Copenhagen: Few successes, many failures

"We have an agreement," President Nicolas Sarkozy told a news conference in Copenhagen after the meeting of 120 world leaders. But he added, "The text we have is not perfect." President Obama said late Friday that five major nations, including the United States, had forged a climate deal. He called it "an unprecedented breakthrough" but acknowledged it fell short of what was required to combat global warming. Although the detailed language is not yet available, the broad outlines are summarized in 3 pages.

Firstly, the agreement sets a target of no more than two degrees Celsius for the increase in global temperatures. This was success for some developed nations but it was clearly denounced by Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, a Sudanese diplomat who has been representing the Group of 77 developing countries. “The developed countries have decided that damage to developing countries is acceptable,” he said, noting that the 2-degree target “will result in massive devastation to Africa and small island states.” He and many other representatives of the most vulnerable countries wanted a 1.5-degree target.

Secondly, the agreement text acknowledges that deep cuts in global warming emissions are necessary, but it provides no targets whatsoever. All references to a 2050 goal were eliminated from the final version. Initial drafts had called for cutting emissions to 50 percent of 1990 levels by then. Initial versions also suggested that a 2020 goal would be added, but it did not appear in the final draft.

In the proposed text, the Annex I parties (who have undertaken pledges to reduce emissions or emission intensities) would commit to implement their individual emissions reduction goals for 2020. The text, if approved, would require them to file those plans by February 2010, but it doesn't recommend an overall target or minimum reduction level. There are no emissions reduction targets for developing nations. No wonder commenting on this the Sudanese leader mentioned, “Today's events ... represent the worst development in climate-change negotiations in history.”

Thirdly, the text includes a combined $30 billion in fast-start money from developed nations across the 2010-2012 period. That funding meant to support adaptation, technology transfer and development, and mitigation efforts would be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least-developed countries, small island states and African countries.

Beyond 2012, the draft states that developed countries would “set a goal” of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020, with the money coming from a variety of public and private sources. A Copenhagen Climate Fund would be established as the financial mechanism for funding projects, including forestry, adaptation, and capacity building. Further, as per the agreement, a Technology Transfer Mechanism would be established “to accelerate technology development and transfer.”

For oversight, the text suggests a “High Level Panel” to be established under the Conference of Parties’ guidance. Developed nations would fall under a strict monitoring regime, “Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.”

Only those seeking international support “will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of Parties.” Other actions would fall under domestic measurement reporting and verification instead. Earlier speaking on this Jairam Ramesh, minister for environment and forests said, “India and the other three countries had agreed to reporting and verification issues after China reached a compromise with the US”.

As for a completion date, the agreement text, still legally non-binding, offered no timetable for writing a legally binding accord. Initial drafts had set a goal of no later than the next Conference of Parties meeting in 2010. President Obama earlier noted that the agreement was only a political statement, not a legally binding treaty, and might not need ratification by the entire conference.

Doctoral Scholar, Carnegie Mellon; Also, Knowledge Editor, FC, India