EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 9.3.2010 
SEC(2010) 261 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
International climate policy post-Copenhagen:  
Acting now to reinvigorate glob al action on climate change 
{COM(2010) 86 final} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Open issues after Copenhagen ..................................................................................... 3 
1.1. AWG-LCA – open issues after Copenhagen ............................................................... 3 1.1.1. Shared vision........................................................................................................... ..... 3 
1.1.2. Mitigation in developed countries................................................................................ 3 1.1.3. MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verificat ion) of developed countries' reductions
............................................................................................................................... ....... 4 
1.1.4. Mitigation in developing countries .............................................................................. 4 1.1.5. MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verificat ion) of developing countries' actions .. 4 
1.1.6. REDD+................................................................................................................... ...... 4 
1.1.7. Agriculture ............................................................................................................. ...... 5 
1.1.8. Aviation and maritime transport .................................................................................. 5 1.1.9. Carbon market mechanisms ......................................................................................... 5 1.1.10. HFCs ................................................................................................................... ......... 5 
1.1.11. Response measures...................................................................................................... .5  
1.1.12. Cross-cutting trade issue .............................................................................................. 5 
1.1.13. Adaptation............................................................................................................. ....... 5 
1.1.14. Technology............................................................................................................. ...... 6 
1.1.15. Finance ................................................................................................................ ......... 6 
1.1.16. Capacity building ...................................................................................................... ... 6 
1.2. AWG-KP – open issues after Copenhagen .................................................................. 6 1.2.1. Economy-wide emission reduction targets .................................................................. 6 1.2.2. Market Mechanisms..................................................................................................... 7 1.2.3. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry................................................................... 7 1.2.4. Basket of issues........................................................................................................ .... 7 
1.2.5. Potential consequences................................................................................................. 7  
2. Parties supporting the Copenhagen A ccord, and pledges put forward ........................ 8 
2.1. Association with the Copenhagen Accord ................................................................... 8 2.2. Annex I economy wide emission reduction targets submissions................................. 8 
2.3. Developing Countries' NAMA submissions................................................................ 9 2.4. List of countries having o fficially expressed support fo r the Copenhagen Accord, and 
quantitative pledges put forward................................................................................ 10 
 
EN 3   EN 1. OPEN ISSUES AFTER COPENHAGEN  
In Copenhagen there was significant progress  in both the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-
term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group 
on Further Commitments for Annex I Partie s under the Kyoto Prot ocol (AWG-KP), in 
particular on technical issues. A number of que stions remain open and further progress can be 
made at the technical level in addressing these in the context of the pol itical compromises in 
the Copenhagen Accord, while further str eamlining and reducing the number of options. 
Further political guidance will however be needed early on to resolve a range of outstanding questions.  
Three over-arching political questions played an important role in the negotiations leading up 
to and in Copenhagen but remain unresolved: 
– Will the outcome of the AWG-LCA will be legally-binding? 
– Will the Kyoto Protocol be amended or extended? 
– What should be the relationship of the out come of the AWG-KP and that of the 
AWG-LCA? 
The following sections outline the state of play  of the negotiations under the two negotiating 
tracks, the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP, and spell out the possible influence of the 
Copenhagen Accord provisions. They represent a snapshot of the issues still open after 
Copenhagen and are provided without prejudice to  the EU position on th ese various issues.  
1.1. AWG-LCA – open issues after Copenhagen 
1.1.1.  Shared vision 
– Discussions on long-term quantitative targ ets for global emissions reduction could 
not be concluded in Copenhagen – the recognition of the 2°C objective in the 
Copenhagen Accord may contribute to unlocking them; 
– Some progress has been made on the question of which principles to mention in the 
preamble, but this remains to be concluded; 
– Parties also need to conclude their disc ussion on how periodic  reviews of progress 
would be organised; 
– The question of whether to define a long- term goal for financing is still open. 
1.1.2.  Mitigation in developed countries 
As there was no consensus on which text to use as a basis for negotiations, not much progress 
was made in Copenhagen, and key ques tions remain open, in particular: 
– The legal nature of targets was not specified; 
– A collective scale of commitments could not be decided, nor could individual targets. 
This issue will now be infl uenced by the pledges proposed  by developed countries in 
the context of the Copenhagen Accord; 
– The rules to make the system work (how  to account for LULUCF emissions, what 
role for flexibility mechanisms, what to  do with AAU surpluses, what length for 
commitment periods) could not be addressed; 
 
