# COP15 and Problems in Post-Copenhagen Negotiations on Climate Change

## Column

In this column, we listen to what Prof. Yukari Takamura of Ryukoku University, who is a member of the Global Environment Committee of the Central Environment Council, has to say about COP15 and post-Copenhagen negotiations on climate change.

How should we evaluate the Copenhagen Accord of which the Copenhagen Conference (COP15) has decided to “take note”. As COP15 fell short of officially adopting it and only decided to “take note,” the Copenhagen Accord became a political accord that is binding on only countries that consent to it. The fact that a majority of countries supported it does not automatically make the Copenhagen Accord the basis for negotiations on the next framework. This appears to be the basic difference from the case where the COP had officially adopted the Copenhagen Accord.

In light of the negotiations held so far, the Copenhagen Accord does represent progress in several areas. First of all, the Copenhagen Accord describes emission reduction efforts by industrialized countries and those by developing countries in the same document, making it an agreement that goes beyond the previous bipartite structure of "industrialized countries that make commitment" and "developing countries that avoid commitment." In response to the entirely new situation of the appearance of emerging economies that increased emissions rapidly over the past decade or so, the Copenhagen Accord offers prospects for transcending the dogmatic dichotomy and establishing an effective framework for prevention of global warming. Secondly, mitigation efforts by developing countries were promised concretely and institutionally, and their progress and effects will be subject to international verification. Unlike developed countries that are committed to the implementation of mitigation targets, developing countries implement mitigation actions and communicate their actions. Mitigation actions with international support will be subject to measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with international guidelines, while mitigation actions by developing countries not supported internationally will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification and they will communicate information on the implementation of their actions for international consultations and analysis. However, the extent and effects of international verification hinge on guidelines. Going forward, regarding the post-2012 framework, to be worked out going forward. Thirdly, there was agreement on the collective commitment of funding by developed countries at present and toward future. Developed countries will provide new and additional resources of $30 billion during the period of 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation by developing countries. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries also commit to a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, with the funding coming from a wide variety of sources, public and private.

Despite these positive developments, however, there seem to remain many problems. Above all, other than the aforementioned mitigation actions and funding goal, many of the matters that should form the basis of the next framework and on which agreement was expected at COP15 still remain unsettled. The Copenhagen Accord does not specify the ultimate legal form of the next framework, or whether commitments are legally binding commitments or not.

Furthermore, under the Copenhagen Accord, developed countries voluntarily decide emission reduction targets and make commitments to them, instead of determining reduction targets through international negotiations among states as was the case with negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol. It is deemed unclear whether this method of voluntary commitments as a whole can ensure the reductions by the levels enabling the achievement of the ultimate objective of preventing global warming or ensure the “comparability of mitigation efforts” over which Japan and other developed countries, other than the United States, have concerns.

The Copenhagen Accord worked out by the world’s leaders and supported by a majority of countries in the international community, including the United States and emerging economies, provides a valuable hold to hang onto in advancing slow-moving negotiations on climate change. Key to negotiations on climate change going forward is how to forge final agreement on the next framework by reflecting matters agreed on under the Copenhagen Accord in documents of continuing negotiations and pushing forward negotiations on matters that are not yet sufficiently clear and matters on which there is no agreement yet.

Japan, based on the Copenhagen Accord, will take the initiative in pursuit of the establishment of a fair and effective framework in which all the major economies participate and the agreement by those economies on ambitious targets.