commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change {COM(2010) 86 final}
Date: 2010-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, climate change, developing countries, energy policy, greenhouse gas, international affairs, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.3.2010 
SEC(2010) 261 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

International climate policy post-Copenhagen:  
Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change 

{COM(2010) 86 final} 

EN 

   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 Verification) of developed countries' reductions

...................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.1.4.  Mitigation in developing countries .............................................................................. 4 

1.1.5.  MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) 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. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Parties supporting the Copenhagen Accord, and pledges put forward ........................ 8 

Association with the Copenhagen Accord ................................................................... 8 

Annex I economy wide emission reduction targets submissions................................. 8 

Developing Countries' NAMA submissions ................................................................ 9 

List of countries having officially expressed support for the Copenhagen Accord, and 
quantitative pledges put forward................................................................................ 10 

EN 

2 

   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  Parties  under  the  Kyoto  Protocol  (AWG-KP),  in 
particular on technical issues. A number of questions remain open and further progress can be 
made at the technical level in addressing these in the context of the political compromises in 
the  Copenhagen  Accord,  while  further  streamlining  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  outcome  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 these various issues.  

1.1. 

AWG-LCA – open issues after Copenhagen 

1.1.1. 

Shared vision 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Discussions  on  long-term  quantitative  targets  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  discussion  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 questions 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 influenced 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 

3 

   EN 

 
1.1.3.  MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) of developed 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 whether or how these should be 
reflected remains unclear; 

Whether  to  identify  a  collective  range  for  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 Verification) of developing countries' actions 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  Copenhagen  Accord  has  contributed  to  clarifying  the  frequency  of  National 
frequent  National 
these  more 
Communications.  However,  guidelines  on 
Communications, including inventories, remain to be adopted.  

The  Copenhagen  Accord  specified  that  developing  countries'  unsupported  actions 
will  be  MRVed  at  a  domestic  level  and  communicated  through  their  National 
Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under 
clearly defined guidelines – these guidelines remain to be elaborated. 

Good  progress  was  made  on  the  draft  decision  to  set  up  a  mechanism  to  record 
NAMAs  and  facilitate  provision  and  recording  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 the term REDD+ which encompasses all categories 
of forest-related activities, from reducing emissions from deforestation to the conservation of 
standing forests. 

It is undecided whether to 

–  define a quantitative and qualitative 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  under  which  conditions,  to  the  carbon  market  so  that  trading 
systems could decide to allow use of such credits.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1.1.7.  Agriculture 

– 

The decision on agriculture is nearly finalised, 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 based (UNFCCC or ICAO-IMO principles); 

There  are  no  overall  quantitative  reduction  targets  for  the  aviation  and  maritime 
sectors; 

The possible requirement at international 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  mechanisms  should  be  designed,  including  with 
regard to their scope – e.g. encompassing mitigation actions at a sectoral level; 

The  question  of  the  relationship  between  such  new  mechanisms  under  the  AWG-
LCA and existing mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol was not touched upon.  

1.1.10.  HFCs 

– 

Parties need to decide whether to send a signal to the Montreal Protocol urging it to 
take  action  to  tackle  HFCs  contributing  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  share  information  on  the  impacts  of  response 
measures; 

Who should take the impacts into consideration in their actions (developed countries 
or all countries); 

The  Copenhagen  Accord  links  the  potential  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 trade 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 the Conference of the Parties to follow up 
the implementation of the agreed Framework for Action on Adaptation; 

The Copenhagen Accord points out that adaptation to the impacts of climate change 
and  adaptation  to  the  impacts  of  response  measures  should  be  linked,  which  may 
reopen this discussion. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1.1.14.  Technology 

– 

Good  progress  was  achieved  with  the  general  acceptance  of  a  Technology 
Mechanism  in  the  AWG-LCA  (later  confirmed  by  the  Copenhagen  Accord).  Many 
of  its  functions  have  been  identified,  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 Intellectual Property Rights are still open.  

1.1.15.  Finance 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The Copenhagen Accord clarified the agreement on the Copenhagen Green Climate 
Fund; what remains on the table is to give a well-defined mandate to the Fund and 
agree on effective governance arrangements; 

Some of the functions of the proposed "Finance Board" remain contentious – and its 
relationship with the "High-Level 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 remain to be elaborated.  

1.1.16.  Capacity building 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Undecided remains whether to set up a new technical panel 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 who should report on capacity-building activities (developed 
countries or all countries) and how; 

Developing  countries  have  proposed  that  support  for  capacity-building  should  be 
considered a legally binding obligation of developed countries. 

1.2. 