EN 4   EN 1.1.3.  MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) of devel oped countries' reductions  
– As foreseen in the Copenhagen Accord, the Measurement, Reporting and 
Verification (MRV) of developed countries ' reductions will need to be done in 
accordance with existing guidelines, and any further guidelines to be adopted, which remain to be developed; 
– This issue is currently not covered in the AWG-LCA negotiating texts. 
1.1.4.  Mitigation in developing countries 
Many issues remain open in the AWG-LCA framework: 
– Many developing countries have for the first time formally proposed nationally 
appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) in reaction to the request in the Copenhagen Accord; but the legal nature  of these NAMAs and whethe r or how these should be 
reflected remains unclear; 
– Whether to identify a collective range fo r developing countries' deviation from 
baseline needs to be addressed; 
– It remains unclear whether developing countries will commit to preparing Low-
Emission Development Strategies. 
1.1.5.  MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verificati on) of developing countries' actions 
– The Copenhagen Accord has contributed to  clarifying the fre quency of National 
Communications. However, guidelines on these more frequent National 
Communications, including inventor ies, remain to be adopted.  
– The Copenhagen Accord specified that developing countries' unsupported actions 
will be MRVed at a domestic level a nd communicated through their National 
Communications, with provision s for international consu ltations and analysis under 
clearly defined guidelines – these guid elines remain to be elaborated. 
– Good progress was made on the draft decisi on to set up a mechanism to record 
NAMAs and facilitate provision and record ing of support, which was generally 
confirmed by the Copenhagen Accord; however the decision remains to be finalised. 
– The Copenhagen Accord mentions that  supported actions will be MRVed 
internationally, in accordance with guidelines  to be adopted. These guidelines remain 
to be elaborated.  
1.1.6.  REDD+ 
Negotiations have lead to the adoption of th e term REDD+ which encompasses all categories 
of forest-related activities, from reducing emissi ons from deforestation to the conservation of 
standing forests. 
It is undecided whether to – define a quantitative and qua litative REDD+ objective; 
– accept sub-national approaches; and 
– enable a link of the performance-based phase of REDD+ or its individual sub-categories, 
and in such case when and unde r which conditions, to the car bon market so that trading 
systems could decide to allow use of such credits.  
 
EN 5   EN 1.1.7.  Agriculture 
– The decision on agriculture is nearly finalis ed, few issues remain to be decided. The 
issue of a reference to trade restrictions is still open. 
1.1.8.  Aviation and maritime transport 
– The negotiating text leaves open the principles on which the design of mitigation 
actions through UN bodies could be base d (UNFCCC or ICAO-IMO principles); 
– There are no overall quantitative reduction targets for the aviation and maritime 
sectors; 
– The possible requirement at in ternational level to use of revenues from these sectors 
to tackle climate change remains contentious. 
1.1.9.  Carbon market mechanisms 
– Parties diverge on whether to establish new market-based mechanisms under the 
UNFCCC, and if yes, how these mechan isms should be designed, including with 
regard to their scope – e.g. encompassing mitigation actions at a sectoral level; 
– The question of the relati onship between such new mechanisms under the AWG-
LCA and existing mechanisms under the K yoto Protocol was not touched upon.  
1.1.10.  HFCs 
– Parties need to decide whether to send a si gnal to the Montreal Protocol urging it to 
take action to tackle HFCs contributi ng to global warming requires a political 
arbitrage. 
1.1.11.  Response measures 
Most issues remain unresolved, including: 
– Whether a new institution (e.g. forum, see discussion on the unintended 
consequences above) is needed to shar e information on the impacts of response 
measures; 
– Who should take the impacts into considera tion in their actions (developed countries 
or all countries); 
– The Copenhagen Accord links the potenti al impacts of response measures to 
adaptation to the impacts of climate change, which may reopen this discussion . 
1.1.12.  Cross-cutting trade issue 
– The problem of further specifying tr ade safeguards could not be solved. 
1.1.13.  Adaptation 
– Good progress was achieved in Copenhagen, but  some issues remain open, including 
whether to create new institutions under th e Conference of the Parties to follow up 
the implementation of the agreed Framework for Action on Adaptation; 
– The Copenhagen Accord points out that adap tation to the impacts of climate change 
and adaptation to the impacts of response measures should be linked, which may 
reopen this discussion. 
 
