The Copenhagen Conference of the Parties (COP), which met from 7 to 19 December 2009, was supposed to be a deadline to resolve these issues on the post-2012 climate regime – a view reflected in the unofficial slogan of the “Seal the Deal” conference.  The decision of more than a hundred Heads of State and Government to participate raised public hopes that the Copenhagen conference would lead to a major breakthrough; and more than 40,000 people registered, making Copenhagen one of the largest environmental gatherings in history. But the lack of progress in the negotiations in the months leading up to Copenhagen suggested that hopes for a full-fledged legal agreement were unrealistic. In the end, the Copenhagen conference only resulted in a political agreement, the Copenhagen Accord, which was negotiated by the leaders of the world`s major economies but was not formally adopted by the conference, leaving their future prospects uncertain. Financial support – In Copenhagen, discussions on financial support revolved around the typical questions: how much money, from what sources and with what governance agreements? The Copenhagen Accord deals only with the first of these issues, leaving the other two for a future solution. It creates a “collective commitment” for developed countries to provide “new and additional resources.” Approaching $30 billion” for the period 2010-2012, balanced between adjustment and mitigation, and sets a collective longer-term “goal” of mobilizing $100 billion per year from all sources by 2020, but combines this money with “meaningful mitigation measures and transparency in implementation” (para. 8). It also calls for the management of adaptation financing through equal representation of parties in developing and industrialized countries, but does not establish a governance regime for financing in general. Finally, it calls for the establishment of a Green Climate Fund in Copenhagen (paragraph 10) as an operational unit of the UNFCCC financial mechanism, as well as a high-level body to examine potential sources of revenue to achieve the target of $100 billion per year. The Copenhagen Accord is a voluntary agreement between the United States, China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Russia and hundreds of others, which account for more than 80% of the world`s population and more than 85% of global emissions.
As the Washington Post editorial board noted, the Copenhagen Accords were aimed at “getting the U.S. Senate to pass climate change legislation.” President Obama said we should deliver on our commitment to reduce pollution, not only because science requires it, but also because it offers huge economic opportunities to build new clean energy businesses. This first step in Copenhagen commits the United States to pass laws to make way for a binding international agreement. It is time for the United States. The Senate will continue to play its role as an international leader by acting in 2010, which will create millions of jobs, ensure energy independence and stimulate the economy. Negotiations are taking place in parallel with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which includes the United States, and under the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol, which does not. The end result could take many forms; the most coherent would be a single comprehensive agreement under the UNFCCC. Technology – the agreement calls for the establishment of a technological mechanism to accelerate the development and transfer of technologies and be “guided by a country-specific approach”.
The demonstration and deployment of clean technologies for containment and adaptation would be eligible from the short- and long-term means promised under the agreement. Great progress had been made in the detailed negotiations on technology issues in Copenhagen, although the draft text had not been formally adopted; This broad agreement should provide a good basis for short-term action on this front. Read more about the discussion of technology issues in Copenhagen. Despite the agreement reached by the Heads of State and Government of more than twenty-five countries, including all major economies, on the Copenhagen Accords, the conference was unable to “adopt” the agreement due to the objections of a small group of countries, led by Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua. who refused to join a consensus, arguing that the negotiation of the Copenhagen Accord by a smaller group would result in a “coup”© against the United Nations because it bypassed formal meetings. After a nightly meeting, the impasse was finally broken by the decision to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord, which gave it some status in the UNFCCC process, but not as much as the approval of the COP. Countries wishing to “accede” to the Copenhagen Accord must inform the UNFCCC Secretariat so that they can be included in the list of countries at the beginning of the agreement. Many eyes will also be on the U.S. Senate to see if it joins the House of Representatives in passing sweeping climate and energy legislation.
The Senate`s inaction before Copenhagen clearly limited the Obama administration`s ability to negotiate a broader deal. The measures taken by the Senate this spring would improve the ability to make progress under the Copenhagen Accord, particularly those involving actions by major developing countries such as China. The Copenhagen Accord is a political agreement (as opposed to a legal agreement) in a new form. Formal decisions within the framework of UNITED Nations climate processes are usually taken by consensus. As some Parties are opposed to the Agreement, the decision to include it in the deliberations of the Conference does not technically constitute an adoption of its content by the Conference of the Parties (or by the Post-Kyoto Parallel Meeting of the Parties). On the contrary, the decisions of the two institutions `take note` only of the attached agreement. Each country, in all likelihood a large majority of the 192 parties to the Convention, will attach their names to the agreement in the coming weeks. The agreement declares itself “immediately operational”, although many of its provisions require further clarification (in some cases explicitly and in other cases presumably by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC). The schedule is not specified. Much of the focus in Copenhagen will be on the political commitments announced by governments on their national climate efforts, as well as the quick-start decisions and financing needed to quickly operationalize new support to developing countries. It is essential that the Copenhagen Accord also begins to establish the legal and institutional framework to transform these interim commitments and decisions into an effective treaty with legally binding commitments. It should go as far as possible to define: Global temperature limits – the agreement recognises that “deep reductions in global emissions are needed.
keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius,” and urges countries supporting the agreement to “take steps to achieve this goal in accordance with science and the foundation of justice.” While disputes between developed and developing countries have stalled an agreement on a specific timeline for peaking global emissions or for reducing global emissions by at least 50% by 2050, this sets the 2°C target as a clear litmus test for the success of global efforts. Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Parties to the relevant legal instrument, the Kyoto Protocol, are conducting two-pronged negotiations with a view to reaching one or more new agreements to combat global climate change. .