AWG-KP – open issues after Copenhagen 

It  should  be  noted  the  decision  text  states  that  the  AWG-KP  should  "continue  its  work 
drawing on the draft text forwarded as part of its report on its tenth session to the Conference 
of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties 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  levels  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 

6 

   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  the  efforts  to  be  achieved  by  developed 
countries (by around 6.8% from 1990 levels); 

Finally,  Parties  will  have  to  define  more  technical  parameters  including  base  year 
(1990  or  else),  number  (1  or  2)  and  duration  (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  storage  (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  crediting  and  trading  mechanisms  is  now 
mostly taking place in the context of the 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 several Annex I Parties. 
Developed countries’ emission  reduction targets can therefore not be finalised until 
the future LULUCF rules have been agreed and taken into account; 

– 

In addition, important parameters still need to be discussed 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  accounting  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 inclusion 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 two different options regarding the choice 
of  the  appropriate  Global  Warming  Potential  (using  values  of  the  Second  or  of  the 
Fourth IPCC Assessment Report). 

1.2.5.  Potential consequences 

– 

The draft decision leaves undecided whether to create a forum where parties would 
report on the potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including 
spillover effects, of their policies and measures. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2. 

2.1. 

PARTIES SUPPORTING THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD, AND PLEDGES PUT FORWARD 

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 and 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, Nicaragua, 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 Copenhagen 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  ambition  of  existing  pledges,  assuming  that 
Switzerland  and  Ukraine  are  keeping  their  pledges  and  will  eventually  make  a  submission 
under the Copenhagen Accord. 

The overall level of emission reduction from 1990 level for all 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  would  be  further  reduced  if  the  questions  of 
possible surplus of AAUs and LULUCF accounting rules are not adequately addressed. 

Emissions 
(MtCO2e) 

Emissions 
(MtCO2e) 

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 

Canada 

Croatia1 

EU 27 

Iceland 

129.129 

77.435 

-5% 

58% 

-10% 

50% 

591.793 

730.967 

31.374 

30.433 

3% 

6% 

-17% 

9% 

3% 

6% 

-17% 

9% 

5.572.506 

5.119.476 

-20% 

-13% 

-30% 

-24% 

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 

8 

   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 the 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  their  nationally  appropriate  mitigation 
actions (NAMAs). 

Many  submissions  include  a  qualitative  description  of  NAMAs  to  be  undertaken.  E.g. 
Armenia  puts  forward  actions  it  intends  to  undertake  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 

9 

   EN 

 
2.4. 

List of countries having officially expressed support for the Copenhagen Accord, and quantitative pledges put forward 

The table below provides information on countries who have so far expressed support for the Copenhagen Accord, mentioning in each case in which 
way support has been expressed (generally 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 base year, how much this 
represents compared to 1990 levels, and whether a conditionality has been expressed.  

The  table  also  indicates,  when  applicable,  the  quantified  objectives  put  forward  by  developing  countries  as  part  of  their  nationally  appropriate 
mitigation actions. A number of developing countries have submitted mitigation contributions that are not quantified. These are not included in the 
table below2. 

Country 

Albania 

Armenia 

Date of letter, or 
other source 

26/01/2010 

29/01/2010 

Reduction by 2020 

Base year 

Compared to 
1990 levels 

Conditionality 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

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 Parties in the context of the Copenhagen Accord is available through http://www.unfccc.int. 

EN 

10 

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 

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 

- 

- 

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. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
Reduction by 2020 

Base year 

Compared to 
1990 levels 

Conditionality 

-17% 

2005 

+3% 

Country 

Canada 

Date of letter, or 
other source 

Press reports of 
speech, 30/01/2010 

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 

- 

- 

- 

Colombia 

29/01/2010 

Congo (Dem. Rep.of) 

30/01/2010 

Congo (Rep.of) 

01/02/2010 

- 

- 

- 

Croatia 

01/02/2010 

-5% 

1990 

- 

- 

- 

Voluntary; 

referring to the principles and 
conditions of Art 4.7, which 
mentions the need of developed 
countries to foresee finance and 
technology transfer 

- 

- 

- 

Temporary target until EU 
accession 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 

China has supported the Copenhagen Accord, but has not formally asked to be associated. 