EN 6   EN 1.1.14.  Technology 
– Good progress was achieved with th e general acceptance of a Technology 
Mechanism in the AWG-LCA (later conf irmed by the Copenhagen Accord). Many 
of its functions have been identifie d, but a debate remains on whether the 
Technology Mechanism should play an active role in the recommendation of which 
activities should be funded; 
– Some questions relating to Intellect ual Property Rights are still open.  
1.1.15.  Finance 
– The Copenhagen Accord clarified the ag reement on the Copenhagen Green Climate 
Fund; what remains on the table is to give  a well-defined manda te to the Fund and 
agree on effective governance arrangements; 
– Some of the functions of the proposed "Fin ance Board" remain contentious – and its 
relationship with the "High-Le vel Panel" of the Copenhagen Accord will need to be 
clarified; 
– In addition, consensus could not be reached  on whether to reform, or to review, the 
arrangement with the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 
– Provisions for the Measurement, Reporting and Verification of support provided for 
developing countries' NAMAs re main to be elaborated.  
1.1.16.  Capacity building 
– Undecided remains whether to  set up a new technical pa nel on capacity building (as 
opposed to addressing the issue in existing institutions); 
– It is unclear how capacity-building will be financed, proposals include setting up a 
new dedicated fund; 
– Parties need to decide w ho should report on capacity-bui lding activities (developed 
countries or all countries) and how; 
– Developing countries have proposed that  support for capacity -building should be 
considered a legally binding ob ligation of developed countries. 
1.2. AWG-KP – open issues after Copenhagen 
It should be noted the decision text states  that the AWG-KP shoul d "continue its work 
drawing on the draft text forwarde d as part of its re port on its tenth sessi on to the Conference 
of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Par ties to the Kyoto Protocol at its fifth session". 
This means that the progress that was made during the High-level segment of the Copenhagen 
Conference, as well as the text proposals of  the EU made during those days, will not be 
reflected in the basic negotiation text. 
1.2.1.  Economy-wide emission reduction targets 
– Quantified emission reduction objectives for each developed country enlisted in 
Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol, i.e. without the US, should be agreed. This issue will 
now be influenced by the pledges proposed by developed countries in the context of 
the Copenhagen Accord. With the lower end of  pledges for Annex B, i.e. without the 
US, being around 18% by 2020 below 1990 leve ls and the higher end of pledges 
around 25%, these however remain insufficient in relation to the 25 to 40% range put 
forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); 
 
EN 7   EN – Parties must also decide how to handle the likely surplus of  Assigned Amount Units 
(AAUs) after the first commitment period of  the Kyoto Protocol. An unlimited carry-
over of AAUs would significantly lower th e efforts to be achieved by developed 
countries (by around 6.8% from 1990 levels); 
– Finally, Parties will have to  define more technical para meters including base year 
(1990 or else), number (1 or 2) and durati on (5 or 8 years) of future commitment 
period(s). 
1.2.2.  Market Mechanisms 
The most contentious issues are: 
– Whether to include carbon capture and st orage (CCS) in the clean development 
mechanism (CDM); 
– Whether to continue to exclude nuclear in CDM; 
– provisions related to supplementarity; 
– while the discussion on new sectoral cr editing and trading mechanisms is now 
mostly taking place in the context of th e AWG-LCA, these mechanisms should also 
be recognised in the context of the AWG-KP. 
1.2.3.  Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry 
– Accounting rules for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) will have 
an important impact on the level of ambition of the target of seve ral Annex I Parties. 
Developed countries’ emission reduction targets can theref ore not be finalised until 
the future LULUCF rules have been  agreed and taken into account; 
– In addition, important paramete rs still need to be discu ssed and agreed such as the 
– way to set the reference level (based  on historic data or projections), 
– cap, and 
– threshold for the eligibility of force majeure events; 
– Parties need to decide whether account ing for forest management, cropland 
management and grazing land management  should become mandatory after 2012 as 
foreseen by the Kyoto Protocol or whether they will stay voluntary. 
1.2.4.  Basket of issues 
– Further work is needed on the possible incl usion of new gases and whether these new 
gases should be included for reporting purposes only or as  part of the coverage of 
reduction targets; 
– A choice also needs to be made between tw o different options regarding the choice 
of the appropriate Global Warming Potentia l (using values of th e Second or of the 
Fourth IPCC Assessment Report). 
1.2.5.  Potential consequences 
– The draft decision leaves undecided whethe r to create a forum where parties would 
report on the potential environmental, econom ic and social consequences, including 
spillover effects, of their policies and measures. 
 
