Copenhagen COP 15 and Beyond

The fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) closed in December 2009, with no agreement reached to establish a new Post-Kyoto framework. The parties could achieve modest outcome, however, by “taking note” of “the Copenhagen Accord” to which most emitters had subscribed with a view to stabilizing global temperature rise below 2 degrees and reinforcing financial mechanisms to support mitigation actions in developing countries. Yet, the failure to reach a decision on whether or not to extend the Kyoto Protocol will force the international community to develop a new strategy.

COP15 left us with important lessons.

First, we learnt how difficult it was to form a consensus on global issues. If the UN continues to apply unanimous voting system, there would be little chance of adopting any decision at the forum. Both the EU who took initiative in the climate change issue at an early stage and Japan who proposed a significant national target to reduce its emissions by 25% from the1990 level, failed to take the leadership of the talks. The proposal promoted mainly by the United States and China, two largest emitters of the world, was not adopted either, due to the opposition from small countries. There is little hope of reaching a multilateral consensus in the future, if small countries continue to stand against any one proposal.

Second, we realized it extremely difficult to find a solution to harmonize economy and environment. Developing countries demand the extension of the Kyoto Protocol and drastic emission cut by developed countries, stressing that the developed should first take their historical responsibility. And yet they continued to refuse sharing the burden of curbing emissions on the ground that it would only constrain their economic development, even though the developed countries urged them to do so from an equity point of view. Therefore, theoretical relationship between binding emission control and market functionality remains unresolved.

Developed countries are now bound to set a mitigation target by 2020, while developing countries are to register their mitigation action by January 31, 2010. Before COP 16 in Mexico, contracting parties will have to explore new ways, which I think will be broken down into following three scenarios, although the details of which may vary depending on the content of registered submissions.

The first scenario will be to build a new international architecture. As the cap-and-trade system comprising a component of the Kyoto mechanism seems no longer workable, we will have to examine if pledge-and-review approach can stand as an alternative. Pledge-and-review is a mechanism in which each country pledges its national emissions on the basis of global emissions allowances and accepts international review in terms of actions and results. When a similar discussion was held at COP 15, China opposed to accept any international monitoring except for where there is international financial assistance, despite the attempt of the US to persuade them into compliance. It is the most effective and pragmatic idea from my standpoint and I hope that relevant parties will be able to agree on it.

The second scenario will be to establish a group-oriented mitigation mechanism. Various groups such as Asia Pacific Partnership and Copenhagen Accord Drafting Groups have worked so far to that end. The goal of it is to build an effective architecture based on their specific activities that can also be found in the relationship between the World Trade Organization and Free Trade Agreements. In my opinion, The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference (APEC) is one avenue, because it is a loosely-linked flexible forum that has a history of addressing energy and environment problems. What is more appealing is that it involves three major economies; Japan, the US and China.

The last scenario will be that individual countries act at their own initiative with a shared goal to combat climate change. The US, China, India, Brazil and others have already announced their national targets to reduce domestic emissions. Each country is set to implement appropriate policy measures to achieve the targets and commit themselves to change domestic energy supply/demand and industrial structures. Some countries will choose to adopt environmental levies while others will opt for national emission trading schemes. At any rate, they can kick-start their action voluntarily.

From now on, parties will have to discuss various proposals over the scenarios. Then, major emitters such as the US, China and India are likely to hold the key in the negotiation.

Meanwhile, Japan registered its target in accordance with the Hatoyama initiative. It is vital for Japan to set a realistic mitigation goal, show results and lead the world substantially. In order to do so, it is essential to redouble their efforts to change market structure, lifestyles, technology system and industrial structures, while reviewing policy approaches. In the process, Japan has to utilize industry policy approaches as well as enhance public/private partnerships (PPP) until they bear fruits.

At the same time, Japan is required to strive to develop an enabling environment that will expand financial assistance and accelerate technology transfer as well as to provide showcases based on Japanese good practices and experiences.

I believe the only way for Japan to gain recognition and respect from the world is to make a substantial achievement in reducing global greenhouse gases and make technological, industrial and social contributions.