This discussion paper examines the outcomes of the Copenhagen climate summit in December last year and more importantly explores the broader trends in climate policy globally. While it is premature to make single track recommendations on global policy frameworks, the paper explores how, in the aftermath ofthe Copenhagen summit, a „new multilateralism? could help avoid dangerous climate change.

While the Copenhagen climate summit may not have achieved all of the political and policy objectives that had been hoped, action outside of the negotiations continued apace. The global trend in policy action and investment accelerated in the lead up to and following Copenhagen, particularly in developing countries. Overall, since October 2009, no less than 154 new policy announcements have been made globally. On the back of clean energy measures in national stimulus packages, global investment in clean energy is projected to reach US$200 billion in 2010.

The major political outcome of the Copenhagen summit was the Copenhagen Accord. If translated into a framework for a legally binding agreement, the Accord could provide a reasonable framework on which to build more ambitious global action. However, there are significant gaps and uncertainties in the Accord and there is still no formally agreed pathway to a legally binding instrument to reduce global emissions.

The most significant achievement in Copenhagen was that for the first time major emerging economies including China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and South Korea agreed to economy wide targets to reduce or slow emission growth in greenhouse pollution. The agreement by developing countries to have their national actions included in an international agreement goes someway to resolving a key political and institutional barrier to a more effective global architecture.

There are also some hopeful signs that the old multilateralism defined by a deadlock between the USA and the Group of 77 and China (G77+China) was broken in Copenhagen. At the meeting, China, India, Brazil and South Africa emerged from behind the G77+China grouping to provide an independent counterforce to the USA. This saw these four countries, along with other major emerging economies, for the first time commit to economy wide emission targets (a move that has traditionally been blocked by the G77+China bloc).

The weakening of the G77+China grouping also allowed more progressive developing country voices to be heard. Most notably, this included small island developing states and some least developed countries, who emerged from the amorphous developing country block and challenged all large emitters to do their fair share in reducing global emissions. We are also beginning to see the middle powers of Mexico, South Korea and Indonesia find a voice and role for themselves in progressing global action.

It is these shifting geopolitical forces that will hopefully define multilateralism as we move forward. The new multilateralism of climate change will not be defined by a significant change in process itself. To a certain extent it is inevitable that talks will continue though the UN process as well as being undertaken in forums such as the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change (MEF) and the G20. It is also crucial that this will be underpinned and complimented by domestic policy actions.

In this context, Australia?s role in the new multilateralism should be defined by active leadership and engagement with potentially „progressive? developed and emerging economies, including the EU, Japan, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea and Brazil.

Read the report