EN 8   EN 2. PARTIES SUPPORTING THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD , AND PLEDGES PUT FORWARD  
2.1. Association with the Copenhagen Accord 
So far 109 Parties  (including the EU and its Member States) have officially expressed their 
support for the Copenhagen Accord (state of play on 3 March). This  includes almost all 
Annex I parties except Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.  Among developing countries, all 
BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India an d China) have supported the accord and have 
submitted national actions, although neither China nor India have formally asked to be associated with the Accord. Cuba, Ecuador, Ni caragua, Kuwait and Nauru officially notified 
their objection to the Copenhagen Accord. 
2.2. Annex I economy wide emission reduction targets submissions 
Submissions by Annex I parties under the Copenh agen Accord confirm previously announced 
pledges with a few exceptions: 
– Canada  reduced its offer from a 20% reduction from 2006 to a 17% reduction from 
2005 by 2020 (i.e. from -3% to +3% compared to 1990); 
– Iceland increased its offer from -15% to  -30% compared to 1990 levels; 
– Switzerland and Ukraine have not yet made a submission. 
The table below summarises the level of am bition of existing ple dges, assuming that 
Switzerland and Ukraine are keeping their ple dges and will eventually make a submission 
under the Copenhagen Accord. 
The overall level of emission reduction from 1990 level for al l countries listed in Annex I 
to the UNFCCC (i.e. including the US) is in the range of -13% to -18% . This is 
insufficient to achieve the 2°C objective, and w ould be further reduced if the questions of 
possible surplus of AAUs and LULUCF accoun ting rules are not adequately addressed. 
 Emissions 
(MtCO 2e) Emissions 
(MtCO 2e) Target (low pledge) Target (high 
pledge) 
  1990 2005 From 
1990 From 
2005 From 
1990 From 
2005 
Australia 416.214 524.635 13% -10% -11% -29% 
Belarus 129.129 77.435 -5% 58% -10% 50% 
Canada 591.793 730.967 3% -17% 3% -17% 
Croatia1 31.374 30.433 6% 9% 6% 9% 
EU 27 5.572.506 5.119.476 -20% -13% -30% -24% 
Iceland 3.400 3.694 -30% -44% -30% -44% 
                                                 
1 The Croatian submission mentions a -5% reduction, but due to the use of a different base year 
calculation, this represents an actual 6% increase from 1990 level. 
 
EN 9   EN Japan 1.269.657 1.357.844 -25% -30% -25% -30% 
New Zealand 61.853 77.175 -10% -28% -20% -36% 
Norway 49.695 53.701 -30% -35% -40% -44% 
Russian 
Federation 3.319.327 2.117.821 -20% 25% -25% 18% 
Switzerland 52.709 53.665 -20% -21% -30% -31% 
Ukraine 926.033 417.529 -20% 77% -20% 77% 
United States 6.084.490 7.082.213 -3% -17% -3% -17% 
Annex I total  
(including US) 18.508.180 17.646.587 -13% -9% -18% -14% 
Sources: UNFCCC, submissions provided by Parties in th e context of the Copenhagen Accord and of the AWG-
KP (all data are excluding LULUCF)  
2.3. Developing Countries' NAMA submissions 
A number of developing countries submitted thei r nationally appropriate mitigation 
actions  (NAMAs). 
Many submissions include a qualitative desc ription of NAMAs to be undertaken. E.g. 
Armenia puts forward actions it intends to un dertake in the sectors of energy efficiency, 
renewable energy, transport, waste management , and REDD. Benin proposes actions related 
to transport, sustainable forest management and waste management.  
Some of the submissions include quantitative pledges (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, 
Maldives, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Mexico, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa) – see 
table below.  
 
