1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | | 5 | | 6 |
---|
Party | | Quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment (2008–2012) (percentage of base year or period) | | Quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment (2013–2020) (percentage of base year or period) | | Reference year1 | | Quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment (2013–2020) (expressed as percentage of reference year)1 | | Pledges for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (percentage of reference year)2 |
---|
Australia | | 108 | | 99.5 | | 2000 | | 98 | | –5 to –15% or –25%3 |
Austria | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Belarus5* | | | | 88 | | 1990 | | NA | | –8% |
Belgium | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Bulgaria* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Croatia* | | 95 | | 806 | | NA | | NA | | –20%/–30%7 |
Cyprus | | | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Czech Republic* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Denmark | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Estonia* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
European Union | | 92 | | 804 | | 1990 | | NA | | –20%/–30%7 |
Finland | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
France | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Germany | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Greece | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Hungary* | | 94 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Iceland | | 110 | | 808 | | NA | | NA | | |
Ireland | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Italy | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Kazakhstan* | | | | 95 | | 1990 | | 95 | | –7% |
Latvia* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Liechtenstein | | 92 | | 84 | | 1990 | | 84 | | –20%/–30%9 |
Lithuania* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Luxembourg | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Malta | | | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Monaco | | 92 | | 78 | | 1990 | | 78 | | –30% |
Netherlands | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Norway | | 101 | | 84 | | 1990 | | 84 | | –30% to –40%10 |
Poland* | | 94 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Portugal | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Romania* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Slovakia* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Slovenia* | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Spain | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Sweden | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Switzerland | | 92 | | 84.2 | | 1990 | | NA | | –20% to –30%11 |
Ukraine* | | 100 | | 7612 | | 1990 | | NA | | –20% |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | | 92 | | 804 | | NA | | NA | | |
Canada13 | | 94 | | | | | | | | |
Japan14 | | 94 | | | | | | | | |
New Zealand15 | | 100 | | | | | | | | |
Russian Federation16* | | 100 | | | | | | | | |
Abbreviation: NA = not applicable.
* Countries that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy.
All footnotes below, except for footnotes 1, 2 and 5, have been provided through communications from the respective Parties.
1 A reference year may be used by a Party on an optional basis for its own purposes to express its quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment (QELRC) as a percentage of emissions of that year, that is not internationally binding under the Kyoto Protocol, in addition to the listing of its QELRC(s) in relation to the base year in the second and third columns of this table, which are internationally legally binding.
2 Further information on these pledges can be found in documents FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1 and FCCC/KP/AWG/2012/MISC.1, Add.1 and Add.2.
3 Australia’s QELRC under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is consistent with the achievement of Australia’s unconditional 2020 target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels. Australia retains the option later to move up within its 2020 target of 5 to 15, or 25 per cent below 2000 levels, subject to certain conditions being met. This reference retains the status of these pledges as made under the Cancun Agreements and does not amount to a new legally binding commitment under this Protocol or its associated rules and modalities.
4 The QELRCs for the European Union and its member States for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol are based on the understanding that these will be fulfilled jointly with the European Union and its member States, in accordance with Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol. The QELRCs are without prejudice to the subsequent notification by the European Union and its member States of an agreement to fulfil their commitments jointly in accordance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.
5 Added to Annex B by an amendment adopted pursuant to decision 10/CMP.2. This amendment has not yet entered into force.
6 Croatia’s QELRC for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol is based on the understanding that it will fulfil this QELRC jointly with the European Union and its member States, in accordance with Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol. As a consequence, Croatia’s accession to the European Union shall not affect its participation in such joint fulfilment agreement pursuant to Article 4 or its QELRC.
7 As part of a global and comprehensive agreement for the period beyond 2012, the European Union reiterates its conditional offer to move to a 30 per cent reduction by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.
8 The QELRC for Iceland for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol is based on the understanding that it will be fulfilled jointly with the European Union and its member States, in accordance with Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol.
9 The QELRC presented in column three refers to a reduction target of 20 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. Liechtenstein would consider a higher reduction target of up to 30 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels under the condition that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that economically more advanced developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.
10 Norway’s QELRC of 84 is consistent with its target of 30 per cent reduction of emissions by 2020, compared to 1990. If it can contribute to a global and comprehensive agreement where major emitting Parties agree on emission reductions in line with the 2° C target, Norway will move to a level of 40 per cent reduction for 2020 based on 1990 levels. This reference retains the status of the pledge made under the Cancun Agreements and does not amount to a new legally binding commitment under this Protocol.
11 The QELRC presented in the third column of this table refers to a reduction target of 20 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. Switzerland would consider a higher reduction target up to 30 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels subject to comparable emission reduction commitments from other developed countries and adequate contribution from developing countries according to their responsibilities and capabilities in line with the 2° C target. This reference retains the status of the pledge made under the Cancun Agreements and does not amount to a new legally binding commitment under this Protocol or its associated rules and modalities.
12 Should be full carry-over and there is no acceptance of any cancellation or any limitation on use of this legitimately acquired sovereign property.
13 On 15 December 2011, the Depositary received written notification of Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. This action will become effective for Canada on 15 December 2012.
14 In a communication dated 10 December 2010, Japan indicated that it does not have any intention to be under obligation of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.
15 New Zealand remains a Party to the Kyoto Protocol. It will be taking a quantified economy-wide emission reduction target under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in the period 2013 to 2020.
16 In a communication dated 8 December 2010 that was received by the secretariat on 9 December 2010, the Russian Federation indicated that it does not intend to assume a quantitative emission limitation or reduction commitment for the second commitment period.