported
that Europe waged bitter disputes with China and India over how to describe the legal force of thenew framework and when to effectuate the new framework. Negotiations were very tense.

The COP17 agreement fell short of specifying the length of the second commitment period
under the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the matter of the period (five to eight years) pending for futuretalks. Furthermore, Japan, Canada and Russia vowed not to take part in the second commitment
period. A document reflecting their positions was adopted, leading to a decline in the number ofcountries required to reduce GHG emissions. As a result, those obligated to cut GHG emissions inthe second commitment period under the protocol will be limited to such parties as the EuropeanUnion, covering only 15% of global GHG emissions.

Given the difficult situation, the agreement on the three major points summarized above
might be appreciated as an important achievement of the COP17 meeting. This may be interpreted asindicating that the last compromise emerged from relevant parties’ willingness to avoid the worst
result where negotiations would break down with the momentum lost for any agreement. Virtuallyno international negotiation is free from compromise. On the first and second points, however, theCOP17 meeting, though agreeing on specific directions, might have left all key details undecided.
Particularly, details of the new framework have been left pending for future negotiations. Toward theCOP18 meeting next year, tough international negotiations may be required on the fundamentalissue.

The COP17 negotiations came as Japan was comprehensively reviewing its energy andenvironmental policies in the wake of the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake and the subsequent
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. As noted above, Japan has vowed not to take part in thesecond commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Japan will be free from any GHG emission
reduction legally binding obligation. As a matter of course, however, Japan may have to makevoluntary efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The agreement on the new framework meets Japan’sbasic idea that a fair, effective international framework where all major GHG-emitting countries takepart will be important. Therefore, Japan may have to proactively participate in the futurenegotiations on the new framework.

The present efforts to revise energy and environmental policies pursue the simultaneousachievement of S+3Es (safety, energy security, environmental protection and economicdevelopment) and naturally cover a long-term global warming strategy. The government is expected
to revise energy and environmental policies and release a new basic energy plan by next summer. In
this way, Japan will work out global warming measures meeting and linked to energy challenges and2

IEEJ: December 2011 All Rights Reserved
bring them to new international negotiations. An energy strategy for national perspective will berequired to take a strategy for international perspective into account. Japan will thus have to develop
a best mix of national and international energy strategies.

Contact: report@tky.ieej.or.jpThe back issues are available at the following URL
http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/whatsnew/JPOIEL.html

3