EN 10   EN 2.4. List of countries having officially expressed support fo r the Copenhagen Accord, and quantitative pledges put forward 
The table below provides information on countries who have so fa r expressed support for the Copenhagen Accord, mentioning in ea ch case in which 
way support has been expressed (general ly through a letter to the UNFCCC, the date of which is specified). 
Annex I countries are identified in blue, and the table specifies which reduction target they have put forward, against which b ase year, how much this 
represents compared to 1990 le vels, and whether a conditional ity has been expressed.  
The table also indicates, when applicable , the quantified objectives put forward by deve loping countries as part of their natio nally appropriate 
mitigation actions. A number of developing countries have submitte d mitigation contributions that are not quantified. These are  not included in the 
table below2. 
Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Albania 26/01/2010 - - - - 
Armenia 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Australia 27/01/2010 -5% up to -15% or -25% 2000 +13% to -11% 
(-15% to -33% 
including 
LULUCF) 5% unconditional 
15% or 25% conditional on the 
extent of actions by others 
Bahamas 01/02/2010 - - - - 
Bangladesh 25/01/2010 - - - - 
                                                 
2 Complete documentation provided by Partie s in the context of the Copenhagen Accord  is available throug h http://www.unfccc.int.  
 
EN 11   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Belarus 02/02/2010 -5 to -10%  1990 - Premised on the presence of and 
access of Belarus to the Kyoto 
flexible mechanisms, 
intensification of technology 
transfer, capacity -building and 
experience enhancement for 
Belarus taking into consideration 
the special conditions of 
economies in transition Annex I 
Parties, clarity in the use of new 
LULUCF rules and modalities. 
Benin 08/02/2010 - - - - 
Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Botswana 25/01/2010 - - - - 
Bhutan 05/02/2010 - - - - 
Brazil BASIC statement 
24/01/2010 + 
submission of 
NAMAs 01/02/2010 -36.1% to -38.9% BAU - - 
Cambodia 29/01/2010 - - - - 
 
EN 12   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Canada Press reports of 
speech, 30/01/2010 -17% 2005 +3% - 
Central African 
Republic 28/01/2010 - - - - 
Chile 02/02/2010 - - - - 
China3 28/01/2010 -40% to -45% of its carbon 
intensity, 
15% non-fossil fuel share of 
primary energy consumption, 
Increase forest coverage by 
40m hectares and forest stock 
with 1.3bn m3 2005 - Voluntary; 
referring to the principles and 
conditions of Art 4.7, which 
mentions the need of developed countries to foresee finance and 
technology transfer 
Colombia 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Congo (Dem. Rep.of) 30/01/2010 - - - - 
Congo (Rep.of) 01/02/2010 - - - - 
Croatia 01/02/2010 -5% 1990 - Temporary target until EU 
accession 
                                                 
3 China has supported the Copenhagen Accord, but has not formally asked to be associated. 
 
EN 13   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Côte d'Ivoire 12/02/2010 - - - - 
Costa Rica 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Djibouti 02/02/2010 - - - - 
Ethiopia 01/02/2010 - - - - 
European Union 28/01/2010 -20% to -30% 1990 - -20% unconditional 
-30% conditional upon comparable 
efforts from developed countries 
and adequate contribution from 
DCs 
Fiji 30/01/2010 - - - - 
Gabon 22/02/2010 - - - - 
Georgia 01/02/2010 - - - - 
Ghana 13/01/2010 - - - - 
Guatemala 05/02/2010 - - - - 
Guyana 12/02/2010 - - - - 
 
EN 14   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Iceland 27/01/2010 -30% 1990 - Comparable emissions reductions 
by developed countries and 
adequate contribution by DCs  
India4 Ministry press note 
30/01/2010 Reduce the emissions 
intensity of its 
GDP by 20-25% 2005 - Voluntary 
Indonesia 30/01/2010 -26% -5  +22% 
(including 
LULUCF) Voluntary 
Israel 01/02/2010 - - - - 
Japan 26/01/2010 -25% 1990 - Conditional on a fair, effective and 
global agreement 
Jordan 01/02/2010 - - - - 
Kazakhstan6 01/02/2010 -15% 1992  - 
Kiribati 26/02/2010 - - - - 
Laos 12/02/2010 - - - - 
                                                 
4 India has supported the Copenhagen Accord, but has not formally asked to be associated. 
5 Not specified in the submission to the UNFCCC. 
6 Kazakhstan is not an Annex 1 Party but has declared that it wishes to be bound by the co mmitments of Annex I Parties. 
 
