What the summit's all about

THE Sydney climate change declaration is a success for John Howard and a good outcome for APEC.

THE Sydney climate change declaration is a success for John Howard, a good outcome for APEC and an incremental step on the long journey to find global agreement on a post-2012 emissions policy.

The leaders' declaration is exactly what the APEC forum was established to do - confront the big issues and strike a regional position to influence global outcomes.

In this sense, the Prime Minister's efforts are consistent with the leaders' meeting as conceived by his predecessor, Paul Keating.

It is easy to overlook the obvious. Australia's hosting of APEC has been effective and Howard's bilaterals have deepened our political, economic and strategic ties in the region.

As host, Howard oversold the weight of a climate change declaration that papers over hefty divisions. But it is the first time China and the US have signed off on the principle of a "long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal".

It is the first time so many nations from the developed and developing worlds have backed this concept. It is also the first time the APEC region has embraced aspirational targets for energy efficiency and forest expansion.

"This is the first such agreement involving the major polluters, the US, China and the Russian Federation," Howard said at APEC's conclusion.

Australia's game plan is manifest - it is that negotiations should begin this year under the UN framework on a post-2012 system that involves targets for the developed nations and also, unlike Kyoto, brings the developing nations into the system. Many nations resist this game plan.

Hence the Sydney Declaration's support for a post-2012 system that "broadens and deepens" the flawed Kyoto arrangements.

The reality is that no post-2012 system can work without the pledged involvement of the US and China. Such involvement does not yet exist. The gulf between rich and developing nations on climate change remains and APEC can only be comprehended in this context.

Claims that APEC failed because its goals are aspirational and not binding are nonsense.

Most developing nations, such as China, reject binding targets for themselves and Kyoto does not impose them. As Howard said yesterday, progress to the post-2012 framework would not be achieved at one meeting or in one breakthrough.

The Sydney Declaration shows movement from China and the US. But far more will be needed.

The APEC discussion will play into two further meetings before year's end: George W. Bush's Washington conference and the UN Bali meeting to begin talks on the post-2012 system.

APEC has reinforced the direction established at the mid-year G8 summit in Germany, when leaders of the industrialised nations agreed to "consider seriously" a 50 per cent global emissions reduction by 2050.

No developing nation in attendance would even consider this reduction. Now APEC, without mentioning a figure, has won agreement from rich and developing nations in the region on the idea of a global goal.

And that goal is to be achieved by "all economies" making a contribution. These are principles to guide future decisions. Nothing more, but perhaps nothing less.