Hot news
The Sydney declaration is not a breakthrough; it is not a milestone in the long march to find what the joint statement called “an enduring global solution to climate change.” But it is a step forward.The statement by the leaders attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Sydney, Australia, declared their resolve to lower greenhouse gas emissions. “We are committed to the global objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ... The world needs to slow, stop and then reverse the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.”
To be sure, the Sydney Apec Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development, to give it its complete name, speaks only of the need to work together to achieve a “long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal,” in preparation for “an effective post-2012 international arrangement.” In other words, the consensus-driven APEC regional grouping did not call for binding commitments on the part of each member-economy to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That makes the Sydney Declaration decidedly unlike the 10-year-old Kyoto Protocol, which binds its signatories to specific reduction targets. Commitments under that controversial agreement, which took effect in 2005, end in 2012.
The principal supporters of the Sydney initiative are Australia, this year’s host of the annual summit, and the United States: staunch allies, robust business partners—and stubborn non-signatories to the Kyoto Protocol.
Essentially, what the Sydney Declaration does for the two economies is to give them the breathing room they need to flex the necessary political muscle at home. By cutting a high profile in their support for this new APEC initiative to counter global warming (the declaration was issued a day before the end of the summit, to coincide with US President George W. Bush’s accelerated schedule), both Australia and the United States can say they are doing something on the climate change front, without actually committing to specific emission reduction targets until at least 2012.
But consensus diplomacy being what it is, the Sydney Declaration also offers something for developing economies, especially China. The very concept of a long-term goal meets Chinese (as well as Canadian) preferences.
While the language of diversity in unity—”The future international climate change arrangement needs to reflect differences in economic and social conditions among economies and be consistent with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”—can be said to favor both developed and developing economies, the latter found the statement’s unequivocal commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to their advantage.
“That’s fine,” President Macapagal-Arroyo told reporters the night the statement was released, “because at least they all recognized that the UN is the real forum for decision-making.”
“The important thing is not to undermine the UN,” she added.
As we said, a little something for everyone. But because consensus groupings like APEC and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations operate on the fundamental principle of precedents, the Sydney Declaration can be considered a real step forward. Even without formal formulas about binding goals, the joint statement already commits all APEC members to the general idea of emission reduction targets for both developed and developing economies by the next decade.
The collective decision to pursue “an effective post-2012 international arrangement,” therefore, can be understood to mean some progress forward.