EN 

12 

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 

Ethiopia 

02/02/2010 

01/02/2010 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

European Union 

28/01/2010 

-20% to -30% 

1990 

Fiji 

Gabon 

Georgia 

Ghana 

30/01/2010 

22/02/2010 

01/02/2010 

13/01/2010 

Guatemala 

05/02/2010 

Guyana 

12/02/2010 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-20% unconditional 

-30% conditional upon comparable 
efforts from developed countries 
and adequate contribution from 
DCs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
Country 

Date of letter, or 
other source 

Reduction by 2020 

Base year 

Compared to 
1990 levels 

Conditionality 

Iceland 

27/01/2010 

-30% 

1990 

India4 

Ministry press note 
30/01/2010 

Reduce the emissions 
intensity of its 

GDP by 20-25% 

Indonesia 

30/01/2010 

Israel 

Japan 

Jordan 

Kazakhstan6 

Kiribati 

Laos 

01/02/2010 

26/01/2010 

01/02/2010 

01/02/2010 

26/02/2010 

12/02/2010 

-26% 

- 

-25% 

- 

-15% 

- 

- 

2005 

-5  

- 

1990 

- 

1992 

- 

- 

- 

- 

+22% 
(including 
LULUCF) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Comparable emissions reductions 
by developed countries and 
adequate contribution by DCs  

Voluntary 

Voluntary 

- 

Conditional on a fair, effective and 
global agreement 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 
5 
6 

India has supported the Copenhagen Accord, but has not formally asked to be associated. 
Not specified in the submission to the UNFCCC. 
Kazakhstan is not an Annex 1 Party but has declared that it wishes to be bound by the commitments of Annex I Parties. 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Country 

Date of letter, or 
other source 

Reduction by 2020 

Base year 

Compared to 
1990 levels 

Lesotho 

29/01/2010 

- 

- 

Liechtenstein 

27/01/2010 

-20% to -30% 

1990 

Former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 

25/01/2010 

Madagascar 

25/01/2010 

- 

- 

- 

Malawi 

Maldives 

29/01/2010 

23/01/2010 

Carbon neutrality 

Mali 

22/01/2010 

Marshall Islands 

27/01/2010 

Mauritania 

22/02/2010 

- 

-40% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2009 

- 

Conditionality 

- 

-20% unconditional 

-30% conditional upon comparable 
efforts from developed countries 
and adequate contribution from 
DCs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Conditional on adequate 
international support 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
Country 

Date of letter, or 
other source 

Reduction by 2020 

Base year 

Compared to 
1990 levels 

Conditionality 

Mexico 

31/01/2010 

-30% 

BAU 

Moldova 

Monaco 

01/02/2010 

Min -25% 

1990 

05/02/2010 

-30% (carbon neutral by 2050)

1990 

Mongolia 

28/01/2010 

Montenegro 

29/01/2010 

Morocco 

Namibia 

Nepal 

01/02/2010 

28/01/2010 

31/01/2010 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

New Zealand 

01/02/2010 

-10% to -20% 

1990 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Provided the provision of adequate 
financial and technological support 
from developed countries as part of 
a global agreement 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Conditional upon global agreement 
including 2°C target, comparable 
efforts by developed countries, 
actions by emerging DCs, 
inclusion of LULUCF and carbon 
market. 

EN 

16 

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 

Palau 

Panama 

29/01/2010 

30/01/2010 

Papua New Guinea 

23/12/2009 

Peru 

28/01/2010 

Philippines 

27/01/2010 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-40% conditional upon a global 
and comprehensive agreement 
where major emitting Parties agree 
on emission reductions in line with 
the 2 degrees Celsius target 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

17 

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 

Rwanda 

Samoa 

29/01/2010 

20/01/2010 

San Marino 

18/02/2010 

Senegal 

Serbia 

02/03/2010 

29/01/2010 

Sierra Leone 

01/02/2010 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Level reductions depending on: 

-  The  appropriate  account  of 
potential of the Russian woods in a 
context  of 
to 
performance  of  obligations  on 
reduction 
anthropogenous 
of 
emissions; and 

the  contribution 

-  Acceptance  of  legally  significant 
of 
obligations 
on 
anthropogenous 
of 
greenhouse  gases  by  all  largest 
emitters.  

reduction 
emissions 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
Country 

Date of letter, or 
other source 

Reduction by 2020 

Base year 

Compared to 
1990 levels 

Conditionality 

Singapore 

28/01/2010 

-16%  

BAU 

South Africa 

BASIC statement 
24/01/2010+ 
submission NAMAs 
01/02/2010 

South Korea 

30/12/2009 

Tanzania 

03/02/2010 

Trinidad and Tobago 

29/01/2010 

Togo 

Tunisia 

16/02/2010 

11/02/2010 

Uruguay 

29/01/2010 

United Arab 
Emirates 

14/02/2010 

Uruguay 

28/01/2010 

-34% 

-30% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

BAU 

BAU 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-- 

- 

- 

Contingent upon a legally-binding 
global agreement, but domestic 
measures already to be 
implemented 

Contingent upon a global legally 
binding agreement providing 
capacity building support and 
technology transfer. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

19 

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 

EN 

The US submission includes a reference to the following: "The pathway set forth in pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction in 2025 and a 42% reduction in 2030, 
in line with the goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050". 

20 

EN