EN 15   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Lesotho 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Liechtenstein 27/01/2010 -20% to -30% 1990 - -20% unconditional 
-30% conditional upon comparable 
efforts from developed countries 
and adequate contribution from 
DCs 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 25/01/2010 - - - - 
Madagascar 25/01/2010 - - - - 
Malawi 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Maldives 23/01/2010 Carbon neutrality - - - 
Mali 22/01/2010 - - - - 
Marshall Islands 27/01/2010 -40% 2009  Conditional on adequate 
international support 
Mauritania 22/02/2010 - - - - 
 
EN 16   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Mexico 31/01/2010 -30% BAU - Provided the provision of adequate  
financial and tec hnological support 
from developed countries as part of 
a global agreement 
Moldova 01/02/2010 Min -25% 1990 - - 
Monaco 05/02/2010 -30% (carbon neutral by 2050) 1990 -  
Mongolia 28/01/2010 - - - - 
Montenegro 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Morocco 01/02/2010 - - - - 
Namibia 28/01/2010 - - - - 
Nepal 31/01/2010 - - - - 
New Zealand 01/02/2010 -10% to -20% 1990 - Conditional upon global agreement 
including 2°C target, comparable 
efforts by developed countries, 
actions by emerging DCs, 
inclusion of LULUCF and carbon 
market. 
 
EN 17   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Norway 25/01/2010 -30 to -40% 1990 - -40% conditional upon a global 
and comprehensive agreement 
where major emitting Parties agree 
on emission reductions in line with 
the 2 degrees Celsius target 
Palau 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Panama 30/01/2010 - - - - 
Papua New Guinea 23/12/2009 - - - - 
Peru 28/01/2010 - - - - 
Philippines 27/01/2010 - - - - 
 
EN 18   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Russian Federation 01/02/2010 -15% to -25% 1990 - Level reductions depending on: 
- The appropriate account of 
potential of the Russian woods in a 
context of the contribution to 
performance of obligations on 
reduction of anthropogenous 
emissions; and 
- Acceptance of legally significant 
obligations on reduction of 
anthropogenous emissions of 
greenhouse gases by all largest 
emitters.  
Rwanda 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Samoa 20/01/2010 - - - - 
San Marino 18/02/2010 - - - - 
Senegal 02/03/2010 - - - - 
Serbia 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Sierra Leone 01/02/2010 - - - - 
 
EN 19   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
Singapore 28/01/2010 -16%  BAU - Contingent upon a legally-binding 
global agreement, but domestic 
measures already to be 
implemented 
South Africa BASIC statement 
24/01/2010+ 
submission NAMAs 
01/02/2010 -34% BAU - Contingent upon a global legally 
binding agreement providing 
capacity building support and 
technology transfer. 
South Korea 30/12/2009 -30% BAU - - 
Tanzania 03/02/2010 - - - - 
Trinidad and Tobago 29/01/2010 - - - - 
Togo 16/02/2010 - - - - 
Tunisia 11/02/2010 - - - - 
Uruguay 29/01/2010 - - -- - 
United Arab 
Emirates 14/02/2010 - - - - 
Uruguay 28/01/2010 - - - - 
 
EN 20   EN Country Date of letter, or 
other source Reduction by 2020 Base year Compared to 
1990 levels Conditionality 
USA 28/01/2010 (in the range of) -17%7 2005 -3.67% Final target in light of enacted 
legislation 
 
                                                 
7 The US submission includes a reference to the following: "The pathway set forth in pending legislation would entail a 30% redu ction in 2025 and a 42% reduction in 2030, 
in line with the goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050".